!4th Amendment and anchor babies

Bubblehead1980 · 08-08-10, 04:49 PM

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 · 08-08-10, 08:34 PM

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 · 08-08-10, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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.

Quote:

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 · 08-08-10, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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 · 08-08-10, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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 · 08-08-10, 10:05 PM

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.

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

08-08-10, 10:13 PM

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.

08-09-10, 04:15 AM

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 · 08-09-10, 08:52 AM

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

Weiss Pinguin · 08-09-10, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteamWake

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

Maybe that's why they're trying to change it

Sailor Steve · 08-09-10, 11:18 AM

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?

Ducimus · 08-09-10, 12:44 PM

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.

08-09-10, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 08-09-10, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Third Man

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

08-09-10, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by razark

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.

08-08-10, 04:49 PM	#1
Bubblehead1980 Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Florida USA Posts: 7,100 Downloads: 605 Uploads: 44	!4th Amendment and anchor babies 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. Last edited by Bubblehead1980; 08-09-10 at 03:12 PM.

08-08-10, 08:34 PM	#2
mookiemookie Navy Seal Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 9,404 Downloads: 105 Uploads: 1	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. __________________ They don’t think it be like it is, but it do. Want more U-boat Kaleun portraits for your SH3 Commander Profiles? Download the SH3 Commander Portrait Pack here.

08-08-10, 10:05 PM	#6
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,360 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	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. Only if after consistently enforcing the existing immigration laws, which includes punishing Americans who hire undocumented aliens, should we even consider a new law. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right. Last edited by Platapus; 08-08-10 at 10:16 PM. Reason: typo

08-09-10, 08:52 AM	#9
SteamWake Rear Admiral Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 13,224 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	Wait what does the 4th amendment have to do with 'anchor babies'? __________________ Follow the progress of Mr. Mulligan : http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=147648

08-09-10, 11:18 AM	#11
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	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? __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo

08-08-10, 10:13 PM	#7
The Third Man Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	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.

08-09-10, 04:15 AM	#8
Tribesman Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	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?

08-09-10, 12:44 PM	#12
Ducimus Rear Admiral Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 12,987 Downloads: 67 Uploads: 2	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.