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, 622 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5942 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, 7555 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 5916 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, 12625 posts, RR: 46
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5891 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, 3179 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5888 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, 7555 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5869 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, 4840 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 5856 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 10 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5846 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, 4669 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5810 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, 7555 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 5804 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, 2739 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5794 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, 1331 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5787 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, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5776 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, 3179 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5766 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 10 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5748 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 offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21677 posts, RR: 55
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5728 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, 3179 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5716 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, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5688 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 onlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11417 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5656 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, 5672 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5654 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, 5489 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 5640 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 offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21677 posts, RR: 55
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks ago) and read 5619 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, 25737 posts, RR: 50
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks ago) and read 5619 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 10 months 4 weeks ago) and read 5592 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, 544 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 4 weeks ago) and read 5589 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 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5540 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]

User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 25, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5609 times:

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 23):
I think most Americans would support such a law/amendment to the Amendment.

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 an amendment to an amendment.

Senator Harry Reid - a Democrat from Nevada - introduced a bill to eliminate automatic citizenship of children of people not in the US legally - in 1993. Almost every Congressional session since has seen a similar bill introduced - and none have come to a vote.

It is not an issue for "most Americans"

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 23):
anchor-baby issue,

I'm still trying to understand the 'anchor baby' issue.

People with no legal right to live and work in the US who have a child born in the US do not automatically establish a right to be in this country.

Yes, a relatively few people do cross the border each year to have a baby in the US and for that child to be able to claim US citizenship when that child becomes an adult.

However, every year hundreds of such parents are deported for coming to this country illegally. And they take the anchor baby back to their home country with them. Some cases have been reported in the news media where five or six US citizen children have been forced to go back to Mexico with their illegal parents. Because they could not find legal guardians in the US.

Having an 'anchor baby' in the US does NOT give the parents of that child the right to live in this country.

Some 18 years later after that child is an adult and able to request immigrant status for his/her parents - they still have to prove that they have a job, can support those parents, and provide for them. Without meeting those requirements, his/her parents will not get a green card and the right to live in the US.

My next door neighbor has two children of his wife's sister living with him. Dad was picked up by ICE four years ago, and the investigation showed that Dad and Mom were both in the US illegally. They were deported. My neighbor and his wife took custody of the US citizen children (teenagers) who have never been to Mexico. Otherwise, they would have had to leave the US with their parents.

The daughter recently graduated from high school and is starting the process to hopefully get her mother into the US legally. It is expected to take three to four years. Dad can never come to the US legally because he was picked up twice before, long before the children were born, and deported. This was his 'third strike'.

----------------------------------------------------

Another factor is how to impose the burden of proof of legal right to be in the US on 'normal' US citizens. Joe Six-Pack in Podunk Arkansas - is going to have to produce his birth certificate and his parents birth certificates to establish that Joe is legally in the US, and a US citizen.

Currently if a US citizen has a child in a foreign country - it costs about $600 in fees and legal documentation - to verify and guarantee that new child US citizenship rights. Something near that cost would be imposed on the parents of every child born in the US.

Potential US citizen parents would be better off if they obtained a US passport before the child was born.

Interestingly, legal foreigners have much better proof and documentation of their right to be in this country than most native born citizens. The US has about 1/3 of its citizens with passports - legal proof of their right to be in this country.

You can say - I have my birth certificate - that is proof enough. But the law proposed by definition eliminates a birth certificate as proof of citizenship.

For you to verify your right to be in this country, without a passport, you would have to prove your parents had a legal right to be in this country.

The practical impact of such a law would be to require a federal National ID card for every legal US citizen.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 23):
This WAS the intention of those who wrote the 14th Amendment

That is not correct.

Senator Jacob Howard who sponsored the citizenship clause made a statement that the clause would have the same effect as the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The discussion concerned the children of Ambassadors and Foreign Ministers.

Senator Lyman Turmbull and three other senators, along with President Andrew Johnson, explicitly stated that the intent of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the intend of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to the children born in the US of visitors from other nations who were not Ambassadors or Foreign Ministers.

No senator objected to that statement during the hearings, debate or vote on the bill or the amendment, including Howard. The Senators knew, understood, and had no problems with visitor children being conferred citizenship.

(Note this was at a time when the concept of illegal immigration was not discussed - they might have had views on that concept - but it was not discussed.)

At the time the 14th Amendment was passed - granting 'birthright citizenship' was the normal way children of immigrants established a right to live in this nation.

Most immigrants were not given a legal right to be in this country, a great number of wives and parents never learned English. They continued to speak Italian, German, Norweigan, etc and to not deal with 'english'. Relatively few immigrants ever took steps to become US citizens, even though many votes, and some even held public office.

Most of the discussion over the citizenship clause concerned native-Americans - Indians. That was the subject of extensive discussion and debate. Somewhat interesting in that the Amendent did have a strong focus on ensuring former slaves and their children would unquestionally have full citizenship - yet at the same time they were arguing that native-Americans would not have full citizenship because being a member of an indian tribe removed them from the jurisdiction of the United States.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 26, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5593 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".

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 sneaking in a pregnant woman, having her give birth, then about 2 decades later, having the baby fulfill this plan? That's just ridiculous

I see a problem with anchor babies but the terrorism scenario is pretty far-fetched



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineBirdwatching From Germany, joined Sep 2003, 3823 posts, RR: 51
Reply 27, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5651 times:

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 to do the same, work and live in the US for a couple of years. It is extremely complicated for us (qualified, trained professionals) to get a work visa / temporary residency, while others (uneducated) either cross the border illegally and have their anchor child, or wait for a couple of years then get their status legalized, or (Cubans) set a foot on US soil and become citizens instantly.

What a ridiculous immigration policy is that! Why doesn't the US make it EASIER for trained professionals and HARDER for uneducated people? Wouldn't this make everything better in the long run?

Soren   



All the things you probably hate about travelling are warm reminders that I'm home
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 28, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5639 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 22):
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.

If you look at the UNHCR page, it describes what situations caused the statelessness.

http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c15e.html

Quote:
UNHCR estimates that about 12 million people are stateless in dozens of developed and developing countries around the world, though the exact numbers are not known. They are to be found in Africa, the Americas, Asia and Europe and have been a group of concern to UNHCR since its founding.

Exclusionary policies are at the root of many statelessness situations. In the Middle East and other parts of the world gender-discriminatory legislation continues to create risks of statelessness. In many of the Gulf States, populations who were left out at independence are now referred to as Bidoon, literally "without" in Arabic. Under the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, many Feili Kurds were stripped of their nationality, but this decree was repealed in 2006.

In Africa, some of the Nubian people do not enjoy citizenship rights in Kenya. And across the continent, lack of clarity on their nationality status affects large numbers of people in Côte d'Ivoire. In Europe, the break-up of the Soviet Union and the Yugoslav Federation in the 1990s led to statelessness in the new countries that emerged. The problem of state succession in both cases was compounded by large population and refugee movements. Efforts to naturalize these people and to issue nationality documentation are under way, but the situations are not yet fully resolved.

Statelessness is also an issue of UNHCR concern in the Caribbean.

There have been some success stories in recent years in Asia, where millions have received nationality in Bangladesh and Nepal. But even though Nepal achieved in 2007 the largest reduction of statelessness the world has seen, the Himalayan nation still hosts about 800,000 people whose nationality is not confirmed and who cannot access important government services without a citizenship certificate.

As I said in my earlier post,

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16):
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.

Remains true. The people the UNHCR is concerned about are people from POTWTACF countries which have known a lot of upheaval, or subscribe to 7th century law.

This does not apply to 99.99% of the illegal immigrants who come into the US illegally. All central American countries grant citizenship to a child whose parents are citizens, regardless of birthplace (as does the US - which is why I am a US citizen although I was born elsewhere).

Again, the argument is a red herring.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 29, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5609 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 8):
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.

And because of that, she is required to file annual tax returns/1040s, submit annual FBAR reports on all her foreign (foreign meaning anywhere outside the US) bank accounts to the Treasury Department, and be subject to whatever laws the US imposes on its citizens (example: she can't go to Cuba).

Is she doing all that? There are literally tens of thousands of "accidental" Americans all over the world who are just now finding out that -- never mind that they haven't set foot in the US or left as small children -- they owe Uncle Sam tax returns (and maybe even some tax, depending on what their income is). These folks are now flocking to embassies and consulates so they can renounce this millstone of a citizenship before the IRS can suck away all their life savings through penalties on failure to file tax returns and FBARS (the vast majority of these people had no idea about this).

The US is the only country that does this -- my strong advice to anyone who has that citizenship is, either stay at home in the US or get rid of it. It's toxic for anyone who doesn't live in the homeland, you'll pay a tremendous price for it offshore.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3557 posts, RR: 2
Reply 30, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5609 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 3):
or Chinese tourist
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 21):
its legal visitors who plan the birth of their children in US hospitals solely for the reason of acquiring US citizenship.

Yep. Check this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/us/29babies.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 22):
Can you provide me with an internationally recognised Palestinian Passport issued by a state called Palestine?

