!4th Amendment and anchor babies

[Bubblehead1980]

I believe in our constitution and am weary when someone wants to change it but am a bit torn on the suggestion to do away with birthright citizenship.I see both sides of the issue.

On one hand, illegal immigration is really damaging this country and our identity and if left unchecked, could be even more of a problem one day.So in theory it sounds great to amend the consitution so that one's immigration is determined by their mother.If mother is an illegal, child is not a citizen.This would stop the wave of anchor babies and help curb illegal immigration.

On the other hand, I dislike tweaking of the constitution for the most part and do not trust our current breed of leaders to do so.The sixteenth amendment is a great example of why the consitution should be left alone.On the flip side, you have the 13th amendment which outlaws slavery, which was a good thing.


Just wondering how other's feel about it, anyone else torn? No insults, want a legit debate guys.

[mookiemookie]

I think any change in the Birthright Citizenship clause needs to come as part of a sweeping change of the immigration policies of this country. The citizenship process is onerous and lengthy - stretching into a waiting list that's years long. There needs to be a streamlined and expedited immigration process.

I wouldn't be opposed to seeing birthright citizenship go away - it almost seems like a relic of another time where land and frontier was unlimited and illegal immigration wasn't the problem that it is today. I believe it could very well be time to close that loophole. But not without being part of a comprehensive immigration system reform package.

[Sailor Steve]

Just wondering how other's feel about it, anyone else torn?
I can't add much to what you already said. It's a thorny problem and needs to be handled with extreme care. Like everything from welfare to abortion (not meaning to bring those in but just point out the legal problems) there are good and bad points, necessities and abuses. I personally would like to see it controlled or limited somehow, but for the life of me I can't think of anything that would work.

No insults, want a legit debate guys.
And with a post like that you won't get any insults. Not from me at least.

[TLAM Strike]

So in theory it sounds great to amend the consitution so that one's immigration is determined by their mother.If mother is an illegal, child is not a citizen.This would stop the wave of anchor babies and help curb illegal immigration. But what if the father is an American citizen? Under such a system three kids who grew up living next to my house could lose their citizenship and be deported to Thailand. Their mother never became an American Citizen (she only has a green card) although she has lived here for around 20 years and is married to a American (Former Air Force Reserve). What if by some paperwork error she lost her Permanent Residence status?

Hilariously she was denied a longer stay in Thailand while visiting her daughter from a previous marriage. Since she has been gone so long and doesn't speak Thai very well anymore the government of Thailand treats her as a foreigner.

[Sailor Steve]

But what if the father is an American citizen?
I'm pretty sure that if a foreign national marries an American citizen then there is no argument or question. It's a time-honored practice to gain entrance into a country by that very means.

I could be wrong, but I think Bubblehead is refering specifically to the illegals who come here and then have a baby, for the express purpose of gaining legality through the child.

[Platapus]

It will be a tough sell

First you need a proposal. That means one of two things have to happen

1. Two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment,

2. Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. This has never happened ever in our history

Then once all the arguing about the proposal is done, it has to be ratified. This means, again, one of two instances

1. Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it

2. Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.

What are the odds of amending the Constitution? Pretty poor, and this is by design.

There have been thousands of proposals to amend the Constitution. Answers.com says 11,000 and that is probably a good enough number. In recent times, on the average about 200 each congressional term.

Of those thousands, only 33 have ever passed the "proposal" stage. If 11,000 is accurate, the odds have been 0.003%. After the proposal, the odds get a lot better

Of those 33, 27 have been ratified, but this also includes the first 10 (Bill of Rights), so the numbers are actually 17 (52%). Considering that one of them was used to repeal another, the odds drop down to 45%.

We would be much better off passing and ENFORCING immigration laws. In fact, we don't need to pass any more laws or amend the constitution. Our best practice is to start enforcing the existing laws. :yep:

Only if after consistently enforcing the existing immigration laws, which includes punishing Americans who hire undocumented aliens, should we even consider a new law.

[The Third Man]

This is yet another attempt by Republicans to energize the base. I don;t think it will gain much traction, but on the other hand neither will blaming George Bush for our current economic problems, so its a wash.

[Tribesman]

One problem with changing tthe citizenship laws.
You could by refusung citizenship be making the child a stateless person, how do you get a destination to deport a stateless person to?

[SteamWake]

Wait what does the 4th amendment have to do with 'anchor babies'?

[Weiss Pinguin]

Wait what does the 4th amendment have to do with 'anchor babies'?
Maybe that's why they're trying to change it :p2:

[Sailor Steve]

Well, Federal Authorities might illegally search and seize the anchor baby, leaving the mother without proof that she has the legal right to stay here. Didn't think of that one, didja? :D:O::dead:

[Ducimus]

As much as i dislike to change the constitution, this needs to be changed, and a simple change is all that is needed.

If one or both of your parent's is an American citizen, your citizenship is your birthright.

If neither of your parents is an American citizen, then you will not be granted citizenship.


The days of Jose and Jaunita jumping the border and popping out little Paco to get their foot into the door need to come to and end. As an aside, it's f*cking annoying when you go to the mall to get a bite to eat at a mongolian BBQ, and neither the person in front of you, nor behind you speak English. Only Spanish. At least the idiots behind the counter were bilingual and spoke english, but that should not have to be. This situation is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what it should be. It's wonderful being a minority in your own country.... oh wait.. i forgot. California isn't part of the united states anymore, its a provence of mexico.

