Should we retain birthright citizenship as is or change it?

Well...that settles that doesn't it.

 

Who is anti-legal-immigrant and give me n example.

 

When has Congress ever pass a citizenship law making it retroactive and revoking a group their citizenship?

 

Note bluesguy is shifting from anti-immigrant to anti-legal-immigrant (I think he means illegal alien).

Birthright citizenship will be here long after our grandchildren have grown up and have grandchildren.

 

For permanent residents I don't have an issue with granting their children born in the US citizenship.

Children born to parents in the US on visas or here illegally - I would support legislation that ends that.

 

The Constitution does not allow for it. The 14th Amendment is being wrongly interpreted by pundits. It has never been challenged for illegal parents. There is no need to change anything. We only need to start following the law.

 

Nope you claimed people ate anti-immigrant as in anti-legal-immigrants as opposed to illegal immigrants.
Who is opposed to legal immigration?

 

Don't drink the koolaide, Kevo3: legislation cannot end birthright citizenship.

 

Bluesguy "ate" something but what it is I have no idea.

And he has no idea about the realities of immigration, legal or not.

 

No, it prevents future slaves as well.

 

It's the 14th, not the 13th, amendment that codifies birthright citizenship. The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "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". The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes children born to foreign diplomats and children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.

The English law at the time of the American revolution was that any person born on English soil automatically became a subject of the crown and the US continued to follow this with citizenship in the republic replacing subject of the monarch. Our founding fathers just assumed this was the law without really thinking about it. The UK has somewhat modified this by act of parliament to basically children of citizens and of legal permanent residents. Only 1 parent has to qualify.

The USA (and Canada, Mexico, and most other nations in the Americas have birthright citizenship) without modifications. It isn't a new law. Also I would argue that Art.3 Sec 2 of the constitution: "The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted." While this provision isn't directly on point it clearly prohibits punishing the child for the parent's crime even in the case of treason and should apply to lesser crimes as well. Also Art 1 Sec 9 (3) provides "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.." Clearly with regards to children born before the date of the law it is an ex post facto law. With regards to children born after the date of the law it is arguably a bill of attainder as it imposes a punishment without a judicial trial. In short the USA intended to and did make a break with backward old world rules like corruption of blood and bills of attainder. Unfortunately it took a civil war (and a Union victory) to end the other backward policy of slavery.

 

and babies born in the U.S. if deported with their illegal parents soon enough.

 

Change it

No birthright citizenship for children of chinese tourists and illegal aliens

 

Get an amendment through.

 

It's people with your mentality, Jake, who would willingly allow this nation to be turned into the same kind of 'shithole' country as those the 'migrants' and illegal aliens came out of in the first place! Do you really not see that?

Hint: before mankind set its first nasty footprints on the soil of what would later become Honduras, or Guatemala, or any of the other Central American countries, do you think that the landscape was that of a 'shithole'? Did the vegetation, or the wild animals and birds make it a 'shithole'? Quite a mystery!

So, what makes a 'shithole' a SHITHOLE, Jake...? Well, come on. You're evidently self-qualified to lecture the rest of us about what makes "sense, mentally or morally". So, tell us! . And, you want that HERE, in the United States of America... right, Jake...?

. A liberal Democrat's idea of how we all should be living....

 

pollycy is upset about 2% of our population corrupting the other 98%.

He has every right to do so. Go for it, polly.

 

Birthright citizenship, as people speak of it today, doesn't actually exist; people just think it exists.

What does exist is the types of birthright citizenship defined in US Code 1401, none of which list being born on US soil to foreign parents as being "a citizen at birth", and thus those so born are not "under the jurisdiction thereof".

This is what we need to do about what people think is "birthright citizenship". We need to go back to 1960 when the people and the government of the people still knew what "birthright citizenship" was, and regulated it accordingly. Here are the three basic tiers of citizenship:

1) Natural born citizen; born on US soil to citizen parents. (citizen by default)
2) Citizens at birth; per US Code 1401. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
3) Citizenship through Naturalization. https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-naturalization

 

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes all born in the US to foreigners or aliens, including those born to ambassadors and foreign ministers.

 

Tough, guys. The words control who is a citizen. The children born in the US who are subject to the jurisdiction, thereof, are citizens.

 

Here is a picture of one who opposes birthright citizenship.

 

Interesting to note that you completely sidestepped my question to you about 'shithole' countries -- and WHO made them that way, and if you want THAT to be imported here in the United States. Typical radical Democrat reaction -- stick your head in the sand.

And, yes, Jake, we who have some degree of responsibility DO worry about what "2%" of people in our midst can do to the rest of us.

Why? Let me put in terms simple enough for an American liberal to understand... how many drops of POISON do you want in your drinking water, Jake? How about of ratio of ONLY, say, "2%"...? Is that acceptable to YOU? Bottom's up!

 

Your comments and questions do not add to the convo, polly.

You overestimate the 2% that comprise the migrants compared to the 20% of hard conservatives that tear our country apart.

Why? And poisoned drinking water? Like Flint? That is not immigrant poison. Polly? Is that acceptable to you?

Your argument, Polly, is inaccurate, incomplete, and false in part.

 

There is no reasoning with you, Jake... so, tell us, what percentage (or 'tonnage') of illegal aliens or 'asylum' fraudsters ARE acceptable to you? Would you be willing to have them live next door to YOU? Would you be willing to pay out of YOUR pocket to support them?

Background: I lived in El Paso, Texas for a while, Jake. I KNOW what I'm talking about. Do you? Want to have some fun sometime? Go prowl around in the 'colonias' across the river in Ciudad Juarez, Jake. If you get out of there alive, you'll probably have a somewhat modified attitude about REALITY as a result.... Oh, and keep in mind... as bad as the 'colonias' are, they aren't nearly as 'shithole' as the Central American pestholes are....

Welcome to the 'colonias' of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico!

 

pollycy argues for argument's sake, but he gives us no real reasons at all for the hatred and rage against the 2%.

As if the 2% were the problem instead of the far right.

 

And you would support one that would limit it to persons born of legal permanent residents and citizens? If not why not?