Try this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_passport



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 31, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5573 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 30):
Try this:

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 made clear in the link that you provided. Even Australia is willing to issue travel documents to refugees without granting them citizenship.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 28):
If you look at the UNHCR page, it describes what situations caused the statelessness.

It provides some examples. Are you suggesting that the State of Palestine actually exists and hence there are no stateless Palestinians? If that were true there would be no point in the Palestinian Authority pursuing recognition of statehood at the UN. It is true that for some refugees Jordan offered citizenship, depending on when they became refugees, but the same courtesy was not extended in Syria or Lebanon, for example. Are Palestinians citizens of Israel (the occupying power) ? I don't recall Israel ever professing that to be the case.


User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3557 posts, RR: 2
Reply 32, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5557 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 31):
Are Palestinians citizens of Israel (the occupying power) ? I don't recall Israel ever professing that to be the case.

There are some 1.5MM Israeli Arab citizens. Not sure of where there origins were from.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7555 posts, RR: 4
Reply 33, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5542 times:

Quoting Arrow (Reply 29):

And because of that, she is required to file annual tax returns/1040s, submit annual FBAR reports on all her foreign (foreign meaning anywhere outside the US) bank accounts to the Treasury Department, and be subject to whatever laws the US imposes on its citizens (example: she can't go to Cuba).

I have no idea about the rest but she did go to Cuba a couple of years ago.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 34, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5545 times:

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
Should The US End Birthright Citizenship?

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. citizens. It puts a damper on social services and bumps actual U.S. citizens from obtaining these services that are badly needed for them more than the "anchor baby".

If a baby is born in the U.S. happens, then the citizenship is supposed to be where the parents have their citizenship at. Just because a baby is born in the U.S. does not make it a U.S. citizen, IMO.

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

Remember the Illegal Immigration debate, aka SB1040 in Arizona??



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 35, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5538 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 32):
There are some 1.5MM Israeli Arab citizens.

True, absolutely and without qualification true.

However, that does not address the issue of those who are not Israeli citizens and does not address those who are stateless. My reply was simply to the assertion that "No one is Stateless" (not made by you), which is patently false.


User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 36, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5502 times:

Quoting Arrow (Reply 29):
There are literally tens of thousands of "accidental" Americans all over the world

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 may not feel any attachment to? No one, I will repeat that, no one chooses where they are born.

Whatever other differences we may have on other issues, I think that our resident medical practitioners will agree with that.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 37, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5491 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 31):
It provides some examples. Are you suggesting that the State of Palestine actually exists and hence there are no stateless Palestinians? If that were true there would be no point in the Palestinian Authority pursuing recognition of statehood at the UN. It is true that for some refugees Jordan offered citizenship, depending on when they became refugees, but the same courtesy was not extended in Syria or Lebanon, for example.

You are using examples from POTWTACF countries. Palestinians who were removed from or left of their own volition the part of the Palestinian Mandate that became Israel were, by the UN Accord that created Israel and Jordan, Jordanian citizens. That Jordan chose not to honor that agreement in order to make a political point is the real issue on that score.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 31):
Are Palestinians citizens of Israel (the occupying power)
Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 32):
There are some 1.5MM Israeli Arab citizens. Not sure of where there origins were from.

Correct - they are the Arabs who did not succumb to the demands by the Arab powers in 1947 to flee from Israel, because they were going to gang up on Israel and destroy it. Oops. The ones who stayed are full Israeli citizens.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 35):
My reply was simply to the assertion that "No one is Stateless" (not made by you), which is patently false.

Fair enough. Let's just say that the number of truly stateless people involved in illegal immigration to the US is so small as to be completely insignificant to the overall issue.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5489 posts, RR: 14
Reply 38, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5473 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 20):
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?

What I proposed would mitigate this issue, among others:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 21):
ts legal visitors who plan the birth of their children in US hospitals solely for the reason of acquiring US citizenship.

Say the father-to-be obtains some legal status. Then brings his wife over illegally and she has a child, why should that child be granted citizenship if it came about through illegal means?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21677 posts, RR: 55
Reply 39, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5471 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 38):
Say the father-to-be obtains some legal status. Then brings his wife over illegally and she has a child, why should that child be granted citizenship if it came about through illegal means?

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 legal right to be in the US, I have no problem with the child being a US citizen.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 40, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5458 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 37):
You are using examples from POTWTACF countries.

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 Jordan refused something but that the representatives of the Palestian people saw things differently. In the long run it could be argued that that decision was wrong but I feel that would justify another thread.

I do agree with you that the real issue of any potential changes to citizenship law in the US (which is what the thread was originally about and I apologise if my questions have deflected from that) needs to look at the primary sources of immigration (lawful or otherwise) to determine whatthe response should be. I feel that introducing the possible (but perhaps unlikely) scenrio of a plot hatched over 18-20 years to be a distraction from that.

At the same time, I do worry about the response to genuine refugees who are denied access because an irrational fear. I do know that the US, like other countries, does have qualified people to assess applications based on merit. I would hate for that to be replaced by a regime based on fear. Here in Australia we are already seeing how politicians are trying to outbid each other on the basis of fear mongering and trying to ship the problem elsewhere.

I would not wish that on anyone who wanted to escape persecution wherever it occurs.


User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 41, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5456 times:

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 33):
I have no idea about the rest but she did go to Cuba a couple of years ago.

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 launched a jihad against offshore tax evasion. The target is rich American citizens/residents who hide money in Switzerland or the Caymans -- but caught in the net are about 7 million US expats who are living ordinary lives in other countries (often as long time tax-paying citizens of those countries). The IRS (and the politicians) don't care about the chaos this creates for the ordinary folks -- they are collateral damage and of course they can't vote (other than for president) -- but its now getting to the point where US expats have only two real choices -- go home, or ditch the citizenship.

What will bring this to a head is a piece of law called FATCA -- Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act -- passed in 2010 and scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, 2013. It requires ALL foreign banks to tell the IRS who among their account holders is a US citizen (or even just a former green card holder) -- and turn over to the IRS all their financial data so the IRS can chase them for taxes. If your cousin is a US citizen, she can soon expect her New Zealand bank to ask her about that -- and turn over all her account info to the IRS. The other danger is, once they know she's an American, they may just close her accounts and refuse to do business with her. This is happening all over Europe as European banks are deciding that it is far less troublesome to simply ditch all their American account holders (other than the really rich ones of course -- how's that for an irony) than risk a battle with the IRS over FATCA compliance.

If your cousin doesn't know about this -- she needs to. There is an association called American Citizens Abroad --- based in Geneva, it has been trying to tell congressmen and senators about the absolute misery this tax jihad is causing for US citizens in other countries -- but getting absolutely nowhere. Their website has a lot of info on what this is all about.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12625 posts, RR: 46
Reply 42, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5438 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 34):
Remember the Illegal Immigration debate, aka SB1040 in Arizona??

My question was aimed at the ludicrous "baby terrorist" theory.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 43, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5434 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 42):
My question was aimed at the ludicrous "baby terrorist" theory.

And I was speaking in general.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6349 posts, RR: 31
Reply 44, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5434 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Arrow (Reply 29):
And because of that, she is required to file annual tax returns/1040s, submit annual FBAR reports on all her foreign (foreign meaning anywhere outside the US) bank accounts to the Treasury Department, and be subject to whatever laws the US imposes on its citizens (example: she can't go to Cuba).

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 the Acts you´ve cited?


User currently offlineAA7295 From Australia, joined Aug 2007, 622 posts, RR: 0
Reply 45, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5426 times:

Quoting Arrow (Reply 41):



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 treaties with America, thereby reducing the threat of double taxation. Plus it's not as bad as you made out.

Also, yes the terrorist threat is rare, but very possible.

What infuriates me is the Australians who pop over there and have their baby in the states and grant US citizenship. It's an archaic law not designed for modern times.

Did you know that Canada and the US are the only advanced economies that recognize birthright citizenship? The law should definitely be modified so that at least one of the parents are either a US citizen or LEGAL permanent resident.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 46, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5425 times:

Quoting Arrow (Reply 41):

If your cousin doesn't know about this -- she needs to. There is an association called American Citizens Abroad --- based in Geneva, it has been trying to tell congressmen and senators about the absolute misery this tax jihad is causing for US citizens in other countries -- but getting absolutely nowhere. Their website has a lot of info on what this is all about.

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 who in turn made or inherited a lot of money. as part of FATCA, these Americans had up until this year to come forward "voluntarily", before FATCA revealed them through submitted bank records. The problem was (is) that the taxation and fines if you come forward voluntarily is insane - Once you've paid the taxes and legal fees, you'd probably have nothing left. Those few people I know of who came forward voluntarily usually in their retirement) have been utterly ruined. Now that their stories are well known, all the others are desperately trying to hide under the radar, or renouncing their US citizenship. Renuciation of US citizenship is four times greater in 2011 than in 2008, and 2012 will certainly beat that record. Everyone was hoping that if Obama were defeated FATCA would go away, but now the witchunt will continue.

