Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Should The US End Birthright Citizenship?  
User currently offlineAA7295 From Australia, joined Aug 2007, 620 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5835 times:

Birthright Citizenship (or jus soli as it is technically called) is a very contentious subject. It basically means any person born in the jurisdiction of the United States becomes a US citizen.

As a tax-paying US citizen, I am firmly against the 14th Amendment which ensures such laws. Basically this law encourages the birth of anchor-babies. It also allows pregnant tourists to have their babies in the US and for those kids to become US citizens.

What I'm most concerned about is the abuse of this law to say a pregnant female from say the middle east somehow slips through the cracks and has her baby in the US, and that baby becomes a US citizen, goes back to the middle east, is trained to be a terrorist and then has unrestricted entry to the US to do "whatever".

I like the Australian and British system where birthright citizenship is only granted if at least one parent is a citizen, or if one parent is a LEGAL permanent resident.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2005/nov/03/20051103-115741-1048r/

This article (although 7 years old) details efforts by the GOP to initiate changes to the 14th Amendment. It's probably the only thing I agree with the Republicans.

Thoughts?

155 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7137 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5809 times:

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
What I'm most concerned about is the abuse of this law to say a pregnant female from say the middle east somehow slips through the cracks and has her baby in the US, and that baby becomes a US citizen, goes back to the middle east, is trained to be a terrorist and then has unrestricted entry to the US to do "whatever".

I wouldn't be surprised if there were sleepers in the US right now who fit your description.


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12394 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5784 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
What I'm most concerned about is the abuse of this law to say a pregnant female from say the middle east somehow slips through the cracks and has her baby in the US, and that baby becomes a US citizen, goes back to the middle east, is trained to be a terrorist and then has unrestricted entry to the US to do "whatever".

That's at least an 18-year plan with zero guarantee that the kid will be interested in carrying it out when it grows up.   

Seriously, how is this a major issue? There are far bigger things to be worried about.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3001 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5781 times:

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
What I'm most concerned about is the abuse of this law to say a pregnant female from say the middle east somehow slips through the cracks and has her baby in the US, and that baby becomes a US citizen, goes back to the middle east, is trained to be a terrorist and then has unrestricted entry to the US to do "whatever".

A lot of flaws in this:
1. Only a handful of terrorists caught were US citizens. IIRC, none of the hijackers in 9/11 were US nationals.

2. I really doubt a woman from the Middle East (and why the Middle East?) has this diabolical scheme to have a baby born in the US so that he can later grow up hating the country he was born in, go and train in the Middle East and then have a car bomb go off at the Empire State Building. This is utter paranoia and shows a bit of stereotyping. Anyone who really hates the US that much and is willing to engage in terrorism won't spend their time and money going to the US to have a baby nor have them apply for US citizenship.

3. The only ones really 'abusing' the system are immigrants from Latin America. I have yet to hear of a German, Russian, or Chinese tourist who purposely crossed the pond so that her baby grew up as a US citizen. Have you heard of a terrorist act from Roberto Gonzalez, the anchor baby from almost 30 years ago?

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
I like the Australian and British system where birthright citizenship is only granted if at least one parent is a citizen, or if one parent is a LEGAL permanent resident.

I can see a Harry Potter-style scenario where all white US nationals will try to maintain the "purity' of their system and discourage anyone from marrying Latinos, Middle Easterners, and perhaps even Blacks (not Asians or Europeans because they are of fair skin like them, of course) so that their babies remain pure US nationals and not have an ounce of any other race. With the mental health the US currently has, I wouldn't be surprised.



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7137 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5762 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 3):
2. I really doubt a woman from the Middle East (and why the Middle East?) has this diabolical scheme to have a baby born in the US so that he can later grow up hating the country he was born in, go and train in the Middle East and then have a car bomb go off at the Empire State Building.

You just because you were born in a country doesn't mean you have to grow up in it.


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4805 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5749 times:

Makes a lot of sense to change the law as it is being widely abused (mostly by the Latino community but also by people of other ethnicities).


56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5739 times:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

My question is why has this been interpreted to include the example given by the OP? If some Middle Eastern woman came to the US to give birth and subsequently moved that child to a terrorist training camp in Lebanon or the Philippines, how could that person be said to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? Since when are either Lebanon or the Philippines under the jurisdiction of the USA?

