You do of course know that the " all men are created equal " phrase did not include women or black people in the minds of the founding fathers.
Lol.... "great-great-grandparents" ? So they've had what.... 80-100 years to do it the legal way and have chosen not to ? .
So, you're saying if their country of origin won't take them in, we HAVE TO. Why? Why is it OUR obligation? Why is it OUR responsibility when we technically didn't do anything wrong, besides let them in, in the first place. You're letting emotion cloud LOGIC. You're NOT looking at the big picture. You're putting the blame on US. Don't you understand that the rest of the world does NOT think like that? Don't you understand the rest of the 1st world PREVENTS people from entering that they don't want in? The founding fathers didn't think or foresee millions of people would rush our border yearly to have babies and since welfare didn't exist, how could they know the cluster ^#$&#*# illegals are causing. You understand a country is only as good as its people and look at the state of the countries we're importing people from? Don't you see the BIG picture. We WILL become them. I'm so glad you want us to revert to 3rd world. So short sighted. So naive. So amazingly ignorant or reality. Illegals are NOT our responsibility and that pesky amendment has been corrupted, abused and exploited by people who are actively destroying the country and you're supporting it. They're OUR problem not our responsibility. Time to shift the problem where it belongs. The 14th Amendment was written at a time when people were taken care of by the state and casued everyone else to pay for it all. It has no place in today's reality.
That depends on which of the founders you're talking about. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who defended a black man early in his law career by arguing that blacks deserve the same human dignity as whites. The judge told the opposing counsel that he didn't even need to respond. But even were we to accept your statement at face value for the sake of argument, so what? Of course concepts evolve and grow over time as our society evolves and grows and learns more than we knew before. that's a part of being human. It doesn't change that our basic principles are liberty and equality, it merely expands on them. Well, it would take that long to win a green card in the annual lottery, considering that over a million people apply for 50,000 visas. "Chosen"? You think that people chose to enter the US illegally when they could do so legally? Think about that for a second. That's like asking why Howard Carter chose to break into Tutankhamun's tomb instead of using the door. Because it's sealed! It is basically impossible for ordinary people to immigrate to the US legally under our current laws. So you're saying that you'll only act toward others with kindness when you're being forced to as punishment for something you did wrong? There's this little thing called morality - you might want to learn about it. Just a suggestion. And cut the crap about welfare. There's a blanket prohibition against "not qualified" aliens from receiving any federal benefits at all. Even legal immigrants have to wait five years before they can even apply for any sort of benefits. And even when legal immigrants do eventually become eligible, they utilize government aid at a far lower rate than the native born population. The 14th Amendment also wasn't written at a time when it only took a quarter of the workforce to produce all the material goods society needs. Or at a time when a single person on a tractor could cultivate several thousands of acres of farmland by themselves. Many first world countries admit two or three times as many immigrants per capita as the US. So immigrants will turn the US into a third world country? Really? And how exactly would that work? Because anyone who's poor must obviously be inferior? And therefore poor countries must have entire populations that are inferior? And you can tell that because they have brown skin? Because that's what this really comes down to, isn't it? "Becoming a third world country" is just a euphemism for "no longer being majority white." News flash: the US as it exists today was built by the hard work of dirt poor immigrants arriving from dysfunctional countries. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me," is not hyperbole. And you and I are their descendants. So if you're trying to say that poor immigrants from poor countries are incapable of running a modern society, you're saying that you aren't capable of it either.
And most of the rest are for immediate family members of US nationals and employer sponsored visas. I reiterate, for ordinary people it is virtually impossible to enter the US legally.
I'm glad that you realize that is basically the only legal option. Maybe you could help your fellow "conservatives" come to that realization because many of them seem to be operating under the delusion that simple Congressional or Executive action will override the Constitution...and they also seem perfectly content for either of those courses of action to be deemed acceptable. As a conservative, shouldn't that make your blood boil?
All mere assumption. - - - Updated - - - We're not kicking out babies, we are kicking out their parents, for which the child is the responsibility of. If they choose to not take the child with them, then who is at fault? - - - Updated - - - Conjecture and assumption.
How would the constitution be stepped on when the citizenship clause is nothing more then declaratory of existing law, per Justice Gray in the Wong Kim Ark Opinion? He even goes so far as to claim that Congress can deny certain classes of people simply by changing the laws, go figure.