By the way, we are not talking about drug dealers and criminals - we are talking about regular guys who got a job working at BMW or someplace, fell in love with a local girl and settled down.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 47, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5409 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 44):
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 the Acts you´ve cited?

All US citizens (and US "persons" -- green card holders) must file tax returns to the IRS annually, and annual FBARS (foreign Bank Account Reports) to the Treasury Department regardless of where they live (or how long they've lived there). No-Double-taxation provisions apply for countries with bilateral tax treaties (Canada is the only significant one) -- but those are not in anyway foolproof.

An American living and working (and paying taxes) in Canada can take advantage of a couple of "no double tax" provisions -- the FEIE (Foreign Earned Income Exclusion) gives a US$95K deduction, and the Foreign Tax Credit lets him use tax paid in his country of residence to offset any US tax that might be owing. But if you make more than 95K, you'll pay tax to both countries on that, and you'll pay US (and Canadian of course) tax on any investment income, capital gains etc. The forms and procedures, however, are so complex that most US expats will spend $2-3000 a year in legal/accounting fees just to calculate that they don't owe Uncle Sam any money -- and the IRS won't let you deduct that $3000 expense because it was paid in a foreign country!

What's dangerous now is that all these tax-jihadist Congresscritters -- the ones that foisted FATCA on the world -- are busy introducing bills to take away those benefits, and force US citizens offshore to pay double tax on all their income regardless of source -- never mind that this would violate the provisions of most of the US tax treaties; that doesn't matter to them.

It's a mess.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 48, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5405 times:

Quoting AA7295 (Reply 45):
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 treaties with America, thereby reducing the threat of double taxation. Plus it's not as bad as you made out.

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 (not only citizens, but basically anyone who has ever been issued a social security number is a US person), the your bank in Australia or Germany or wherever is obligated to send over all your bank records - what you make and what you spend - to the IRS. If you file taxes jointly in either country (and most people do because it's simpler), then your spouse is also involved, and if they think that maybe you have more money than your US returns indicate (let's say your wife inherits some money or is a well-paid professional), the IRS will go after you.

And remember, with the IRS you are guilty until proven innocent.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 49, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5360 times:

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 are not subject to U.S. laws...... Can someone explain to me how the IRS is going after ex-pats who use foreign banks, living in those countries?? That makes no sense to me.


A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 50, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5349 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 49):

How is FATCA enforced in foreign countries that U.S. has no jurisdiction in?? I'm curious.

The US threatens the banks with retaliatory action, including confiscation and freezing of US assets. For major banks like UBS and HSBC, with assets all over the place, that is a real threat. It's blackmail, pure and simple.

For an American living overseas, it is now extremely difficult to find a bank who will take you as a customer - and in many countries, you simply can't live without a bank account. Your best bet is to go to a local private bank (IF they accept you - many simply don't want to do something illegal and at the same time don't want the bother of dealing with the IRS).

The Obama administration has turned all US expats into pariahs and treats them like criminals on the run.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineAA7295 From Australia, joined Aug 2007, 622 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5347 times:

Can we stick to the topic and not about FATCA. There are other threads about FATCA.

User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 52, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 5327 times:

Quoting AA7295 (Reply 51):
Can we stick to the topic and not about FATCA. There are other threads about FATCA.

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 AirframeAS Nov 27 2012 in Non Aviation)



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13138 posts, RR: 15
Reply 53, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5263 times:

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 economic reasons. Due to it's value, there should be serious consideration of amending the USA Constitution from jus soli or 'birthright' citizenship in the USA and require at least the mother or the blood father if married by law to the mother of the child, to be a USA Citizen or long-term legal resident.

Of course such a change would lead to it's own potential abuses and problems. Some parents may steal identities to have at the time of birth of the child to have the illusion of legality in the USA and so the child be a citizen. Some poor and illegal women may have their child outside of a hospital so not caught as illegal which could put the child or the mother at health risks. Hospitals could have to deal with confronting all mothers, including born Americans themselves, ready to give birth to show id and for it to be confirmed. Any changes would mean also changing other laws to make sure it works and not end up with serious problems.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8631 posts, RR: 2
Reply 54, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5252 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 25):
The practical impact of such a law would be to require a federal National ID card for every legal US citizen.

Fairly sure the government has such a database. They may not print up cards for everyone, but they probably could.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 55, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5244 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 54):
Fairly sure the government has such a database. They may not print up cards for everyone, but they probably could.

No. There are some very specific laws which prevent various departments from sharing data.

For example - the IRS cannot check military pay records without a court order for that specific person.

The Social Security Administration cannot share your social security number with the IRS.

If the IRS finds 10 tax returns filed under one social security number - they cannot notify ICE until the IRS has filed criminal charges.

etc.


User currently offlineblrsea From India, joined May 2005, 1425 posts, RR: 3
Reply 56, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5240 times:

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 medical costs for visitors to US. And if they take their kids back to their countries to raise them, then chances are the parents are hoping that once the kids attains majority, they can come back to US to attend university/jobs.

For the illegal immigrants, of course it is a different story.

I am not in favour of the "citizenship by birth" law. I agree with the original poster that only legal permanent residents' children should have citizenship by birth.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8631 posts, RR: 2
Reply 57, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5234 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 55):
If the IRS finds 10 tax returns filed under one social security number - they cannot notify ICE until the IRS has filed criminal charges.

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 suspect DHS enjoys wide legal privilege as a quasi military organization to do as they please with all data.


User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6349 posts, RR: 31
Reply 58, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5230 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting blrsea (Reply 56):
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 medical costs for visitors to US.

Not really. It depends which policy you buy. Most that would allow this are pretty affordable. You´d be surprised.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 59, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5227 times:

Quoting blrsea (Reply 56):
If visitors come to US to give birth, they must be pretty well off, given the medical costs here in US.

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 hospital eats the cost.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19927 posts, RR: 59
Reply 60, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5205 times:

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

There is universal healthcare, transport infrastructure, excellent public education (including low-cost or free university education) and a lot of other "socialist" programs that you vehemently oppose.

I agree that jus soil has to go, but I'm calling you out on a specious argument.

For those of you who claim that the "Anchor Baby" issue is overblown, I disagree vehemently. Remember what I do for a living; I am a pediatrician for underserved kids. I'm also bilingual Spanish/English. The #1 reason why Mexican (mostly Mexican, some other Latin Americans) illegal immigrants come to the U.S. is not to destroy our economy or to pick lettuce, but to make a better future for their children. One way to ensure that is to have those children here.

If you want to stop illegal immigration, eliminating jus soil will go a long way towards removing a major incentive.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 61, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5195 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 60):
but to make a better future for their children. One way to ensure that is to have those children here.

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 the rest of us. Why should we, as U.S. citizens pay for their problems?!

The jus soil, as you said, needs to be eliminated pronto.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19927 posts, RR: 59
Reply 62, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5198 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 61):
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 the rest of us. Why should we, as U.S. citizens pay for their problems?!

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 the 2016 Presidential election, it will be interesting to hear his opinions on this issue.


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5489 posts, RR: 14
Reply 63, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5183 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 62):
Interesting tidbit: Mr. Bobby Jindal was conceived in India and born in the USA. If he runs for the 2016 Presidential election, it will be interesting to hear his opinions on this issue.

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 parents here legally or illegally?

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 61):
The jus soil, as you said, needs to be eliminated pronto.

  

[Edited 2012-11-27 22:20:42]


When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19927 posts, RR: 59
Reply 64, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5179 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 63):
Having not researched him a bit: were (are) his parents here legally or illegally?

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 clarify, I also feel that we need to do away with jus soil but I'm also realistic enough to realize that without cheap migrant labor, a head of lettuce would be $8. So there needs to be an alternative.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5671 posts, RR: 6
Reply 65, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 5172 times:

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 are fairly close to having actual illegal immigrants given a path to citizenship. Obama's illegal DREAM Act order will not stand the test of time, but I do see something similar actually being passed by Congress sometime in the not-so-distant future.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineCPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 6013 posts, RR: 3
Reply 66, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5096 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 64):
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.

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 at the same time claiming that the same rules doesn't apply to the likes of Jindal or Marco Rubio.


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 67, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5065 times:

Quoting Flighty (Reply 57):
it would seem that DHS has a pretty good idea of who is a citizen in order to run E-verify. I would also suspect DHS enjoys wide legal privilege as a quasi military organization to do as they please with all data.

E-verify is filled with errors and problems. E-verify also does not require that documentation presented by person seeking employment be valid. A prospective employee can present fake documents and E-verify can say they are legal to work.

Also E-verify does not relieve the employer of the paperwork requirements - from the E-verify FAQ

Quote:
Does E-Verify replace Form I-9?
No. E-Verify does not replace the legal requirement to complete and retain Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. E-Verify verifies the employment authorization of new hires based on the information provided on Form I-9. Form I-9 must still be retained and stored in either paper, electronic, or microfilm/microfiche format.

E-verify does not check the Social Security Administration database about the date of birth of the prospective employee, or if the prospective employee is also employed at a location hundreds of miles away.