I can see a case where a person is born in the US to a US service person or diplomat and moved to a foreign country in the course of the parents' employment being 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof". I can see a case if a person may have initially come to the US, either legally or illegally, gave birth and remained so that the child grew up to be by all intents an American. But a person who has no connection other than the expedience of birth followed by departure postpartum?

Perhaps the Supreme Court could reconsider the interpretation of this Amendment to clarify what exactly "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means.


User currently offlinecasinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4487 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5703 times:

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
As a tax-paying US citizen, I am firmly against the 14th Amendment which ensures such laws. Basically this law encourages the birth of anchor-babies. It also allows pregnant tourists to have their babies in the US and for those kids to become US citizens.

The 14th amendment is very important and give many more rights than just citizenship.
Anchor babies are not the problem. Illegal -Immigration is the real issue, and that should be the target of any legislation first.

Terrorists with citizenship or non-citizenship are still terrorists, and whether you perceive one to be a greater threat is a personal distinction.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7137 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5697 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 6):
But a person who has no connection other than the expedience of birth followed by departure postpartum?

One of my cousins was born in the US her mum and dad stayed there until she was ok to travel, and that's about the sum total of her time spent in the US, but she is a US citizen and has a US passport.


User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2713 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5687 times:

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
I am firmly against the 14th Amendment which ensures such laws
Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
Basically this law encourages the birth of anchor-babies. It also allows pregnant tourists to have their babies in the US and for those kids to become US citizens.

The 14th amendment has been twisted to no end by judges and politicians. It in no way was meant for any of the above scenarios that you mentioned. It was simply what it says and it was to make the slaves and children of slaves as citizens.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 6):
My question is why has this been interpreted to include the example given by the OP? If some Middle Eastern woman came to the US to give birth and subsequently moved that child to a terrorist training camp in Lebanon or the Philippines, how could that person be said to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? Since when are either Lebanon or the Philippines under the jurisdiction of the USA?

Exactly. If you read what the framers of the law had been saying at the time it did not cover any foreigner visiting the country. Just another part of the constitution that our Federal Government and the terrorist in black robes have bastardized to garner money, votes and power.



OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineCharles79 From Puerto Rico, joined Mar 2007, 1330 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5680 times:

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
What I'm most concerned about is the abuse of this law to say a pregnant female from say the middle east somehow slips through the cracks and has her baby in the US, and that baby becomes a US citizen, goes back to the middle east, is trained to be a terrorist and then has unrestricted entry to the US to do "whatever".

Wow, just wow. Like the other posters who have commented on this, I find it somewhat irrational to base the oposition against a law on such a far fetched, fear-induced notion. And just like einstein asked, why the Middle East? Haven't you heard of the number of terrorists caught within the last ten years here in the US that were home-grown US citizens (the Aurora shooter comes to mind).

Coming back to reality, I have heard of several cases where folks try to "abuse" this law. Yes, many Latino women do it, but also many, many women from Africa, Asia and elsewhere (walk around IAD one afternoon and watch several international bound passengers with children under 20-days of age flying back home). Now the question is how this problem affects those of us who are US citizens living and paying taxes in the US. If the way the law is written right now is a problem, would you care elaborating on how exactly it impacts the nation? Are we giving free health care to these citizens? Are we passing them checks every month? Are these children coming back to the US as adults later on in life to live off the system or join gangs/deal with drugs? We do have free education up to high school but I doubt they’re benefiting from it. I also doubt that they’ll use our higher education institutions as they’d have to pay out-of-state fees. We no longer have a draft so they have no mandatory service to skip on, nor do we require all citizens to vote on election night (and again, I highly doubt that, once they are of age, they cast absentee ballots).

I'm not trying to be facetious; I’m just trying to understand what the problem with this law is right now, other than perhaps creating more US citizens that aren’t living in the country. If they are neither using the services offered by the government nor paying taxes, it is essentially a moot point.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8791 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 5669 times:

I'm not so concerned about the terrorism angle, but rather the huge magnet birthright citizenship provides to economic migrants.

In most civilized countries, If you sneak over the border, you will NEVER become a citizen, and neither will your children. If you are caught one day, you will be deported, even if you've been in country for 20 years and have a family.

The US should amend the Constitution to do the same thing, IMHO. Pass that, and THEN you can discuss legalization for all those who are already here.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3001 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5659 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 4):
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 3):
2. I really doubt a woman from the Middle East (and why the Middle East?) has this diabolical scheme to have a baby born in the US so that he can later grow up hating the country he was born in, go and train in the Middle East and then have a car bomb go off at the Empire State Building.

