• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Texas: 60,000 babies of noncitizens get U.S. birthright

Whitewing

Well-known member
I've long said that the issue of ilegal immigration is much more complex than some folks make it out to be. Why? Because of how the 14 Admendment to the Constitution is applied.

Just deport illegals? Not so easy if they happen to have children born in the States who are considered legal American citizens.

What are your thoughts on the issue?

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/080810dnmetbabies.2be9a7e.html

As Republican members of Congress press for changes to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, preventing automatic citizenship for babies born to illegal immigrants, opponents insist the debate is not really about babies.

Instead, they say it is about politics and votes – not fixing the immigration system.

Still, the debate could resonate in Texas, where not only 1.5 million illegal immigrants are estimated to reside but at least 60,000 babies are added to their households annually.
 

Trinity man

Well-known member
What if someone is here on a work and has papers to show this and they have a baby is their baby legal?

An immigration reform activist is encouraged that a growing number of Republicans want to close the loophole created by the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.



On Tuesday, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell announced his support of holding hearings on the issue, which has been gaining steam in recent days from Republicans who believe the 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted to allow the children of illegal alien mothers to gain automatic U.S. citizenship when they are born on U.S. soil.

Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations at Numbers USA, contends, "That is a policy that needs to be changed."

"It's an incorrect interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and it needs to be changed desperately," she reiterates. "The problem is it's not going to happen with the Democrats controlling the House and the Senate, so November 2 is a big, big moment for this country in terms of immigration policy."

She points out that if a new GOP-controlled Congress is elected, it is not a foregone conclusion that Obama would veto it as 2012 approaches.

"As we all know, politicians seem to do strange things when they're facing re-election, so it's up in the air," she notes. "But certainly it's not going to happen in this Congress; that's for sure."


Senators who support closing the loophole include GOP Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, along with Alabama's Jeff Sessions and moderate Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Trinity man said:
What if someone is here on a work and has papers to show this and they have a baby is their baby legal?

When I worked the oilfield I knew a BP employee (British), who while based in Houston, he and his wife had a child. He told me the child held both British and American passports.

Personally, I'd have no problem with that. He was in the states working LEGALLY.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
Trinity man said:
What if someone is here on a work and has papers to show this and they have a baby is their baby legal?

When I worked the oilfield I knew a BP employee (British), who while based in Houston, he and his wife had a child. He told me the child held both British and American passports.

Personally, I'd have no problem with that. He was in the states working LEGALLY.



"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."

Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan

but the children of legal "residents" were covered as per United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The Children were deemed "Native Born" citizens. Not to be confused with "Natural Born" citizens, who are born to 2 American Citizen parents.

“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Just sayin'.

If the definition of being an American citizen was redefined as the child born of any female who was in the US legally at the time of the child's birth, I'd think that would be a huge improvement over granting citizenship to any child born of a woman who steps over the border, squats and produces an American citizen.
 

Steve

Well-known member
As Republican members of Congress press for changes to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,

I have always worried a bit every time a person or group talks of meddling with our constitution.

and this is one that I would be concerned with...

the only way I could reasonably support a change is if there was a way for a child born here to declare his/her alliance to the US and retain their birthright as an adult.

but seeing how "citizens" of other nations come here and abuse US citizenship,.. I can't see how even that would be helpful..

it is a difficult issue... it is even more difficult to change our Constitution thankfully,,
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Well Steve, as you say, there's a process in place. Let those who wish to make the changes organize themselves and then convince enough Americans to approve the changes.

Not an easy task under any circumstances.
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Steve said:
As Republican members of Congress press for changes to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,

I have always worried a bit every time a person or group talks of meddling with our constitution.

and this is one that I would be concerned with...

the only way I could reasonably support a change is if there was a way for a child born here to declare his/her alliance to the US and retain their birthright as an adult.

but seeing how "citizens" of other nations come here and abuse US citizenship,.. I can't see how even that would be helpful..

it is a difficult issue... it is even more difficult to change our Constitution thankfully,,

The 14th amendment was a change that took place in 1868 to amend the consitution, time to correct that previous change of the constitution.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Why worry about changing the constitution. Nobody wants to abide by it anyway. Opening up the constitution is a slippery slope.