We see reports in the media every couple months about an identity theft victim whose SSN is being used for employment by several people at the same time in different states - all "E-verified".

There are specific laws which prevent E-verify being used as a source of confirmation of citizenship.

DHS is actually restricted in what they can do with information about people, and their ability to research and gather data on people who do not submit documentation to DHS.


User currently onlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11417 posts, RR: 52
Reply 68, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5041 times:

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 legally here:

How do you plan to determine whether this kid 18 years later is or is not a citizen?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 69, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5023 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 68):
How do you plan to determine whether this kid 18 years later is or is not a citizen?

The same way every other country in the world does. I don't understand your question/issue.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5672 posts, RR: 10
Reply 70, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5023 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 68):
How do you plan to determine whether this kid 18 years later is or is not a citizen?

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 the parent(s) when the designation is conferred.

How do other nations do it? They do appear to be able to manage it just fine so I see no reason why the USA could not as well.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently onlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11417 posts, RR: 52
Reply 71, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4981 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 69):
The same way every other country in the world does.

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. How do you determine that an 18 year old kid's parents were legal when the kid was born?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 72, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4973 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 71):
You're advocating that to be a citizen, your parents must have been legal when you were born in the country. How do you determine that an 18 year old kid's parents were legal when the kid was born?

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. All other countries do this. We in the US simply got lazy, assuming that everyone born here is a citizen.

Every birth is accompanied by a birth certificate, which is sent in to state authorities, correct? In the future, there would simply be a little additional information required of the parents - what nationality they are, whether they are here on a visa, greed card or whatever, verified by the registrar. If the kid's parents are of another country, the birth certificate is forwarded to that country's embassy.

Every other country does this. Even India, where my daughter was born, did this. Are you saying we are incapable?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11417 posts, RR: 52
Reply 73, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4955 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 72):
At the hospital, a birth certificate has to be made out with the parent's information

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, that's good by me."

Or do you want the hospital to ask for his papers? Is the hospital the arbiter of legality?

What is the mechanism that you advocate?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 74, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4951 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 69):
The same way every other country in the world does. I don't understand your question/issue.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 72):
At the hospital, a birth certificate has to be made out with the parent's information and is sent to the state, correct?

However, you are advocating that a birth certificate no longer be proof of citizenship.

If you eliminate birthright citizenship - there must be other documentation to prove the citizenship, or legal right to be in the US of the parents.

A couple in Nebraska for example - is going to have to prove their citizenship for their new baby born the day after such a law goes into effect. How do they do that?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 72):
In the future, there would simply be a little additional information required of the parents - what nationality they are, whether they are here on a visa, greed card or whatever, verified by the registrar.

How. The new parents can't show their birth certificates as proof. If they have a passport, that would work.

A state drivers license isn't proof of citizenship, a military ID card isn't proof of citizenship, etc.

In reality, non-citizens will have a much better paper trail to prove the right to be in the country.

You are proposing adding a massive paperwork burden to all US citizens.

Or are you going to say that anyone in the US, legally or illegally, on day X when the law goes into effect - is presumed legal and their children are US citizens?


User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5489 posts, RR: 14
Reply 75, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4951 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 73):
Or do you want the hospital to ask for his papers? Is the hospital the arbiter of legality?

Haven't we made employers the arbiter of legality by requiring they ask for certain documentation before granting employment. Why not a hospital/clinic before forwarding the information for a birth certificate?

Just thinking out loud.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 76, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4947 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 75):
Haven't we made employers the arbiter of legality by requiring they ask for certain documentation before granting employment.

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 documentation.

Also, according to the basic premise - people hear legally, who are not immigrants, would no longer have their children born in the US eligible for US citizenship.

For example - Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban's daughter born in 2008 in Nashville, TN would not be a US citizen.

Kidman was born in Honolulu while her parents were legally in the US as students. The elimination of birthright citizenship would make her not eligible to be a US citizen. It would also make any children born to her not eligible to be US citizens.

Urban is a citizen of New Zealand. Urban has worked in the US - legally - but has not declared an intent or filed paperwork toward becoming a US citizen. Thus his children born in the US would have have a right to US citizenship through him.


User currently onlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11417 posts, RR: 52
Reply 77, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4941 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 75):
Haven't we made employers the arbiter of legality by requiring they ask for certain documentation before granting employment.

I don't think so. In fact, haven't we made it illegal to question someone's citizenship to be hired?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 75):
Just thinking out loud.

Yup. Same here.  
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 76):
We have a system that makes an employer liable for hiring illegals, yet not given them the power or tools to question fake documentation.

This is my understanding as well.



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, 5672 posts, RR: 10
Reply 78, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 4926 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 73):
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, that's good by me."

Or do you want the hospital to ask for his papers? Is the hospital the arbiter of legality?

What is the mechanism that you advocate?

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 different please review the method used in Germany or perhaps Great Britain.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 74):
You are proposing adding a massive paperwork burden to all US citizens.

OK, I am fine with that. And though you obviously believe differently I do not think it will be "a massive paperwork burden to all US citizens." but if was I would be OK with that.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 76):
Kidman was born in Honolulu while her parents were legally in the US as students. The elimination of birthright citizenship would make her not eligible to be a US citizen. It would also make any children born to her not eligible to be US citizens.

Not for what I propose (reply 18 above).

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 79, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4917 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 73):
How does the hospital get the "information?" Do they ask? "Are you a citizen or green-cardholder, Dad?" "Yep." "Well, that's good by me."
Quoting D L X (Reply 73):
Or do you want the hospital to ask for his papers? Is the hospital the arbiter of legality?

have you dealt with Notaries? The hosptital surely has them (or can easily employ one), who would be responsible for collecting the information and verifying its authenticity. Just an idea...

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 74):
However, you are advocating that a birth certificate no longer be proof of citizenship.

Damned right. The whole idea of a birth certificate being proof of citizenship is ludicrous to begin with. All a birth certificate does is certify that a baby was born on X date in Y location to Z parents.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 74):
If you eliminate birthright citizenship - there must be other documentation to prove the citizenship, or legal right to be in the US of the parents.

A national ID card system starts sounding pretty good right about now, doesn't it?

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 76):
Also, according to the basic premise - people hear legally, who are not immigrants, would no longer have their children born in the US eligible for US citizenship.

For example - Nicole Kidman and Keith Urban's daughter born in 2008 in Nashville, TN would not be a US citizen.

If neither of them are citizens, no. The kid would be Australian, or British, or both.

But of course if such alaw (or constitutional amendment, rather) goes into effect on Jan 1 2013, anyone born prior to that date will be grandfathered.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21677 posts, RR: 55
Reply 80, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 4897 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 68):
How do you plan to determine whether this kid 18 years later is or is not a citizen?

Put the legal status of the parents on the birth certificate.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 74):
However, you are advocating that a birth certificate no longer be proof of citizenship.

Not necessarily. If it states that the child meets the requirements for being a citizen, then it could be proof of citizenship.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 74):
A couple in Nebraska for example - is going to have to prove their citizenship for their new baby born the day after such a law goes into effect. How do they do that?

By providing documentation proving themselves as legal residents or citizens.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 74):
The new parents can't show their birth certificates as proof.

They could do that, as birth certificates of those born before the change would be valid for proving citizenship.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3557 posts, RR: 2
Reply 81, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4870 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 62):
I wasn't defending it. I'm explaining why they do it.

That was my next question..Do you defend anchor babies? and you can't use your Hypocratic oath as cover either.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 63):
were (are) his parents here legally or illegally?

They were here on student visas studying at LSU in BTR

Quoting CPH-R (Reply 66):
It's been quite fun watching birthers claim that Obama couldn't be NBC because his father was a Kenyan citizen, while at the same time claiming that the same rules doesn't apply to the likes of Jindal or Marco Rubio.

Pretty much every Pubbie I know say they are not eligible. I wish they would run then we might get a clear definition of NBC.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5489 posts, RR: 14
Reply 82, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4850 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 81):
That was my next question..Do you defend anchor babies? and you can't use your Hypocratic oath as cover either

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 probably start to pay more for stuff.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 81):
They were here on student visas studying at LSU in BTR

So I've read. Here legally.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 81):
Pubbie

?
You know, it really doesn't matter whether Obama's father was Kenyan or not; Obama was born on US soil, thus a citizen. Same thing for Jindal...born on US soil...a citizen.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 83, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 4830 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 80):
They could do that, as birth certificates of those born before the change would be valid for proving citizenship.

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.

Several of the bills presented in the US Congress over the past 20 years have wanted to make elimination of birthright citizenship retroactive.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 84, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4812 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 83):
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.

Several of the bills presented in the US Congress over the past 20 years have wanted to make elimination of birthright citizenship retroactive.

You can't pass laws like that retroactively. Do you have a source about such a proposal?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21677 posts, RR: 55
Reply 85, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4774 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 83):
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.