You just because you were born in a country doesn't mean you have to grow up in it.

That makes the argument even worse. If I were a Saudi and hated the US, why would I travel to the US, have a baby there, and travel back to Saudi Arabia or another country?



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5641 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
In most civilized countries,

While I agree that the prime concern for many is with reducing illegal immigration and not terrorism, some civilised countries have legislation that protects human rights. While not everyone may agree with that notion it does seek to ensure that people do not become stateless through no fault of their own.

It is sometimes argued that making it more difficult to obtain citizenship acts as a deterrent. Yet it still leaves some people being penalised for an action over which they had no control. Blame the parents? By all means. But that doesn't solve the problem in every circumstance.

One concern that crossed my mind is how would this/ or does it affect people who are lawfully in the US as refugees? I forget the exact wording (it was said many years ago, before my time even  ) but did not the US proclaim:

"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-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Apologies if I got it wrong and it may not have been official, but i do recall it being quoted. That verse proclaimed a generous spirit of holding out a helping hand, a welcome to those in need. Sure, some people may have abused it but not all do.

Sadly, my own Government seems hell-bent on proving that they can display the same inhumane treatment, pettiness and vindictiveness as the opposition when it comes to people claiming refugee status. Political point scoring is more important than the well-being of real, living people.


Edited to correct grammar

[Edited 2012-11-27 07:08:22]

User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21528 posts, RR: 55
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5621 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 9):
The 14th amendment has been twisted to no end by judges and politicians.
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.

That's pretty cut and dry. If you're born in the United States, you're a citizen. Not much room for twisting there.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 9):
If you read what the framers of the law had been saying at the time it did not cover any foreigner visiting the country.

Then they should have made that clear in the text, shouldn't they?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3001 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5609 times:

Quoting windy95 (Reply 9):
If you read what the framers of the law had been saying at the time it did not cover any foreigner visiting the country.

Because back then, people could fly at supersonic speeds and immigration from one country to the other could be done in a matter of hours... 



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8791 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5581 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 13):
While I agree that the prime concern for many is with reducing illegal immigration and not terrorism, some civilised countries have legislation that protects human rights. While not everyone may agree with that notion it does seek to ensure that people do not become stateless through no fault of their own.

No person is stateless. Around the world, the standards are quite standard. A Vietnamese citizen gives birth in the US, the child is a Vietnamese citizen - particularly if the mother is not a legal resident of the US - which means by default that she is still a resident of her home country - legally speaking.

You'd have to try VERY hard to be properly stateless. In fact I can't think of a way to be stateless with the exception of some big civil war where your country of origin simply no longer exists. That whole "Oh we don't want to make them stateless" argument is a red herring.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11214 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5549 times:

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
As a tax-paying US citizen, I am firmly against the 14th Amendment

You should be pretty careful about your wording there. The 14th Amendment is probably the second or third most important of them all, granting equal rights to everyone.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 2):
Seriously, how is this a major issue?

It isn't.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 9):
The 14th amendment has been twisted to no end by judges and politicians.

No, it really hasn't, especially not on this issue.

For one, if you were born in the US, you were a citizen of the US long before the 14th Amendment was ratified. The 14th Amendment simply removed the exclusion of this rule from slaves.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5424 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5547 times:

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
I like the Australian and British system where birthright citizenship is only granted if at least one parent is a citizen, or if one parent is a LEGAL permanent resident.

I could support a change to allow it when at least one parent is here legally, whether visiting on a visa or permanent what have you.

My parents are immigrants, they were here legally with green cards when I was born. I was am the only "born American" in my family.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5359 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5533 times:

I do think we need to look at the issue.

I'm not concerned about he terrorism angle, it's just not a probable scenario.

The anchor baby thing is a concern...and, though those from Hispanic nations seem to be forefront in the news, its an issue concerning any nation.

I'd suggest that any child born in the US must have at least one US citizen parent or that both parents were in the US legally at the time of birth.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently onlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21528 posts, RR: 55
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5512 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 19):
I'd suggest that any child born in the US must have at least one US citizen parent or that both parents were in the US legally at the time of birth.

Why both? Let's take the anchor baby situation, but make one of the parents a legal immigrant. Is the child not going to be raised by that parent in the US regardless of what happens to the other one? And if so, why shouldn't the child be a citizen?

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24870 posts, RR: 46
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5512 times:

Anchor baby angle is real and a major ongoing event.