[The Third Man]

As much as i dislike to change the constitution, this needs to be changed, and a simple change is all that is needed.

If one or both of your parent's is an American citizen, your citizenship is your birthright.

If neither of your parents is an American citizen, then you will not be granted citizenship.


The days of Jose and Jaunita jumping the border and popping out little Paco to get their foot into the door need to come to and end. As an aside, it's f*cking annoying when you go to the mall to get a bite to eat at a mongolian BBQ, and neither the person in front of you, nor behind you speak English. Only Spanish. At least the idiots behind the counter were bilingual and spoke english, but that should not have to be. This situation is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what it should be. It's wonderful being a minority in your own country.... oh wait.. i forgot. California isn't part of the united states anymore, its a provence of mexico.

I don't think a constitutional change is required. The courts can change the law. Not that they will, but they can. It has happened before, it's about interpretation.

[razark]

I don't think a constitutional change is required. The courts can change the law. Not that they will, but they can. It has happened before, it's about interpretation.
Courts can change the law, but not the Constitution. It would require an amendment to change the Constitution.

Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 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.

[The Third Man]

Courts can change the law, but not the Constitution. It would require an amendment to change the Constitution.


I guess I should have been more to the point. The law can be changed to reflect anything and the constitution be damned. At this point the constitution means nothing.

That is the beauty of my political persuasion. When you believe in the future everything is possible and the so called right or middle has nothing to say about it.

As soon as abortion was made legal as an interpretation of the 4th amendment all holds were off. After that any interpretation of social , economic, or political reason is up for grabs.

[Bubblehead1980]

Wait what does the 4th amendment have to do with 'anchor babies'?

I fat fingered the title and cant change it apparently, ooops.Meant 14th.

to other, I will respond soon, took up my forum time in another thread.good thread going though guys.

I will say I have decided I would like to see birthright citizenship changed so that anchor babies are a thing of the past.So amend the constitution I say:arrgh!:

[razark]

As much as i dislike to change the constitution, this needs to be changed, and a simple change is all that is needed.

If one or both of your parent's is an American citizen, your citizenship is your birthright.

If neither of your parents is an American citizen, then you will not be granted citizenship.
What about foreign nationals legally in the country? Where I work, we have a decently large number of foreign nationals that come here for business purposes, some of them for years. They are still foreign citizens, but they have been in the US for a long time, contributing to the goals of the US government, and raising their families within the society. How would your proposed rules account for a child born into such a family?

[Ducimus]

What about foreign nationals legally in the country?

There's already something for that. It's called a work visa. When it expires, they go home. If you want to stay longer, then apply for citizenship.

[mookiemookie]

I will say I have decided I would like to see birthright citizenship changed so that anchor babies are a thing of the past.So amend the constitution I say:arrgh!:

A cursory internet search will cut through the hype and hysteria about so-called "anchor babies." Having a child in the U.S. is no guarantee of illegal immigrant parents not being deported. A baby born in such circumstances can't sponsor a parent for a U.S. visa until age 21.

If you have an interest in such things, you'll see that even the Supreme Court has ruled that having a child born in the U.S. doesn't preclude you from being deported (see Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Jong Ha Wang 1981).

Like most political garbage in the U.S., the debate is long on fiery rhetoric appealing to base nationalistic emotion, but short on actual facts.

[Ducimus]

60,000 babies born to non-citizens in Texas every year

As the debate over illegal immigration – and now over the 14th amendment – heats up, consider this:

In Texas alone, there are more than 60,000 babies born to non-citizens every year. These babies automatically become U.S. citizens.

The Dallas Morning News reports that last year these births represented almost 16% of the total births statewide. And, that from 2001 to 2009, there were more than 542,000 births to illegal immigrant women.

Let me repeat, all these babies automatically become U.S. citizens... and we're just talking about Texas here.

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/09/60000-babies-born-to-non-citizens-in-texas-every-year/?hpt=T2

[The Third Man]

Like I said. You folks are debating that which is not in play. The Constitutionof the US.


At this point it is irrevelant. The courts know it, the congress knows it, all branches of government know it.

More importantly our enemies know it.

[mookiemookie]

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/09/60000-babies-born-to-non-citizens-in-texas-every-year/?hpt=T2

And how many immigrants who would otherwise be deported remain in the U.S. because of their "anchor baby?" My guess is somewhere close to zero.

[Sailor Steve]

IAs soon as abortion was made legal as an interpretation of the 4th amendment all holds were off. After that any interpretation of social , economic, or political reason is up for grabs.
Where in the Constution was abortion illegal in the first place? The law was changed, and a guaranteed right was used to change it. The Constitution was not changed at all.

[Tribesman]

I'm pretty sure that if a foreign national marries an American citizen then there is no argument or question. It's a time-honored practice to gain entrance into a country by that very means.
But there is an arguement and question as it can also be a very serious crime, more serious than just plain illegal entry.
Have a look at that recent episode in Norfolk Virginia with what was in effect human trafficing plus defrauding government.
I will see if I can find a link but in essence it was a scam where sailors were being paid for importing fake "brides" from eastern europe so the women got into the States andthe servicemen could claim pay benefits on their fake marriages.

[Sailor Steve]

Of course it can be used to commit a crime, as can just about any other legitimate law or practice. I was answering a specific question.