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 here illegally. Those who are here illegally wouldn't have US birth certificates to validate that their child (born after a change to the Constitution) has the right to citizenship.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 86, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4719 times:

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 86):
Why the hell would any tax paying patriotic American be opposed?

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 purchased. How many and exactly what types. How much ammunition you purchase.

2) A foolproof national ID card would allow the government to track US citizens leaving the country. (It would also make it very easy to track your travel within the country if you fly or use other long distance public transportation.)

3) A national ID card system would make identity theft near impossible. Banks, credit card companies and other financial institutions oppose such a system because it would make them responsible for issuing credit with false identification information.

4) A foolproof national ID card would end the illegal worker problem. No one could get a job without one. Places like meat packing plants and other labor intensive 'non-desirable' industries would actually have to hire US citizens or US legal workers. (Many companies which are very large PAC contributors to conservative national level candidates are very much against any ID system which actually works).

5) There would be no issues with false voter IDs presented at the polls. That would not stop issues with absentee ballots being filled out by someone else.

6) Many people do see a national ID card as the start of a police state. Many 'conservatives' see it as a part of a master plan to control the US people.

7) Many liberals see it as unnecessary oppression - allowing the government to target minorities and the underprivileged for cutting off access to government programs and services. Of course 'undocumented workers' support groups oppose a national ID card.

8) Many conservatives and liberals do not think the current level technology would be workable. The number of problems with the E-verify system, the problems with the Social Security Administration with reporting some living people as dead - cutting off Medicare and SS payments - and the reverse - continuing payments to the deceased - all as proof that a national ID card would not be workable.

9) Many states rights advocates see a national ID card as imposing a federal burden on the states - and the federal government taking over a right of the state. Some state officials, including some in Texas, have said they would opt out of a national ID card system.

Some states have fought against the Real-ID program - in part saying it's is an unfunded mandate. In part saying it is an invasion of the privacy of their citizens.

The discussion over Real-ID is really a good review of issues on implementing a national ID card.


User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3557 posts, RR: 2
Reply 87, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 4676 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 82):
born on US soil...a citizen.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21677 posts, RR: 55
Reply 88, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4672 times:

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 86):
I for one think we all should have the most encrypted, highly technological ID card proving citizenship imaginable

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 driver's license, but nationally). I'll support one of those. But if you want to start including RFID, smart chips, etc., I'm out.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 88):
quoting fr8mech (Reply 82):
born on US soil...a citizen.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Well...no, the law is currently that if you're born on US soil you're a citizen. So regardless of whether you think someone born in the same circumstance as Obama or Jindal should be considered citizens were the Constitution to be amended, you can't deny that those two are just as much citizens as anyone else.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 89, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4660 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 89):
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 driver's license, but nationally). I'll support one of those. But if you want to start including RFID, smart chips, etc., I'm out.

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 features is the way to go - a miniature passport, if you will. It will have your name, citizenship (or visa) status, birthdate and place, a validity period (call it 10 years), and a PHOTO.

Quoting Mir (Reply 89):
Well...no, the law is currently that if you're born on US soil you're a citizen. So regardless of whether you think someone born in the same circumstance as Obama or Jindal should be considered citizens were the Constitution to be amended, you can't deny that those two are just as much citizens as anyone else.

Agreed. we are talking about future changes - not taking back US citizenship from people who already have it.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently onlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11417 posts, RR: 52
Reply 90, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4654 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 90):
A simple ID card, with difficult-to-copy features is the way to go - a miniature passport, if you will.

Your passport has an RFID chip in it.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21677 posts, RR: 55
Reply 91, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 4651 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 90):
I agree on this.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 90):
Agreed.

Twice?!  Wow!

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 that they provide (and mandate that those IDs are free of charge if they're just for general ID purposes and not for driver's licenses or the like). What are you going to do with a national ID card that you can't do with a driver's license? It's not going to be valid as a passport, so it would be pretty redundant when you could just add an extra line on a driver's license.

Quoting D L X (Reply 91):
Your passport has an RFID chip in it.

Which is a mistake IMO, but at least you're not carrying that around with you everywhere you go.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5489 posts, RR: 14
Reply 92, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 4624 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 88):
We'll just have to agree to disagree.

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 fan of jus soli, but it is the law of the land...as the saying goes.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 93, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4605 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 91):
Your passport has an RFID chip in it.

Are you sure about that? My passports have nothing like that, although they do have a lot of machine-readable data on there.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5672 posts, RR: 10
Reply 94, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4597 times:

To those who question the difficulty, Germany:
http://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/St...hemen/Migration/Staatsang/faq.html

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 94):
Are you sure about that? My passports have nothing like that, although they do have a lot of machine-readable data on there.

All new passports (since 2006 I think) have a 64k RFID chip:
http://travel.state.gov/passport/passport_2788.html

Quote:
The special features of an Electronic Passport are:

Securely stored biographical information and digital image that are identical to the information that is visually displayed in the passport;
Contactless chip technology that allows the information stored in an Electronic Passport to be read by special chip readers at a close distance; and
Digital signature technology that is used to verify the authenticity of the data stored on the chip. This technology is commonly used in credit cards and other secure documents using integrated circuits or chips.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently onlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11417 posts, RR: 52
Reply 95, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4596 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 94):
Quoting D L X (Reply 91):
Your passport has an RFID chip in it.

Are you sure about that? My passports have nothing like that, although they do have a lot of machine-readable data on there.

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 integrated circuit (computer chip) embedded in the back cover. The chip securely stores the same data visually displayed on the photo page of the passport, and additionally includes a digital photograph. The inclusion of the digital photograph enables biometric comparison, through the use of facial recognition technology, at international borders. The U.S. e-passport also has a new look, incorporating additional anti-fraud and security features.

Since August 2007, the U.S. has been issuing only e-passports.[/quote]
http://travel.state.gov/passport/passport_2498.html

See also http://travel.state.gov/passport/passport_2788.html



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 96, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4578 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 90):
A simple ID card, with difficult-to-copy features is the way to go - a miniature passport, if you will. It will have your name, citizenship (or visa) status, birthdate and place, a validity period (call it 10 years), and a PHOTO.

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 chip. Everyone U.S. citizen should be required to have both if these. This will solve some of the National ID issues we have today.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 97, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4573 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 97):
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 chip. Everyone U.S. citizen should be required to have both if these. This will solve some of the National ID issues we have today.

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 might be a bit overkill.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5671 posts, RR: 6
Reply 98, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4569 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 91):

Your passport has an RFID chip in it.
Quoting D L X (Reply 96):

Yup. I'm sure.
Quoting D L X (Reply 96):
Since August 2007, the U.S. has been issuing only e-passports

My passport was issued in March 2006.  



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 99, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4561 times:

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 us everywhere we go. I don't think that was ever the intention, but if it is, I'm definitely 100% against it


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 100, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4547 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 100):
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 us everywhere we go. I don't think that was ever the intention, but if it is, I'm definitely 100% against it

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 it is a pretty good idea - it makes IDing your body a lot easier after the truck hits you.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 101, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4546 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 101):
But it is a pretty good idea - it makes IDing your body a lot easier after the truck hits you.

I'd rather go unidentified when I'm dead than have to worry about carrying an ID with me everywhere I go



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5672 posts, RR: 10
Reply 102, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4540 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 100):
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 us everywhere we go. I don't think that was ever the intention, but if it is, I'm definitely 100% against it

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't belong. Just always do everything perfectly (no jaywalking, shouting, "loitering", etc.) and you won't have to worry.

Well sort of, as you just never know when something may happen that may cause someone to need to verify your identity, which if you can't could mean you are held until verification can be obtained. So nothing should happen 99.9999% of the time.

Wait, that doesn't sound all that good for what you want....

As a question to others in other nations, what do they require? Do you HAVE to carry some type of ID with you at all times? For the USA that is mostly considered an anathema.

Tugg

[Edited 2012-11-29 14:53:10]


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 103, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 4535 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 100):
I don't think that was ever the intention, but if it is, I'm definitely 100% against it

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 such an ID.

So how is the policeman going to know you are not illegal, if you are not carrying it?

-------------------

The very premise of subjecting people to a national ID card as the only proof of right to be in this country requires that you have it with you to make it work.

We've had too many cases in the media already of US citizens being 'deported' to countries where they have no connection, no relatives - because of mistaken identity. One continuing problem which crops up a couple times a year is a minor teenager too young to have a driver's license who is a runaway giving a false name when picked up. That name comes up as an illegal, and the young teenager is deported, not knowing what is happening until they are put off an airplane in a strange country.

There is also the question of when youngsters need to be issued an ID card.

When I was in the US military, ID cards were issued to dependents when a child was 10 years old. Would that be acceptable?


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 104, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4529 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 104):
So how is the policeman going to know you are not illegal, if you are not carrying it?

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 immigration, but I'd rather not force everyone to carry an ID to combat it



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5672 posts, RR: 10
Reply 105, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4524 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 105):
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 immigration, but I'd rather not force everyone to carry an ID to combat it

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 person that is here legally but just doesn't have anything on them versus the person the is not legally in the USA and doesn't have any legal ID? How do you do that without then burdening the legal person?