And its not just illegals that look to have babies in the US, its legal visitors who plan the birth of their children in US hospitals solely for the reason of acquiring US citizenship. Merely a few weeks ago I got to meet a professional European couple on a trip visiting the US that they specifically planned things out to give birth in the US.

So yes, cutting off this automatic incentive could have some merit.

Oh an before people jump on the discrimination band wagon, there are many world nations out there that do not automatically grant citizenship simply by location of birth.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5485 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
No person is stateless.

Really? According to the UNHCR there are about 12 million people who are stateless. You may wish to disabuse those 12 millions of their incorrect thinking. If you are correct they have citizenship and are too stupid to realise it.

I choose the following simply as an example because people are more likely to be familiar with the subject (regardless of what views they hold.) Individual Palestinians are sometimes regarded as stateless because
1) a state of Palestine has never existed and therefore those who never left areas claimed by Israel have no statehood and can not be granted citizenship unless they deny the fact that they are Palestinians, and
2) states to which refugees moved did not automatically grant citizenship.

Can you provide me with an internationally recognised Palestinian Passport issued by a state called Palestine?

While the UN has attempted to introduce standards, not every country has adopted them. This applies not only to citizenship but a plethora of other standards. For example, not every country has adopted standards on the prevention of torture or the banning of various weapons against civilians.


User currently offlineATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 538 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 5482 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 13):
"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-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

I also believe this was etched under the presumption that immigrants of the 2000s would be the same as those of the 1800s where self AND country improvement is a contributing factor to immigrating to the US. One is truly delusional if they believe this still holds.

Quoting Mir (Reply 14):
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.

That's pretty cut and dry. If you're born in the United States, you're a citizen. Not much room for twisting there.

Part 1 of the 14th Amendment is reasonably cut and dry, but the anchor baby situation is a loophole the writers did not have to deal with when writing it and many illegal immigrants have found a way to circumvent US laws and work the system. The 14th Amendment was initially written to give citizenship to slaves released and ensure further black people born in the US would too be granted citizenship given their standing ties to the country, no matter the state's feelings on black rights. This WAS the intention of those who wrote the 14th Amendment and makes it one of the MOST IMPORTANT amendments to our Constitution. The ancillary laws/cases are what have convoluted the 14th Amendment to no end relating to things outlined in parts 2-4..

Quoting tugger (Reply 18):
I could support a change to allow it when at least one parent is here legally, whether visiting on a visa or permanent what have you.

My parents are immigrants, they were here legally with green cards when I was born. I was am the only "born American" in my family.

I think most Americans would support such a law/amendment to the Amendment. IMO, doing so would represent progress in the us legislative branch that we dont often see. What most Americans are against are the things spoken about here, ie. terrorism, anchor-baby issue, travelling to ensure citizenship. America as a whole is not opposed to immigration, on the contrary, the vast majority support immigration. LEGAL immigration.

Not that my one opinion really matters but our founding fathers did/could not have predicted people learning to work the system and exploit our laws our great country is too stupid to update with changing times.

My $.02



By reading the above post you waive all rights to be offended. If you do not like what you read, forget it.
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 5433 times:

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 23):
One is truly delusional if they believe this still holds.

That is the last thing of which I could be accused. I learnt at a very early age that what people say and what people mean are not always the same. I no longer believe in the Easter Bunny or Santa Clause, for example.

Pronouncements in support of democracy while assassinating those who wanted to see it realised and celebrating the free world while supporting military dictatorships soon disabused me of any doubts. I am not even thinking of the US there. I recall the enthusiasm with which Thatcher praised Pinochet who was busily murdering opponents at the same time as she eulogised Solidarność. Free trade unions in Poland were to be supported but murdering trade unionists in Chile was acceptable.

In the same vein I am doubtful of the supposed benefits of any changes to the treatment of refugees against a clear and publicly stated desire to restrict immigration in general.



Corrected spelling mistake untagged by spell-check

[Edited 2012-11-27 10:47:09]

