Should we retain birthright citizenship as is or change it?

LOL!

So none of you have any idea how the so called "native" Americans became US citizens. And you are debating birthright citizenship. No wonder there is no answer.

 

"...where the US invaded Mexico and took half of that nation total lands at bayonet point..."

When did that happen? You do know that the Mexican-American War was started by the Mexicans attacking the Untied States. In the words of the playground...they started it, we finished it.

At the time the Mexican army was the best armed, best trained and biggest army of North America. The Mexican generals/politicians were planning their victory parade through the streets of Washington, D.C. And bragging about how big their plantations would be in the deep south of the USA.

Didn't work out that way.

 

Yeah, I know what you mean. I get really pissed off when I reflect on how those stinking Roman legions invaded my forebears in Germania. They slaughtered my ancestors, occupied their land, stole everything they could get their hands on, and took many survivors of this depredation as slaves to serve the Roman Empire. Hey, after all, as you suggest, 'the work needed to be done'....

This is what technically and militarily superior societies have always done to lesser-developed ones throughout human history.

But, speaking of a "moral legal high horse" -- how do you justify (if that's what you're really trying to do) the subjugation of the American Indian by the Spanish INVADERS before the United States even existed...?! The Spanish were well-versed in how to annihilate and enslave the Indians -- they'd been taught well by the Roman Empire when it invaded the Iberian Peninsula.

Don't fall off your 'high horse"....

 

There are requirements that are made of those who apply for "asylum"... and, yes, it should be given to those that qualify. You and I do not disagree on that.

But, I don't see why you think it is the responsibility of the United States taxpayer to pay for housing, etc., etc., etc. for any citizen of a foreign country just because they want to migrate to this country. Any rebuttal...? Deep down, we all would like to have "free stuff", Jake, but how many of us have ever EARNED any right to it...?!

Do you understand the concept of LEGALITY, Jake? That's what this whole thing boils down to. If you don't 'get' that, you'll never 'get' anything else. I don't want a bunch of illegal aliens prowling around all over this country at American taxpayer expense, Jake, but you seem to want to encourage it. I don't want a bunch of illegal aliens barging in here and using every pretext in some ACLU lawyer's imagination to force their way in here and NEST, like parasites, sucking the life's blood out of this country -- which NONE of them deserve! But you disagree.

Good, we understand each other, and obviously, we have nothing left to discuss on this topic. Bye, Jake....

 

My thought is this. If you are a permanent, legal resident of the US, your children get to be citizens. That's simple enough. If you're a tourist, and you have a child here, it retains the citizenship of the country of origin of the parents. If you aren't a permanent legal citizen, your children retain the citizenship of their parents nation of origin. If you become a permanent resident, you could apply to have the minor children in your household at that time convert to US citizenship as well.

 

I agree.

Finally, someone with a workable solution. Thanks.

 

Pollycy has only a part of it and does not understand the rest.

If the government provides the opportunity to apply for asylum then seizes the individual and family until the decision is made "it is the responsibility of the United States taxpayer to pay for housing, etc., etc., etc. for any citizen of a foreign country . . .", and when seizure of person occurs, the nonsense argument of 'free stuff' falls down and dies.

You do not understand the concept of LEGALITY and RESPONSIBILITY, pollycy, obviously. What you want does not matter in terms of the greater picture. Do you understand that, pollycy? The mood of the country has shifted against Trump and the ethnocentrics here, and eventually a fair and just administration of the asylum policy will fall into place.

You are done talking to me about this, polly, I assure you.

 

So we will put you down as a sponsor, responsible for your asylum seeking family... right?

 

Just eliminate it. The idea that any baby born within the borders automatically is a citizen is idiotic and suicidal.

 

Any opposition to birthright citizenship is antiAmerican and unwise.

 

I was going to characterize this statement but just let me say, ya can't fix stupid. You might want to look up how Indians got to be US citizens.....and it was not by the 14th Amendment or birthright citizenship.

 

Yes we would gain one hell of a lot by deporting children raised as Americans and sending them to nations they have no connection to due to the misdeed of their parents or others before they was born.

It would be fun to research the family tree of the right wingers in great great detail to see if we could find some of them with ancestors who did not completely come into this nation legally.

To me deporting such persons would indeed be a large grain to the nation well being beside being highly amusing.

 

You have built a straw man, which burned down on you. Go read the history of Native American citizenship.

 

I will come back and correct you one more time, Jake, because you have completely misrepresented something of fundamental importance.

If a person comes and applies legally for asylum, that is all well and fine! Really... I'm quite sincere. That person can come and submit all of his/her documentation supporting a case for asylum, and then wait while the case is analyzed, reviewed, and acted upon -- and he/she must wait in some place other than being inside the United States, being waited on hand and foot at the expense of American taxpayers! The best way to do this would be while the person is still inside the country that he/she wishes to migrate FROM....

But, when a person illegally invades this country, breaking our laws first, and only THEN applies for asylum, we owe him NOTHING but speedy, humane EJECTION from our borders, unless he's committed other crimes after illegally entering the U. S. And we certainly don't owe him welfare, food, clothing, or any of the other free-stuff that we are supposed to reserve ONLY for needy American citizens.

One last time: LEGAL "asylum" and "immigration" is perfectly fine! ILLEGAL invasion of the United States, however, is NOT, and must not be tolerated -- period!

 

pollycy continues on an insane path.

 

Yeah, I'm really insane. I want legal immigration and legitimate requests for asylum. I'm crazy as a loon... according to you, Jake....

I live in Colorado, where marijuana is totally legal. Maybe if I start smoking it, I can learn to see the world as you do....

. "So bring in more Illegals, man -- somebody's got to work...."

 

You don't get it, pollycy, do you, at all? I have not had a hit of weed since 1991, a long time. Now, pollycy, go back and read what I have written, and stop making things up.

 

If the Founding Fathers had ever heard of someone opposing birthright citizenship they would probably have horsewhipped them in the street.

The whole idea of America is that we NEED people and if you are born here you are one of us. We are a nation of immigrants. it is our main identifying and distinguishing characteristic. it is the key to our great success. It is what we ARE. If you remove birthright citizenship then the next step is how many generations back and that threatens every one of us.

 

As I had already posted I would find it highly amusing to find that we would need to deport some of the far right wingers over a few of their ancestors coming into the nation illegally.

 

The so called native Americans were given US citizenship by Act of Congress in 1924.

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, was proposed by Representative Homer P. Snyder (R) of New York and granted full U.S. citizenship to the indigenous peoples of the United States, called "Indians" in this Act. While the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines as citizens any persons born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction, the amendment had been interpreted to not apply to Native people. The act was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924. It was enacted partially in recognition of the thousands of Indians who served in the armed forces during World War I.

So, please tell me again how this is a straw man argument. I was right. The 14th Amendment had nothing to do with Indian citizenship. So too, I opine, that the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with those here in this country illegally. To settle this, it must be taken to the Supreme Court for a final interpretation. The sooner the better.

 

Why should we care whether a child's parents are here legally or not, in terms of whether the kid is a citizen?

 

And yet during the debate on the amendment, backers made clear that it would apply to non-slave immigrants.

Indians have always been a special case, a hybrid of sovereign and citizen. Rulings about Indians are not generally applicable elsewhere.

 

No, it doesn't, it only excludes the children of ambassadors and other official foreign representatives. As repeated court rulings have made clear. Stop with the armchair lawyering.

 

Why does every other developed country do so? And my vote is not just here legally but as a permanent resident and already explained why.

 

Why should children of ambassadors be excluded?