Just make it where the illegals deport themselves willingly. They need a job to stay here or welfare programs. Close that loophole and you solve a big portion of the problem.
 

Steve

Well-known member
it is an important and good amendment.

Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship

I would not want to be "excluded" of my birthright based on a situation that could be corrected with proper enforcement of the existing laws... would you?

Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving people (individual and corporate) of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive rights and procedural rights.

well this is already being watered down.. so why not strengthen it's intent?

Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction.

again... already watered down.. with affirmative action type policies.. time to get back to it's intent.. .

but starting with the first part..
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

well written and covers it all.. sure hate to tamper with such a well worded passage.. one with an intent that is difficult to argue with..

two wrongs (illegal immigration and tampering with citizenship) will not make this right..
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Steve said:
it is an important and good amendment.

Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship

I would not want to be "excluded" of my birthright based on a situation that could be corrected with proper enforcement of the existing laws... would you?

Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving people (individual and corporate) of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive rights and procedural rights.

well this is already being watered down.. so why not strengthen it's intent?

Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction.

again... already watered down.. with affirmative action type policies.. time to get back to it's intent.. .

but starting with the first part..
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

well written and covers it all.. sure hate to tamper with such a well worded passage.. one with an intent that is difficult to argue with..

two wrongs (illegal immigration and tampering with citizenship) will not make this right..

How would it mess it up to include that the parents must be here legally at the time of the birth of there child.

If I am in a car wreck while running from police after robbing a bank then my insurance will not pay to fix my car because I was engaging in illegal activity, makes since that an illegal person can not engage in an anchor baby! If an already amended part of constitution has to be amended again then so be it, that is why the constitution allows amendments, the forefathers realized the need to do so may arise and now it is here!
 

Steve

Well-known member
How would it mess it up to include that the parents must be here legally at the time of the birth of there child.

or engaged in illegal activity?

as you indicated by your example.

so a father (born here) cheats on his taxes.. and a child was born that year.. the child forfeits his birthright?

it seems to me the tampering with the Constitution is worse then the crime.. which can be solved by enforcing existing laws..
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Steve said:
How would it mess it up to include that the parents must be here legally at the time of the birth of there child.

or engaged in illegal activity?

as you indicated by your example.

so a father (born here) cheats on his taxes.. and a child was born that year.. the child forfeits his birthright?

it seems to me the tampering with the Constitution is worse then the crime.. which can be solved by enforcing existing laws..

now you are being silly!!!! Big difference in you are not even suppose to be in this country and you are legally here and did not pay your taxes......come on you can do better than that surely? :roll:

common sense tells should tell us if a birthing mom is not suppose to be here then her child was never suppose to be born here!
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I don't think tampering with the Constitution is needed. It was Congress that interpreted the 14th as conveying citizenship on "anchor babies", and it is also them that can interpret it differently now.

Is there a SCOTUS decision that states that children born in the US to illegal aliens are citizens?
 

Steve

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Steve said:
How would it mess it up to include that the parents must be here legally at the time of the birth of there child.

or engaged in illegal activity?

as you indicated by your example.

so a father (born here) cheats on his taxes.. and a child was born that year.. the child forfeits his birthright?

it seems to me the tampering with the Constitution is worse then the crime.. which can be solved by enforcing existing laws..

now you are being silly!!!! Big difference in you are not even suppose to be in this country and you are legally here and did not pay your taxes......come on you can do better than that surely? :roll:

common sense tells should tell us if a birthing mom is not suppose to be here then her child was never suppose to be born here!

unfortunately some are looking at tampering with the Constitution because the FED failed to uphold existing laws...

but to expect the same FED to get the constitutional issue right... would be silly if it wasn't so worrisome.

Do you really expect common sense to come out of DC?
 
Top