Growing through immigration beats shrinking

[Danno 1,228]

No European country allows that. Canada is the only other wealthy country that has the same policy as the U.S.

Makes me want have my wife pop out the kid in Canada and scream and yell if I have to pay for it. It would interesting if a massive number of Americans pulled that stunt in Canada. I can see the border guards turning pregnant American women away.

Yeah, I doubt I will go far trying to sponge off Russia any time soon.

[scandal 951]

But as to my point on the 14th Amendment, do you believed it was ever intended to be used as a Citizen gift-card, foreign mothers can give their children?

I think the relevant case law you are looking for is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), in which the US Supreme Court did in fact decide that the 14th Amendment was intended to mean precisely what we currently practice. Namely, that any child born on US soil to parents who are themselves not US citizens and not foreign diplomats, is a US citizen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

Opinion

Held: In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

....

In response to concerns over illegal immigration in the United States (and the associated fear that children of illegal immigrants could serve as links to permit citizenship for family members who would otherwise be ineligible), bills have been introduced from time to time in Congress which have challenged the conventional interpretation of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment and have sought to actively and explicitly deny citizenship at birth to U.S.-born children of foreign visitors or illegal aliens. No such bill has ever come close to being enacted; even if one did, it would presumably achieve its intended result only if the Supreme Court, in a new case, were to conclude that Wong Kim Ark had been wrongly decided. Some attempts have also been made to supersede Wong Kim Ark by amending the Constitution itself, but no such amendment has ever been approved by Congress in order to be voted upon by state legislatures.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Yeah. The pro-illegal-immigration crowd (ironically on a legal immigration board) likes to blur that line.

Good point. Why does the left hate thinking?

[scandal 951]

Good point. Why does the left hate thinking?

How many brain cells went into composing that little gem?

[I'm Gone 60]

I think the relevant case law you are looking for is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), in which the US Supreme Court did in fact decide that the 14th Amendment was intended to mean precisely what we currently practice. Namely, that any child born on US soil to parents who are themselves not US citizens and not foreign diplomats, is a US citizen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

The was wong interpretation of the law. LOL

"In 1882, the Congress of the United States had enacted a law, known as the Chinese Exclusion Act, prohibiting persons of the Chinese race from coming into the United States or becoming naturalized"

Could you imagine the bunch in Congress now and our dear president having the balls to pass and sign into law something like that.

[Danno 1,228]

I think the relevant case law you are looking for is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), in which the US Supreme Court did in fact decide that the 14th Amendment was intended to mean precisely what we currently practice. Namely, that any child born on US soil to parents who are themselves not US citizens and not foreign diplomats, is a US citizen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

An interesting read and it tells us a lot.

Wong and his parents apparently were coming and going through some type of legal entry port, and so this case which has opened the floodgate for illegals to gift "free citizenship" to their babies, was not even decided on such a case.

(thanks for posting that)

[Ali G. 37]

It's also not justifiable that E-Verify is not mandatory and the law of the land when the system has been up and running for years. Then the issue "appearances" would be moot. So...why isn't E-Verify mandatory with 10%+ official unemployment (17%+ underemployment)? Ask Obama, Pelosi, and Reid!

Very very good question..

[Ali G. 37]

Here, here, I second that motion.

IN fact, I am quite uncertain the 14th amendment ever meant (in this respect) how it is being used.

in part it reads;

<<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.>>

This was passed right after the civil war to protect Blacks from the abuse of any claim that they are not real citizens, were is the logic that it extended to foreigners breaking into the country.

If it was a blanket grant of citizenship to anyone born here why was the pesky part AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION even in there?

Trying to think of another instance where any other Amendment rewards a criminal act????

This is exactly why Australia amongst another nations recently amended their constitution to reflect the times and require that one of the parents must be a citizen for a child to qualify for citizenship based on birth. It's a no brainer to me and Australia is not even attached to another country. Otherwise it would be as simple as get your azz to Australia, even as a tourist, and then have your child there. The loophole has now been closed.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Booyah

[Ali G. 37]

What about the long-term implications of having a large number of non-citizens who know life in no country other than this one?

It sounds to me like getting rid of citizenship-by-birth for illegals would work well only after we've licked our basic border and workplace enforcement problems. That way, you don't end up with huge numbers of these kids being born here without any right to citizenship.

They're a citizen of their parent's country and can move there along with their parents accordingly. Lets not act as if these kids would be homeless if such a law was enacted.

[peejay 327]

They're a citizen of their parent's country and can move there along with their parents accordingly. Lets not act as if these kids would be homeless if such a law was enacted.

I have several American friends and family that lived/worked overseas and had their children born in foreign countries. Some of these kids lived a huge chunk of their lives outside of the USA. It wasn't a dire catastrophe when the family eventually had to return to the USA. They went where their parents went. Not exactly some sort of civil rights/human rights violation some people make it out to be.

[Ali G. 37]

I have several American friends and family that lived/worked overseas and had their children born in foreign countries. Some of these kids lived a huge chunk of their lives outside of the USA. It wasn't a dire catastrophe when the family eventually had to return to the USA. They went where their parents went. Not exactly some sort of civil rights/human rights violation some people make it out to be.

Bingo! On top of that, if the parents decided to live there, they would eventually qualify for citizenship. Which means their kids would qualify along with them.

Look at the list alienchild posted. The only two first world countries I saw there was Canada and the US. Or is the rest of the developed world anti-immigration too? Something those against such reform make it out to be, which is dead wrong.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Booyah

[peejay 327]

Bingo! On top of that, if the parents decided to live there, they would eventually qualify for citizenship. Which means their kids would qualify along with them.

Look at the list alienchild posted. The only two first world countries I saw there was Canada and the US. Or is the rest of the developed world anti-immigration too? Something those against such reform make it out to be, which is dead wrong.

The rest of the 1st world came to its senses long ago for obvious reasons too numerous to list in one post. True citizenship means a lot more than just being born on the other side of a river to get a ticket to taxpayer funded social services. I see it every day in Houston and it disgusts me to no end. It is so wrong on too many levels for just one post. It's a national disgrace. My mom's parents were legal immigrants and had way too much self respect and morals than to do what too many of these people are doing even though they came from humble circumstance. True immigration reform should be about stopping this outrage rather than institutionalizing it through yet another amnesty and doing business as usual. Where is the "change" that we heard so much about? Smells like the same old sh*t to me. Growing through the wrong kind of immigration is national suicide in my book.

[Ali G. 37]

To make matters worse, anchor-babies are even eligible to become president of the United States.

The other reason most other first world countries have outlawed citizenship by birth is because it's a slap in the face against every other immigrant that actually works towards legally migrating to a country and legitimately acquiring citizenship.

[Scott & Lai 12]

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

That phrase has been essentially ignored and rendered meaningless by Congress and the Courts.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Scott & Lai