25 rfields5421 : I disagree. People in the US really don't like changes to the constitution. Even the most conservative anti-immigrant people are going to be against
26 DeltaMD90 : If they are going to go through the trouble of sneaking someone into the US, why wouldn't they just sneak in a trained (adult) terrorist instead of s
27 Post contains images Birdwatching : I'm German and I'd love to live and work in the US for a couple of years. I'm a high school teacher. My friend is a medical doctor and she would like
28 Post contains links Dreadnought : If you look at the UNHCR page, it describes what situations caused the statelessness. http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c15e.html As I said in my ear
29 Arrow : And because of that, she is required to file annual tax returns/1040s, submit annual FBAR reports on all her foreign (foreign meaning anywhere outsid
30 Post contains links bjorn14 : Yep. Check this: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/us/29babies.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Author
31 Quokkas : Thank you for the link. You will of course have recognised that the issuing of such a travel document does not imply recognition of statehood, as is
32 bjorn14 : There are some 1.5MM Israeli Arab citizens. Not sure of where there origins were from.
33 KiwiRob : I have no idea about the rest but she did go to Cuba a couple of years ago.
34 AirframeAS : Yes, this crap has got to stop with the anchor baby issue. I'm tired of seeing so many foreigners coming to the U.S. to have their babies become U.S.
35 Quokkas : True, absolutely and without qualification true. However, that does not address the issue of those who are not Israeli citizens and does not address
36 Quokkas : If this is happening it is a very big concern. How can anyone be held liable simply by the accident of birth in a country that they don't live in and
37 Dreadnought : You are using examples from POTWTACF countries. Palestinians who were removed from or left of their own volition the part of the Palestinian Mandate
38 fr8mech : What I proposed would mitigate this issue, among others: Say the father-to-be obtains some legal status. Then brings his wife over illegally and she
39 Mir : Because we don't punish the child for the transgressions of the parents. If the child is going to be raised in the US and one of the parents has the
40 Quokkas : Again, this is only true in part and part of the problem is the changing relationship between Jordan and the PLO. It wasn.t simply the case that Jord
41 Arrow : You might want to have a chat with her about the taxes (doubt that they'll chase her retroactively on Cuba). In the last couple of years, the US has
42 scbriml : My question was aimed at the ludicrous "baby terrorist" theory.
43 AirframeAS : And I was speaking in general.
44 AR385 : Interesting. Does that hold true also for countries that have a No-Double Taxation agreement with the US? Or have those agreements been superceded by
45 AA7295 : You're a little wrong. I only had to start paying US taxes when I earned more than US$80,000 per year. Plus, most western countries have taxation tre
46 Dreadnought : As a former expat I know a lot of people who are running into FATCA head-on. There is also the matter of expatriate Americans who married a foreigner
47 Arrow : All US citizens (and US "persons" -- green card holders) must file tax returns to the IRS annually, and annual FBARS (foreign Bank Account Reports) t
48 Dreadnought : You may only owe taxes from that point onwards, but you still have to file. Regardless, the point Arrow was making is that if you are a US Person (no
49 AirframeAS : How is FATCA enforced in foreign countries that U.S. has no jurisdiction in?? I'm curious. It seems to be that private banks based in other countries
50 Dreadnought : The US threatens the banks with retaliatory action, including confiscation and freezing of US assets. For major banks like UBS and HSBC, with assets
51 AA7295 : Can we stick to the topic and not about FATCA. There are other threads about FATCA.
52 Post contains links AirframeAS : In order to stick to the topic at hand, I have created a new thread discussing FATCA. Lets discuss this in that thread: U.S. Citizens And Fatca (by A
53 ltbewr : The desire to be a USA Citizen, or have a child to be be a citizen, despite our serious problems, is still very strong for political and more so for e
54 Flighty : Fairly sure the government has such a database. They may not print up cards for everyone, but they probably could.
55 rfields5421 : No. There are some very specific laws which prevent various departments from sharing data. For example - the IRS cannot check military pay records wi
56 blrsea : If visitors come to US to give birth, they must be pretty well off, given the medical costs here in US. I am pretty sure no insurance company covers m
57 Flighty : No doubt this is all very true -- but it would seem that DHS has a pretty good idea of who is a citizen in order to run E-verify. I would also suspec
58 AR385 : Not really. It depends which policy you buy. Most that would allow this are pretty affordable. You´d be surprised.
59 Dreadnought : Not hardly. Pregnat woman sneaks across the border, and shows up at the emergency room when she goes into labor. Voila - instant anchor baby, and the