Indian Tribes are still not considered to be part of the US, they are still their own individual nations. The 1924 Act granted to Indians citizenship, prior to that, if the 14th was so inclusive as some claim, Indians that gave birth off their reservations and on actual US Soil, those children would have received US citizenship by birth, yet they never did. Why is that? - - - Updated - - - Nobody is doing away with citizenship by birth, they are limiting it to certain classes of people.
Even if mom and dad had him on purpose of using that childs birth to stay here illegally? I think the abuse of the right needs for it to be revisited.
There are other visas available, the issue is most file for the incorrect visa and are denied based on their own mistake. Yes, they do choose to enter illegally, because they don't want to wait for the process nor do they want to pay and provide the required documents, as it takes to long, they would rather take their chance at amnesty, etc. There are several visas available, the H2A has no annual cap, we could literally bring in all the worlds poor on that one visa if we needed them. Some countries even have very special visas that no other countries have to enter. Is economic refugee a reason enough to grant someone legal status?
Again its not, Mexico has the TN visa which no other country besides Canada can use, it goes virtually unused every year, there is the H2A visa with no annual cap, there are border cards that are good for a limited time and are easily obtained.
Don't need to override the USC, Justice Gray in WKA makes it very clear that only the law need to be changed as the citizenship clause is merely declaratory of existing law and that law does have recognized exceptions as to the denial of granting citizenship by birth. Maybe you "progressives" could actually try to comprehend the actual cases that pertain to the very clause, verse claiming things to be when reality suggests that nobody knows as of yet since there is no known case granting citizenship to children born of illegals.
Would it then mean, if any child is born outside America, is not a citizen and there is no means to make them one? Would that then mean, someone could sponsor a plane load of, let's say Kenyan's or North Korean pregnant women, have their kid's in some special place, then given a Birth Certificate/SS #, go home and return later for whatever reason? This actually did happened, in the early 60's under a Kennedy Education program, with Kenya and one of them produced a later American President. The big question, if anyone can get into the country, have a reason to then stay and bring in the rest of the family....why even have borders or limit welfare to American's??/ Would you still agree with your comments, if no first generation immigrant (legal or not) could vote in any election and then everyone must produce a BC???
Because you cannot deny certain classes. Your reading of that is that they can, when in fact they cannot based on the very decision you cite. He said that they can ONLY in 4 very specific cases. All due respect but unless i'm reading what you pasted incorrectly your making my point ?
That's a myth. There's no such thing as anchor babies. Those children aren't eligible to sponsor their parents for a green card until they turn 21. Why indeed? Why are you trying to keep immigrants out? The US is a nation of immigrants, and except for American Indians, we're all immigrants. Yes, that includes you. I'd suggest you quit while you're ahead. I've seen Liquid Reigns take a citation that directly and explicitly contradicts their argument and claim with a straight face that it supports their argument. All their posts really amount to nothing more than "I'm right and you're wrong, so nyah!"
Oh there you go again, purposely confusing ILLEGAL immigrants with all immigrants. Not the same thing. Different times kiddo. Its not the 1800s anymore. That cute little quote has zero meaning today. GO ask Switzerland how many tired huddled masses they're importing each year. Go ask Sweden. We're not building a nation anymore are we? We're not trailblazing across the country building cities are we? And anyone who is poor, uneducated, non-vaccinated and can't speak English IS INFERIOR by our standards. Sorry if this is news to you. And I never mentioned race, YOU DID. Toss your race card elsewhere, RACIST. Race has ZIPPO to do with it. Culture does though. The culture to the south of us IS inferior, because their countries are inferior. Corruption is the norm and we're heading in that direction. A country is made of the people. If all the people are coming from 3rd world countries guess what that makes the country they're living in.....3rd world. It becomes what you are. I'm not saying poor immigrants are incapable of running a modern society....that's just the FACTS. That's reality. I'm sorry, you don't live in it. Simple question. What benefit do ILLEGAL immigrants offer us?
1-I know this wasn't asked of me, but nobody is going to kick out the parents, leaving the child behind. That's why their called ANCHOR" babies. Am I no longer a migrant, even though my family has been here since the 1600's, since two of my kid's are now half American Indian? 2-Actually, except for a couple Countries in Africa, everybody is an immigrant. Should we accept everybody on the planet, that wants to migrate to the US or follow the laws, frankly that already exist to prevent this. The US and Canada are the only two powers that try to steal jurisdiction from other countries.
