!4th Amendment and anchor babies

[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.

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

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

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

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

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/20...y-year/?hpt=T2