60 DocLightning : There is universal healthcare, transport infrastructure, excellent public education (including low-cost or free university education) and a lot of ot
61 AirframeAS : Good for them trying to make life better for their kids, but they're doing it incorrectly and throwing their problems in our lap. That's not fair to
62 DocLightning : I wasn't defending it. I'm explaining why they do it. Interesting tidbit: Mr. Bobby Jindal was conceived in India and born in the USA. If he runs for
63 Post contains images fr8mech : Having not researched him a bit (of course, I'll have the answer before this is replied to, but just to add to the discussion): were (are) his parent
64 DocLightning : Dunno. Either way, it will put him in a bit of a spot should he adopt a hardline "no jus soil" approach favored by many Conservatives. Just to clarif
65 Maverick623 : The EU has a greater chance of collapsing in the next 5 years than seeing jus soli being repealed from the 14th Amendment in the next 20. In fact, we
66 CPH-R : They were there legally IIRC. It's been quite fun watching birthers claim that Obama couldn't be NBC because his father was a Kenyan citizen, while a
67 rfields5421 : E-verify is filled with errors and problems. E-verify also does not require that documentation presented by person seeking employment be valid. A pro
68 D L X : Okay all ye who say that jus soli should be eliminated, and replaced with a rule that only confers citizenship to persons born in the US to parents le
69 Dreadnought : The same way every other country in the world does. I don't understand your question/issue.
70 tugger : How does it work now? Especially if a baby is not born in a hospital? I would think it would be the same but the addition of checking the status of t
71 D L X : First, I don't think it is that simple. You're advocating that to be a citizen, your parents must have been legal when you were born in the country.
72 Dreadnought : At the hospital, a birth certificate has to be made out with the parent's information and is sent to the state, correct? This isn't rocket science. A
73 D L X : Don't just gloss over this. How does the hospital get the "information?" Do they ask? "Are you a citizen or green-cardholder, Dad?" "Yep." "Well, tha
74 rfields5421 : However, you are advocating that a birth certificate no longer be proof of citizenship. If you eliminate birthright citizenship - there must be other
75 fr8mech : Haven't we made employers the arbiter of legality by requiring they ask for certain documentation before granting employment. Why not a hospital/clin
76 rfields5421 : No we have not. We have a system that makes an employer liable for hiring illegals, yet not given them the power or tools to question fake documentat
77 Post contains images D L X : I don't think so. In fact, haven't we made it illegal to question someone's citizenship to be hired? Yup. Same here. This is my understanding as well
78 tugger : The exact same way we already determine citizenship for babies born overseas to US parents. So we already do this. Or if you would like something dif
79 Dreadnought : have you dealt with Notaries? The hosptital surely has them (or can easily employ one), who would be responsible for collecting the information and v
80 Mir : Put the legal status of the parents on the birth certificate. Not necessarily. If it states that the child meets the requirements for being a citizen
81 bjorn14 : That was my next question..Do you defend anchor babies? and you can't use your Hypocratic oath as cover either. They were here on student visas study
82 fr8mech : I think it's pretty clear that he doesn't defend it. But, it is a reality that we need to deal and live with. Take away anchor babies and we will pro
83 rfields5421 : I believe that would have to be a requirement - but the conservates will scream against such a provision as amnesty for illegals in the US now. Sever
84 Dreadnought : You can't pass laws like that retroactively. Do you have a source about such a proposal?
85 Mir : It wouldn't be amnesty for anyone, as anyone who has a US birth certificate at the present time is a US citizen, and thus by definition cannot be her
86 rfields5421 : First I agree with you. As to why opposed. 1) A foolproof national ID card would ensure the federal government has positive proof of every gun purcha
87 bjorn14 : We'll just have to agree to disagree.
88 Mir : I don't want electronics anywhere near a national ID card. You can't hack a simple piece of plastic that has your photo on it (in other words, a driv
89 Dreadnought : I agree on this. Chips can be hacked/copied (or for the conspiracy theorists out there, traced and tracked). A simple ID card, with difficult-to-copy
90 D L X : Your passport has an RFID chip in it.
91 Post contains images Mir : Twice?! The more I think about it, though, it might be more practical for Congress to require the states to include the immigration status on the IDs
92 fr8mech : So, you say the current law does not extend the right of citizenship to anyone born on US soil? Then why is anyone having this discussion? I'm not a
93 Dreadnought : Are you sure about that? My passports have nothing like that, although they do have a lot of machine-readable data on there.