(Facepalm) That IS racism. What exactly do you think the word means? It is the belief that a group of people (usually ones who can be easily identified in social interactions, or at least that people believe can be easily identified) is inferior to others and not deserving of the same rights and respect as others. Incidentally, that's inferior by your standards, not mine! No, today's not the same as the nineteenth century. In the nineteenth century there was no such thing as illegal immigration. The first restrictions on immigration weren't enacted until around the turn of the twentieth century. If my ancestors and yours had had to navigate the immigration laws we have now, it is extremely unlikely that any of them would have been able to immigrate legally. The problem is the law, not the people. The current immigration is immoral and unwise, and motivated purely by a desire to keep out foreigners. You know, racism. ROFLMAO Thank you. I couldn't have picked better examples to make my case than Sweden and Switzerland. Sweden admits immigrants at twice the rate of the US, and Switzerland admits immigrants at [/i]four times[/i] the rate of the US. In 2010, the US admitted 1,041,909 immigrants with a population of 309,349,689. That's a rate of 3.4 immigrants per 1,000 population. Sweden admitted 65,570 immigrants with a population of 9,340,682 for a rate of 7 immigrants per thousand population. The Swiss admitted 114,988 with a population of 7,785,806 for a rate of 14.8 In point of fact, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Denmark all admit immigrants at more than twice the rate of the US. (source) Simple question: what benefit do you offer the country? If you want immigrants to justify their existence, you should start by justifying yours. Immigrants - legal or otherwise - are hardworking people willing to take risks to make a better life for themselves and their families. You have to be to be willing to pick up and move to another country. What do immigrants offer us? They offer us humanity. They offer us millions of people who believe in liberty, equality, and opportunity and are willing to fight for them. That's what America is. They offer us the exact same things our own ancestors offered. The New Colossus means the exact same thing today that it did when it was written. It means that the United States is founded on the idea that all people have value and potential, and all people deserve the opportunity to reach their potential. If you don't believe in that, you're the one who doesn't belong in the US, not the immigrants. And the racist crap you're spewing is also exactly the same as was being spewed by the Know Nothings and other nativist groups in the past. It's exactly the same as when my Irish great great grandparents were called "White Negroes" and treated about as you'd expect. It was vile and hateful then and it's vile and hateful now. This is the exact same fight then as now.
I can't speak for others. I have always cared about American Exceptionalism on certain levels. If that's what you want, this bill is unnecessary. AFAIK anchor babies don't protect parents from deportation, not until they are 21 years old. If this bill is passed, babies born here, whose parents are illegal immigrants, are illegal immigrants themselves, and should be kicked out according the the law.
As a practical matter, what generally happens now is that the parents get deported and either they take their children with them or leave them with relatives in the US. To be honest, I'm not sure if I should be encouraged by this anchor baby nonsense or disheartened. On the one hand, I'm really glad that even hard core nativists generally recognize the deep immorality of separating children from their families. On the other I can only cry that their response is to try to demonize and dehumanize those children so they can be deported more easily. Anchor babies do not exist. Having a child who's a US citizen does absolutely nothing to prevent the parents from being deported. It seems to me that the reason the topic keeps coming up is that immigration hawks are being bothered by their conscious. Now if only they'd recognize the deep immorality of deporting people for no good reason in the first place... This is not a question of enforcing laws, it's a question of making laws. The law as it stands today is simply wrong, both morally and practically. Saying that you just want to enforce the laws is basically the same as saying that you're just following orders. As far as I'm concerned, limits on immigration are only justifiable if you can show - with serious studies and numbers - that a certain level of immigration would place a great stress on something. And no, "the immigrants are stealing our jobs!" does not qualify. That's nothing but fear and insecurity speaking, latching on to the most convenient scapegoat. The question has been studied to death, and every reputable source agrees that immigrants do not take people's jobs. It's just not true. The only organizations you'll find who claim otherwise are pretty much on the same level as the KKK.
Then why all the whining about splitting up families? Right now they are born here and are assumed/claimed to be citizens, whats wrong with kicking them out now?
IMHO, it depends on what you define birthright citizenship as? I can see how a legal argument can be made for babies born of parents that are tourists, temporary workers, illegals or student visas (and of course diplomats), shouldn't get birthright citizenship. After all, their parents are either not here permanently, or they chose to come here illegally--in those cases, I could see how they are not in "the jurisdiction thereof", but it makes no sense to not allow the children of permanent resident legal aliens (aka green card holders) to have birthright citizenship, especially in the first 5 years of their residency (during which time they cannot be citizens).