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently onlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11417 posts, RR: 52
Reply 106, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4521 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 106):
How do you do that without then burdening the legal person?

I think it starts by asking how it is actually a burden on the legal person to carry his ID.



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, 5672 posts, RR: 10
Reply 107, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 4513 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 107):
Quoting tugger (Reply 106):
How do you do that without then burdening the legal person?

I think it starts by asking how it is actually a burden on the legal person to carry his ID.

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) with the idea of being essentially "required" to carry an ID with me at all times when I am out. If I want to go out and about in my neighborhood (or mostly anywhere) with little more that the clothes on my back and shoes on my feet, why should I not be allowed to do that? On the presumption that "something might happen" where I might be required to show an ID? I don't like or really agree with that. It is one thing to identify yourself if required, it is another to have to carry something on you at all times.

Now as I say that, I think in the future, if there is a national ID that is issued, one will be able to simply verbally ID themselves and any proper authority will be able to pull up what is needed to confirm that identity.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 108, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4507 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 98):
You are saying it already exists?

Yep! Check this out: http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppt_card/ppt_card_3926.html



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 109, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 4506 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 107):
I think it starts by asking how it is actually a burden on the legal person to carry his ID.

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 you? Or going running around the neighborhood, swimming, etc


Might not seem that terrible, and I'm not going to riot on the street if I need to carry an ID, but it's just an inconvenience I'd rather not deal with (having it with you 24/7.) Also, would a national ID be Constitutional? DLs aren't a good comparison either since driving isn't a fundamental right


To sum up: National IDs = good. Having to carry them on you all the time = eh...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 110, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4489 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 109):

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 98):
You are saying it already exists?

Yep! Check this out: http://travel.state.gov/passport/ppt....html

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 them Blue for citizens (like they are) and some other color for non-citizen residents.

Problem solved.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 110):
To sum up: National IDs = good. Having to carry them on you all the time = eh...

Why is everyone getting their panties in a wad about "having to carry it at all times" You don't really have to. Do you need to carry your passport or social security card everywhere you go? No. You keep them at home unless you need it - like going for a job interview.

As for foreigners, Federal law does require foreign nationals to carry a valid passport with them at all times, so an federally-issued ID should not be an undue burden - they can leave the bulky passport at home and walk around with the card.

[Edited 2012-11-29 18:38:05]


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 111, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4479 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 111):
You don't really have to. Do you need to carry your passport or social security card everywhere you go? No. You keep them at home unless you need it - like going for a job interview.

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 trouble. Guess I should've clarified that. And I'm not saying anyone is condoning the police-state, I was only saying I'd be opposed to a national ID if it was like that. I think I'm on the same page as yall



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 112, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4464 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 112):
I was just saying I didn't want to live in a police-like-state where if you forgot your ID you're in trouble.

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 20 years in the US Navy where I was required to have my military ID with me at all times.

In the 20 years since, I have almost never left my home even for a walk down the street, without my ID.

Force of habit.


User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5672 posts, RR: 10
Reply 113, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4456 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 111):
As for foreigners, Federal law does require foreign nationals to carry a valid passport with them at all times, so an federally-issued ID should not be an undue burden - they can leave the bulky passport at home and walk around with the card.

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 carrying ID? Just curious.

And as I have said before, a requirement for an ID won't impact me in any real way, so it wouldn't bother me. But I don't like or approve of the idea if it doesn't actually solve a problem.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 114, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4450 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 114):
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 carrying ID? Just curious.

I'm just stating what the law is. Laws don't have to make sense. Look at FATCA.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5672 posts, RR: 10
Reply 115, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4449 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 115):
I'm just stating what the law is. Laws don't have to make sense. Look at FATCA.

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 problem it is intended for or it should not be instituted.

I am not against a national ID or ID law, provided it solves the problem instead of just adding another requirement to law abiding residents.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6349 posts, RR: 31
Reply 116, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4435 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 from the US and the donor is a US citizen living in the US. When this baby is born, would he/she be eligible for American citizenship?

If the answer is yes, doesn´t this take the "anchor baby" concept to a whole new level?

[Edited 2012-11-29 22:32:46]

User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5672 posts, RR: 10
Reply 117, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4425 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 117):
the sperm sample from the US and the donor is a US citizen living in the US. When this baby is born, would he/she be eligible for American citizenship?

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).

The opposite is also true (if the sperm or eggs are not citizens and the baby is born oversee to American parents, the baby is not a citizen):
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...19/in-vitro-citizenship/53656616/1

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineAR385 From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 6349 posts, RR: 31
Reply 118, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 4426 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tugger (Reply 118):
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).

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 think I should not ask. I just find it very interesting.

I don´t see hordes of Mexican women rushing to get impregnated by American sperm. Still, it goes to show that technology is always ahead of rigid concepts, such as Ius Soli or Ius Sanguini.

[Edited 2012-11-29 23:39:41]

User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3557 posts, RR: 2
Reply 119, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4396 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 89):
Well...no, the law is currently that if you're born on US soil you're a citizen. So regardless of whether you think someone born in the same circumstance as Obama or Jindal should be considered citizens were the Constitution to be amended, you can't deny that those two are just as much citizens as anyone else.

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 and that is to be a NBC U.S. Citizen. Senators and Reps merely need to be citizens.

Both of them had the option of becomong citizens of Kenya or Indian at birth. Obama maybe was even forced to be a citizen of Kenya because her mother was not old enough to confer citizenship on him by herself because of the Immigration Act of 1952 which was changed in 1986.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 120, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4374 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 119):
The guy is a blond, white American of German and Irish descent.

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 to be remain private.). The chances are based in the info you provided, she has no evidence and is SOL.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 121, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 4362 times:

Quoting AR385 (Reply 119):
Wether she wishes to exercise it, that I don´t know, and I think I should not ask.

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 child declared a US citizen born abroad. The US citizen parent must be the one who initiates any action to prove the child a US citizen.

Among the requirements would be proof of paternity - a DNA test is now usually required. Also proof that the US citizen parent supports the child and intends to raise the child.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 120):
Obama maybe was even forced to be a citizen of Kenya because her mother was not old enough to confer citizenship on him by herself because of the Immigration Act of 1952 which was changed in 1986.

That is a lie. The law never refused US citizenship to children born to US citizen parents who were under a certain age. People always refuse to look at the implementation regulations and how the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the US State Department applied the law.

US citizens outside the US were able to confer citizenship upon their children despite their age prior to 1986.

I personally know five US citizen children born in 1974-75 in the Philippines to minors under age 18 who were US military dependents. None those children were born in the US military base hospitals. They were all born in local hospitals, yet were issued "Certificates of Birth of a US Citizen Abroad" by the INS, and US passports.

Strictly applying the law would mean my daughter born at Clark Air Base in the Philippines would not be a US citizen, along with tens of thousands of other children born to young US service men with foreign wives.


User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3557 posts, RR: 2
Reply 122, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4350 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 122):
That is a lie. The law never refused US citizenship to children born to US citizen parents

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.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19927 posts, RR: 59
Reply 123, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4331 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 81):
That was my next question..Do you defend anchor babies? and you can't use your Hypocratic oath as cover either.

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 the #1 incentive for illegal immigration.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21677 posts, RR: 55
Reply 124, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4313 times:

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 119):
All I know that the US Constitution makes a distinction for only one office...POTUS.

No, the 14th Amendent does say who is a citizen and who isn't.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11417 posts, RR: 52
Reply 125, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4309 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 123):
I think it is the #1 incentive for illegal immigration.

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, does it?

No, the #1 reason why people cross the border illegally is because there are jobs here. (The #2 reason is that they overstayed their visas.)



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19927 posts, RR: 59
Reply 126, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4289 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 125):
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, does it?

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 going to have to include a Constitutional amendment to end jus soil. However, it is not as simple as simply pushing all the Mexicans out. They will come here for jobs that Americans won't take.

And believe me, there are jobs that Americans won't take.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8631 posts, RR: 2
Reply 127, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 4288 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 109):
To sum up: National IDs = good. Having to carry them on you all the time = eh...
Quoting tugger (Reply 113):
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 carrying ID? Just curious.

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 ID while driving, at least in some states. It is easier for all parties if you do carry it, certainly.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 128, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4278 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 126):
They come here to give their kids a better life than they had at home.

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 illegal parents.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 127):
You don't need to carry the ID while driving, at least in some states

You do need a driver license on your person at times in ALL States if you're driving.

[Edited 2012-11-30 15:09:09]


A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5672 posts, RR: 10
Reply 129, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4269 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 128):
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 illegal parents.

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 advantage of".

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8631 posts, RR: 2
Reply 130, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4269 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 128):
You do need a driver license on your person at times in ALL States if you're driving.

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 license that was valid at the time. So in practical terms, they just check their computer with you in the cruiser. If you are not licensed, you are in big trouble. But if you are, no fee.

Clearly most states do penalize failure to produce DL, but still, food for thought re: national ID.