94 Post contains links tugger : To those who question the difficulty, Germany: http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/St...hemen/Migration/Staatsang/faq.html All new passports (since 2006
95 Post contains links D L X : Yup. I'm sure. [/quote]The U.S. Electronic Passport (e-passport) is the same as a regular passport with the addition of a small contactless integrate
96 AirframeAS : We already have that. It's called the passport book and the passport card. Both of them have chips in the contained with an individual's info in said
97 Dreadnought : I've never seen the card version, although I've seen them for other countries. You are saying it already exists? As far as the passport itself that m
98 Post contains images Maverick623 : My passport was issued in March 2006.
99 DeltaMD90 : The only issue I have with a national ID (assuming we don't get cheap/stupid and create one that's easily copied) is making us carry them around with
100 Dreadnought : That is not the intention. There is no law in the US that you must carry ID, except in certain situations, like driving or going to an airport. But i
101 DeltaMD90 : I'd rather go unidentified when I'm dead than have to worry about carrying an ID with me everywhere I go
102 tugger : Don't worry, you won't need it on you normally... Unless someone thinks you may be doing something you shouldn't be doing or being somewhere you don'
103 rfields5421 : That's part I don't understand. Folks want 'illegals' to be able to be picked up anywhere by any law enforcement officer if they are not carrying suc
104 DeltaMD90 : Well I'm not really concerned in that respect. I liked IDs for voting purposes, less credit card fraud, etc. Maybe it would cut down on illegal immig
105 tugger : But as rfields mentioned, how do you separate one from the other? If one is asked for their ID for some reason, how do you differentiate between the
106 D L X : I think it starts by asking how it is actually a burden on the legal person to carry his ID.
107 tugger : While I don't think it is a particular burden per se, it is often considered an anathema to what "America" is! I myself am torn (basically disagree)
108 Post contains links AirframeAS : Yep! Check this out: http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppt_card/ppt_card_3926.html
109 DeltaMD90 : It is just inconvenient. What if you go on a road trip and 100 miles away forget your ID? Are you in fear of being caught for not having your ID with
110 Dreadnought : Excellent. Make them mandatory for voting and for any other government related activity. Make it a requirement for an employer to see it. And make th
111 DeltaMD90 : I already mentioned that I wouldn't mind that. I was just saying I didn't want to live in a police-like-state where if you forgot your ID you're in t
112 rfields5421 : I understand what you are saying, and it is a big argument against a national ID card of any type. It doesn't both me much, probably because I spent
113 tugger : OK, so tell me this, how will an authority requesting an ID tell the difference between someone here legally and someone not here legally and not car
114 Dreadnought : I'm just stating what the law is. Laws don't have to make sense. Look at FATCA.
115 tugger : OK, I understand. But as you mention FATCA, a law that is really not good and should be rescinded, any ID law has to actually address and solve the p
116 AR385 : Real story here. A friend of mine just got herself pregnant down in Mexico City through a sperm bank. The doctor, though, brought the sperm sample fro
117 Post contains links tugger : Provided she has proper evidence that the donor is a US citizen then yes the baby will be eligible for US citizenship (should she try to exercise it)
118 AR385 : She does have evidence. The guy is a blond, white American of German and Irish descent. Wether she wishes to exercise it, that I don´t know, and I t
119 bjorn14 : All I know that the US Constitution makes a distinction for only one office...POTUS. I believe it means that the child has no other option when born
120 AirframeAS : Does she have the guys name, U.S. address, place of employment and how to contact him? (I'm betting she has none of that and the donor does not want
121 rfields5421 : SHE does not have an option about the child's citizenship. The child's father if that father can prove he is a US citizen has the option to have his
122 bjorn14 : Read the law, if the father was a US citizen not a problem. We are taalking about NBC citizenship not regular citizenship. It's not the same thing.
123 DocLightning : No. I oppose the policy of jus soil. That said, it would kill my practice if we eliminated it. But on principle I oppose the practice. I think it is
124 Mir : No, the 14th Amendent does say who is a citizen and who isn't. -Mir
125 D L X : The #1 incentive for illegal immigration is work. It is not to have a baby and leave. Your baby having US Citizenship does not do very much for you,
126 DocLightning : They come here to give their kids a better life than they had at home. I'm sure the work is also a major part. I think that any immigration reform is
127 Flighty : These days it is not a problem. Cops have computers in their car. Driver licenses (all states?) exist on police network. You don't need to carry the
128 AirframeAS : See, I don't buy that excuse anymore. They're a burden and a drain on the U.S. welfare system that was never originally designed for them and their i
129 tugger : Well to be fair, when the 14th Amendment was passed there was no "welfare" system (though schools were around) for people coming here to "take advant
130 Flighty : Interesting. In my state, it says driver "must" carry it, but the person shall not be convicted if he/she can provide the court with a copy of the li
131 AirframeAS : The 14th does not apply to illegal immigrants. If it did, this wouldn't even be an issue at all and all the illegals would be U.S. citizens already w
132 FlyDeltaJets : The main problem that causes illegal immigration to the US is the social economic gap between the US and its southern neighbors. Regardless of what la
133 rfields5421 : I keep going back to this What Advantages does having an Anchor Baby give to the parents? 1) The parents cannot move to the US legally until the child
134 Maverick623 : The 14th Amendment was nothing more than a measure to end slavery. It had absolutely nothing to do with immigration or welfare. You MAY be detained a
135 Post contains images tugger : This thread is discussing the 14th Amendment and the effects of it. And we have been talking about the fact that a reason some come here illegally is
136 rfields5421 : Many to most Anchor Babies don't grow up under any different circumstances than illegal children in the US. Just like illegal children, they are at r
137 AirframeAS : To add, without that individual behind the wheel of said car, after getting a ticket for driving with no license on his or her person. Someone else w
138 DocLightning : I didn't say it was an excuse. I said it's why they come here. They have motivations and reasons and even aspirations. I get really sick of people tr
139 AirframeAS : Those kids were not slaves, nor are we living in the 1860's, so the 14th does not apply. No, it doesn't. See above.
140 Post contains images Maverick623 : Not that you'll believe me, but I personally know 3 people that were allowed to drive away themselves without a ticket. But if you like, I can go ask
141 AirframeAS : I would LOVE to see you do that and get pulled over, then we'll see what really happens. I'm pretty sure I'm correct. And I have some cop buddies too
142 N1120A : The 14th Amendment may well be the single most important amendment, because it applies the Bill of Rights to the States, in addition to guarantees of
143 Post contains images AirframeAS : Show us where it says that illegal I migrants are covered under the 14th (or the 13th) using the term "Illegal Immigrant" please. Oh, right..... It d
144 Post contains images Dreadnought : Canada and the USA being the only highly developed countries that do. He is completely correct. Here is a map of the world with the countries that gr
145 ATCtower : Lets see if I can reply to this without being censored for agreeing with someone... While I agree the 14th Amendment quite probably IS the single most
146 N1120A : I had the wrong FACTA, and no place for insults. Anyway, FACTA wasn't geared to our idiotic foreign taxation laws, but tax dodgers like Romney. Reall
147 Post contains images Maverick623 : So now you're only "pretty sure" that a cop will never, ever, ever let that person drive away? That's cool. I "know for a fact" that you are incorrec
148 Aesma : Well, in my country that I consider civilized there is jus soli (with some minimal limitations) and illegal immigrants often get citizenship if they
149 Post contains links AirframeAS : This guy should give you a reminder: Zacarias Moussaoui Born in France. (Unless the wiki info is inaccurate.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_M
150 Mir : But not Mayotte, which is what Aesma was talking about. -Mir
151 AirframeAS : Oh, I'm right. Just because you have cop friends does not mean you are automatically correct by default.
152 FlyDeltaJets : The Bill of Rights like all other US laws apply to all persons in the US. The text in the law gives certain persons additonal rights (citizenship). I
153 Aesma : But not in Mayotte. We have plenty of terrorists with roots in former North African colonies, the political situation there not being helpful.
154 Aesma : I should add that we have far more homegrown non Muslim terrorists, especially in the Basque country (ETA) and Corsica, that just "won" the prize of r
155 bjorn14 : France makes no distinction. You would be born in an Overseas Department with all the rights French citizenship bestows.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Should The US Start A Mental Health Policy? posted Mon Jan 10 2011 15:42:06 by Boeing4ever
Should The US Take Out Russia Military posted Fri Aug 15 2008 12:13:31 by AGM100
Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile? posted Wed Jun 21 2006 05:10:59 by KC135TopBoom
Should The US Follow Mexico's Lead? posted Thu Apr 13 2006 16:29:42 by Slider
Should The US Moniter Visitors From The Mid. East? posted Mon Sep 13 2004 03:35:05 by TriJetFan1
Why Should The US Pay Terrorists? posted Thu Mar 13 2003 13:12:51 by Virgin744
Should The US Go To Value Added Tax (VAT)? posted Sat Oct 12 2002 20:31:40 by Mls515
Should The US Pull Out Of The Middle East? posted Thu Aug 30 2001 10:19:21 by Airic
Should The US Adopt Socialism? posted Sun Jun 18 2000 00:24:36 by Whippy
Should English Be The Official Language Of The US? posted Tue Oct 12 2010 01:07:11 by DocLightning