[Edited 2012-11-30 15:44:01]

User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 131, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4233 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 129):
[ when the 14th Amendment was passed there was no "welfare" system

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 with or without a welfare system.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 130):
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 license that was valid at the time.

You cannot drive a vehicle without the driver license, even if you have a valid one. If you are pulled over without the license on your person, you will be detained and not allowed to drive.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 130):
But if you are, no fee.

Maybe but they will prohibit you from driving until you have your license on your person.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 130):
Clearly most states do penalize failure to produce DL, but still, food for thought re: national ID.

A National ID is not a substitute for a DL while driving.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1893 posts, RR: 2
Reply 132, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4218 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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 laws we pass to end birthright citizenship, how tall a fence is, how many CBP officers, how many militia at the border. So long as the nations to the south of us remain impoverished and people see a better opportunity here in the US people will risk it all to come here. So we either need to fix our immigration laws to make it easier for people to come here legally so that they can better contribute to our nation or look at our regional policies and see what we can do to assist with raising the standard of living in those nations.

Quoting Birdwatching (Reply 27):
It is extremely complicated for us (qualified, trained professionals) to get a work visa / temporary residency, while others (uneducated) either cross the border illegally and have their anchor child, or wait for a couple of years then get their status legalized, or (Cubans) set a foot on US soil and become citizens instantly.



There is no instant US citizenship. The citizenship application process for anyone is complicated and expensive. The child has to reach age 21 then petition for the parents which is a process that at the least will take an additional 4 years. Which is also not guaranteed.

Quoting tugger (Reply 117):
The opposite is also true (if the sperm or eggs are not citizens and the baby is born oversee to American parents, the baby is not a citizen):



A child born to US nationals anywhere in the world is at minimum a US citizen. In addition they may have citizenship of the nation where the child is born based on that nations citizenship laws.

There are 2 types of US citizenship only:
Naturalized - where a foreign national is granted US citizenship after successfully petitioning for it.
Birth - a person born under circumstances where they are automatically US citizen (ie on US soil/territories and/or to (1 or more US citizen parents)



The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 133, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4205 times:

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 is 21 years old, has a job sufficient to support the parents, applies for the parents to become legal immigrants. With the current backlog - the child will be at least 25 before the parents came legally come to the US.

2) Parents who have been in the US with the "Anchor Baby" for 10 consecutive years, with no visits back to the home country, can apply for a TEMPORARY ban on deportation. A maximum of 4,000 people per year may qualify for this, though ICE says fewer than 2,000 per year apply, and many do not qualify.

3) Over 8,000 parents of 'Anchor Babies' per year are deported from the US each year. Anchor Babies will not keep the parent in the US, especially if the parent is convicted of anything including misdemeanors.

4) If the parents of an 'Anchor Baby' are deported for any reason, after the child reaches age 21 - the parents will likely be refused immigrant status.

5) If an 'Anchor Baby' is not raised in the US - he/she will have a long and expensive process to prove that they are the child named on the birth certificate.

-----------------------------

Yes, having a child born in the US does offer the child potential benefits as an adult.

No, having a child born in the US does not give the parents any legal status in the US.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5671 posts, RR: 6
Reply 134, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4183 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 129):
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 advantage of".

The 14th Amendment was nothing more than a measure to end slavery. It had absolutely nothing to do with immigration or welfare.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 131):
If you are pulled over without the license on your person, you will be detained and not allowed to drive.

You MAY be detained and not allowed to drive, but I can assure you that in practice, as long as you have a valid license (and didn't piss the cop off), you will be sent on your merry way.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5672 posts, RR: 10
Reply 135, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 4180 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 131):
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 with or without a welfare system.

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 so their, if born in the USA, will have a better life and much of that is due to the benefits we bequeath upon our children as a society, a quality and free education being probably the primary benefit, a safe structured society being the other (in general we don't have to bribe our police to get their protection).

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 131):
A National ID is not a substitute for a DL while driving.

   In fact a Nat.ID would probably be a requirement to obtain a DL or at least one of the elements used to obtain one.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 132):
The opposite is also true (if the sperm or eggs are not citizens and the baby is born oversee to American parents, the baby is not a citizen):A child born to US nationals anywhere in the world is at minimum a US citizen.

Not according to the article I linked to. New legislation may have passed since then but the article notes that if the egg and sperm are not from US citizens, the parents citizenship status alone does not confer citizenship upon the child born outside of USA territory.


Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 133):
What Advantages does having an Anchor Baby give to the parents?

You try to avoid the answer your own question:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 133):
Yes, having a child born in the US does offer the child potential benefits as an adult.

You skipped the part that the child gets to grow up in a safe(r) place with a good structured society that offers a better chance for a better life into the future. This is what allows the child to get to those "potential benefits as an adult."

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 136, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4170 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 135):
You skipped the part that the child gets to grow up in a safe(r) place with a good structured society that offers a better chance for a better life into the future. This is what allows the child to get to those "potential benefits as an adult."

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 risk of their parents being deported.

Also many anchor babies are sent back to the country of their parents when the parent are deported each year.

The good thing is that ICE is DNA testing them so that when they might choose to try to come to the US as an adult, immigration will be able to verify it is the correct person.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 137, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4169 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 134):
as long as you have a valid license (and didn't piss the cop off), you will be sent on your merry way.

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 with a DL on his or her person will then do the driving.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19927 posts, RR: 59
Reply 138, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4156 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 128):
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 illegal parents.

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 trying to pretend like they are just parasites here to suck us dry. If you want to stop the behavior, then you have to first start by acknowledging that they are human beings and that they are doing this for a reason. And that if you were in their place, you probably would do something similar.

Once you've accepted that, you can start to look for ways to stop the behavior. I believe that ending jus soil is one way to severely curtail that behavior and that it should be part of immigration reform.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 131):
he 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 with or without a welfare system.

Nobody is arguing that it does apply to illegal immigrants. But it does apply to their children who almost always need some sort of welfare. I have yet to meet an illegal immigrant who's US-born kids aren't on WIC, Medicaid, etc.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 134):
The 14th Amendment was nothing more than a measure to end slavery. It had absolutely nothing to do with immigration or welfare.

Yup. But it does now. When the 14th Amendment was passed, almost anyone could immigrate to the USA. They were streaming in through Ellis Island already. There was no welfare system. Things were very different and I think that it's time to change the 14th Amendment to reflect current reality.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 139, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 4136 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 138):
But it does apply to their children who almost always need some sort of welfare.

Those kids were not slaves, nor are we living in the 1860's, so the 14th does not apply.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 138):
But it does now

No, it doesn't. See above.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5671 posts, RR: 6
Reply 140, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 4111 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 137):
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 with a DL on his or her person will then do the driving.

  

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 my cop buddies what they think of it.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 139):

Those kids were not slaves, nor are we living in the 1860's, so the 14th does not apply.

Not quite sure what you mean by that... you can have the opinion that it should not apply (and I wouldn't necessarily disagree), but as of right now, it most certainly does.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 138):

Yup. But it does now.

Oh, trust me, I know  



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 141, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4105 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 140):
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 my cop buddies what they think of it.

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, what's your point?!

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 140):
Not quite sure what you mean by that... you can have the opinion that it should not apply (and I wouldn't necessarily disagree), but as of right now, it most certainly does.

The law was written for the time appropriate, which is the 1860's and was intended to free the slaves. The illegal immigrants are not slaves. See where I'm going with this? The 14th is outdated and does not apply here.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26598 posts, RR: 75
Reply 142, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4102 times:

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 equal protection and the further codification of jus soli that has existed since the US became an independent nation.

Doing away with jus soli leaves entirely too much ability for racism to creep into the citizenship process. Just take a look at the passport class action in Texas. And that is with strong jus soli.

Quoting AA7295 (Thread starter):
I am firmly against the 14th Amendment which ensures such laws.

Wow. Really? So you are against equal rights. If you are "firmly against the 14th Amendment" you either favor dictatorship and disfavor civil rights, or you have a severe misunderstanding of the Constitution of the United States.

Quoting D L X (Reply 17):
The 14th Amendment is probably the second or third most important of them all, granting equal rights to everyone.

Yup.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 21):
there are many world nations out there that do not automatically grant citizenship simply by location of birth.

And there are many that do.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 34):
Just because a baby is born in the U.S. does not make it a U.S. citizen, IMO.

Your opinion, with all due respect, has no bearing here. The law is quite clear.

Quoting AA7295 (Reply 45):
Plus, most western countries have taxation treaties with America, thereby reducing the threat of double taxation.

Really? Ask Canadians who were born in the US about that.

Quoting AA7295 (Reply 45):
Did you know that Canada and the US are the only advanced economies that recognize birthright citizenship?

You are completely wrong.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):
Everyone was hoping that if Obama were defeated FATCA would go away

LOL. Obama, eh? Who do you think signed FACTA?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 60):
If you want to stop illegal immigration, eliminating jus soil will go a long way towards removing a major incentive.

That is not true at all. Indeed, those most motivated by jus soli in coming to the US to have children don't live in the US at all, and have tons of money. Look up "Birth Tourism"

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 62):
Interesting tidbit: Mr. Bobby Jindal was conceived in India and born in the USA. If he runs for the 2016 Presidential election, it will be interesting to hear his opinions on this issue.

Will be interesting to see the intellectual dishonesty that follows.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 69):
The same way every other country in the world does. I don't understand your question/issue.

Through bigger government.

Quoting Mir (Reply 80):
Put the legal status of the parents on the birth certificate.

And how do you determine that?

Quoting tugger (Reply 117):
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).

Sounds a bit ridiculous.

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 132):
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 laws we pass to end birthright citizenship, how tall a fence is, how many CBP officers, how many militia at the border. So long as the nations to the south of us remain impoverished and people see a better opportunity here in the US people will risk it all to come here. So we either need to fix our immigration laws to make it easier for people to come here legally so that they can better contribute to our nation or look at our regional policies and see what we can do to assist with raising the standard of living in those nations.

BINGO! Jus Soli has little at all to do with it.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 134):
The 14th Amendment was nothing more than a measure to end slavery.

Uh, no. That is the 13th Amendment. The 14th Amendment was "nothing more" than the first real civil rights law, and the one that underpins all civil rights and liberties in this country. It also forced the states to comply with the Bill of Rights.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 143, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4089 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 142):
The law is quite clear.

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 doesn't say that.   



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8866 posts, RR: 24
Reply 144, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4081 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 125):
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, does it?
Quoting N1120A (Reply 142):
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 21):
there are many world nations out there that do not automatically grant citizenship simply by location of birth.

And there are many that do.

Canada and the USA being the only highly developed countries that do.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 142):
Quoting AA7295 (Reply 45):
Did you know that Canada and the US are the only advanced economies that recognize birthright citizenship?

You are completely wrong.

He is completely correct. Here is a map of the world with the countries that grant citizenship by birth.



It was fine at a time of largely empty land masses with no state-funded safety nets like in the 19th century, but will undoubtedly disappear over the coming years.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 142):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):
Everyone was hoping that if Obama were defeated FATCA would go away

LOL. Obama, eh? Who do you think signed FACTA?

Is English your second language? Read it again. In case of doubt, Obama signed FATCA in March of 2009.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 142):
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 69):
The same way every other country in the world does. I don't understand your question/issue.

Through bigger government.

Through government doing its job, preferably using resources released by it stopping doing other stuff it has no business doing, like the Dept of Education,



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineATCtower From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 544 posts, RR: 3
Reply 145, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4077 times:

Lets see if I can reply to this without being censored for agreeing with someone...

Quoting N1120A (Reply 142):
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 equal protection and the further codification of jus soli that has existed since the US became an independent nation.

Doing away with jus soli leaves entirely too much ability for racism to creep into the citizenship process. Just take a look at the passport class action in Texas. And that is with strong jus soli.

While I agree the 14th Amendment quite probably IS the single most important amendment because of its ramification of applying the Bill of Rights to all states, and grants equal protection (in MY interpretation, to ALL CITIZENS). I do not agree with the TX passport class action because it is inherantly 'biased' calling it racist is a big stretch.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 142):
Wow. Really? So you are against equal rights. If you are "firmly against the 14th Amendment" you either favor dictatorship and disfavor civil rights, or you have a severe misunderstanding of the Constitution of the United States.

Yes, I personally am against equal rights for those who break our laws. An ILLEGAL immigrant ILLEGALLY entering the US should not be afforded the same rights as a law abiding citizen, and thus their ILLEGAL child should not be granted citizenship. Hell, we have stricter laws for tax paying citizens convicted of minor crimes.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 142):
Your opinion, with all due respect, has no bearing here. The law is quite clear.

I believe his opinion has all the bearing in the world here and as much validity as yours or mine. This is a forum for discussing opinions and just because yours doesnt jive doesnt mean his opinion has no bearing. We are debating whether an outdated law should still hold precident in a land of outdated laws. All of our opinions are valid.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 142):
That is not true at all. Indeed, those most motivated by jus soli in coming to the US to have children don't live in the US at all, and have tons of money. Look up "Birth Tourism"

ENTIRELY untrue. The VAST majority of children born in the US to non-US citizen (legal resident) parents are born in something like 6 counties and they are ALL hispanic and within 100mi of the US border. To realistically expect people ot believe it is only the rich people coming here to have their babies is asinine!

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 offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26598 posts, RR: 75
Reply 146, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4072 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 144):
Is English your second language? Read it again. In case of doubt, Obama signed FATCA in March of 2009.

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.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 144):
Canada and the USA being the only highly developed countries that do.

Really? Brazil? Trinidad and Tobago? Not to mention that changes in may jus soli states were largely connected to xenophobia and racism.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 144):
Through government doing its job, preferably using resources released by it stopping doing other stuff it has no business doing, like the Dept of Education,

LOL. The government has a clear interest in education. And that is completely off topic.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 143):
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 doesn't say that.

Wait, so "illegal immigrants" can be indentured servants and outright slaves? That is what the 13th Amendment bans.

And what in the world are you going on about otherwise?

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 145):
(in MY interpretation, to ALL CITIZENS)

Have you read the 14th Amendment? It makes a clear distinctions between CITIZEN and PERSON.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 145):
I do not agree with the TX passport class action because it is inherantly 'biased' calling it racist is a big stretch.

What you said does not make any sense. Please clarify.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 145):
ENTIRELY untrue. The VAST majority of children born in the US to non-US citizen (legal resident) parents are born in something like 6 counties and they are ALL hispanic and within 100mi of the US border. To realistically expect people ot believe it is only the rich people coming here to have their babies is asinine!

You need to read what you are quoting. I said that jus soli has the motivating factor to come to the US is more often birth tourism to get out of various obligations. Those "hispanics" you seem to be worked up over are not specifically motivated by jus soli, but economic gain generally.

Quoting ATCtower (Reply 145):
I believe his opinion has all the bearing in the world here and as much validity as yours or mine.

Actually, neither your opinion, nor mine, has validity here either. The legal issue is very well settled.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5671 posts, RR: 6
Reply 147, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4018 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 141):
I'm pretty sure I'm correct.

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 incorrect.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 143):

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 doesn't say that.

  

That's not even remotely close to how it works. BTW, the 13th is irrelevant in this discussion, as it banned the institutions of slavery/involuntary servitude.

But for the 14th:

Quote:
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.

Last I checked, "Illegal Immigrants" are classified as "persons" and "people". Also, FWIW, any person born in and under the jurisdiction of the US is automatically a citizen. (the "subject to the jurisdiction of" clause really only affects those with diplomatic immunity and/or a foreign enemy occupying an area). Therefore, by definition, the children born of any immigrant, legal or otherwise, are automatically "legal".

Again, you can argue that it should not be that way, but the law is quite clear about the way it is.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6723 posts, RR: 12
Reply 148, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3883 times:

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 11):
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.

Well, in my country that I consider civilized there is jus soli (with some minimal limitations) and illegal immigrants often get citizenship if they manage to stay long enough. In practice it's almost impossible to deport children born on the French territory.

It's a huge problem in some of France's oversea territories like Mayotte. The Union of the Comoros resents that Mayotte stayed French, while at the same time hundreds of women come in boats to give birth on Mayotte. It is in fact the part of the country with the youngest population, the highest number of schools per capita, the highest number of civil servants per capita, it's become ridiculous. Oh, and most of them are Muslim, but I never heard of a terrorist from there.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 149, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3755 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 148):
Oh, and most of them are Muslim, but I never heard of a terrorist from there.

This guy should give you a reminder: Zacarias Moussaoui

Born in France. (Unless the wiki info is inaccurate.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21677 posts, RR: 55
Reply 150, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3740 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 149):
This guy should give you a reminder: Zacarias Moussaoui

Born in France.

But not Mayotte, which is what Aesma was talking about.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 151, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3704 times:

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 147):
I "know for a fact" that you are incorrect.

Oh, I'm right. Just because you have cop friends does not mean you are automatically correct by default.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1893 posts, RR: 2
Reply 152, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3666 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 143):
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 doesn't say that.

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). It applies to all unless it is stated otherwise. Not the other way around.



The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6723 posts, RR: 12
Reply 153, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3657 times:

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 149):
This guy should give you a reminder: Zacarias Moussaoui

Born in France. (Unless the wiki info is inaccurate.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacaria...saoui

But not in Mayotte.

We have plenty of terrorists with roots in former North African colonies, the political situation there not being helpful.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6723 posts, RR: 12
Reply 154, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3626 times:

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 region with the most crimes in Europe. 75 bombings in 2012 so far. My father crisscrossed the island as a young sociologist during the "blue nights", the nights were called that way due to the number of explosions at the time.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinebjorn14 From Norway, joined Feb 2010, 3557 posts, RR: 2
Reply 155, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3561 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 150):
But not Mayotte, which is what Aesma was talking about.

France makes no distinction. You would be born in an Overseas Department with all the rights French citizenship bestows.



"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
Top Of Page