Citizenship From Birth

[Heracles 417]

Outstanding post! Thanks, Ron, for sharing your personal experience with this issue as well as provide a needed perspective.

Man you stepped in it this time..

Anecdotal situations can be made to justify just about anything. Taking away the Birthright Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment makes absolutely no sense, ethically or policy wise. It's part of what makes America, America.

Comparing health care of different countries to the U.S. health care system is not anecdotal. Describing to you what my cousin's experience with a doctor in Canada vs. the U.S. is anecdotal. Hopefully, you understand the difference.

Anecdotal Evidence

If you discount evidence arrived at by systematic search or by testing in favor of a few firsthand stories, you are committing the fallacy of overemphasizing anecdotal evidence. Example:

Yeah, I’ve read the health warnings on those cigarette packs and I know about all that health research, but my brother smokes, and he says he’s never been sick a day in his life, so I know smoking can’t really hurt you.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Heracles

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That one word makes a world of difference to a lot of people. Your parents did things the proper way - the legal way.

The current interpretation of the 14th Amendment is being systematically abused and taken advantage of by illegal immigrants, who have not done things the legal way, yet are gaining benefit for themselves and their family.

In a country that prides itself, rightly or wrongly, on fairness and justice, this wholesale abuse of the law, both by the immigrants and those the American people elected to uphold and enforce the laws, both Democrat and Republican, has created the reaction seen in public opinion today. Soon, that reaction could be strong enough to make a difference.

The same argument was made by the opponents of the Birthright Citizenship Clause before it was ratified. I've posted several references to what was said by the likes a Sen. Cowen, who back then, worried that with ratifying the clause, millions of Mongols (Chinese) would bear children that would have citizenship, even the ones who were "trespassers." It's shocking to see this same kind of intolerance being expressed today.

[Atencio 43]

That one word makes a world of difference to a lot of people. Your parents did things the proper way - the legal way.

The current interpretation of the 14th Amendment is being systematically abused and taken advantage of by illegal immigrants, who have not done things the legal way, yet are gaining benefit for themselves and their family.

In a country that prides itself, rightly or wrongly, on fairness and justice, this wholesale abuse of the law, both by the immigrants and those the American people elected to uphold and enforce the laws, both Democrat and Republican, has created the reaction seen in public opinion today. Soon, that reaction could be strong enough to make a difference.

Yes this country prides itself on fairness. Is it the fault of the child born here that he is denied citizenship because of his parents legal status? The Supreme Court doesn't think so. If scandals parents were not legal residents or citizens in many of the countries mentioned in this post he still would not have been given citizenship despite being in the country legally.

I would consider changing the law if the borders were secured and illegals were deported.

Because if not what would all this talk on citizenship do? Keep people like scandal from becoming a citizen? Maybe Marine Lance Cpl. Jose Gutierrez, an illegal alien would still be alive if he had not served this country in Iraq. I quite frankly would rather have him here in the U.S. than some pompous #### who spends all day talking about what a craphole the U.S. is and how it should be like the rest of the world. But I digress. Until you can prevent illegal immigration and have a mechanism in place to get rid of illegal aliens here then denying citizenship to children born here just increases the population of second class citizens. Because, lets be honest. Unless the border is secure the kids will be born here and stay here. They will get medicaid, they will go to school. You are going to be paying for them whether you want to or not. I would rather have them as citizens if that is the case.

[Pooky 3,809]

The same argument was made by the opponents of the Birthright Citizenship Clause before it was ratified. I've posted several references to what was said by the likes a Sen. Cowen, who back then, worried that with ratifying the clause, millions of Mongols (Chinese) would bear children that would have citizenship, even the ones who were "trespassers." It's shocking to see this same kind of intolerance being expressed today.

And the framers of the 14th Amendment never intended it to apply to citizens of foreign nations, but that, again, has been gone over many times and people will still disagree.

I'll see your intolerance and raise you justice.

To gain advantage from an illegal act is wrong. Yes, or no?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

And the framers of the 14th Amendment never intended it to apply to citizens of foreign nations, but that, again, has been gone over many times and people will still disagree.

I'll see your intolerance and raise you justice.

To gain advantage from an illegal act is wrong. Yes, or no?

The bastardization of the constitution is tolerance to some.

[slim 1,530]

The bastardization of the constitution is tolerance to some.

By "some" do you really mean "democrats?"

[Heracles 417]

The same argument was made by the opponents of the Birthright Citizenship Clause before it was ratified. I've posted several references to what was said by the likes a Sen. Cowen, who back then, worried that with ratifying the clause, millions of Mongols (Chinese) would bear children that would have citizenship, even the ones who were "trespassers." It's shocking to see this same kind of intolerance being expressed today.

I think Big Dog summed it up best. You are doing to this argument what those against health care did to it, by bring up an option like NHS, that was never on the table. After all, they swore up and down that the reform would become NHS.

Your statements on here clearly insinuate that the rest of the first world is basically wrong and backwards, yet an antiquated citizenship policy that is used by second and third world countries, is the right approach.

Of course, when one of your like-minded mates comes on here, you forget anecdotal accusations you posted earlier on; rather, give him a round of applause. At least Big Dog's example was not personal, thus no hidden bias, and was directly related to the discussion. In contrast, Scandal pretty-much stated that the current legislation is a good thing, basically because it benefited him and his Brazilian kids.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Heracles

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

By "some" do you really mean "democrats?"

[Atencio 43]

So you're proud of a country that let you abuse its system?

In all honesty, you are not a citizen by means of the 14th amendment.

And yet the Supreme Court says he is.

You parents proved that they had no allegiance to the United States. You were the exact target of the authors of the 14th amendment and who they did not want to be a citizen.

Oh really. The Dred Scott case stated that allegiance and citizenship spring from the place of birth. The 14th Amendment specially written because of the Dred Scott case as was argued in the 1866 debates that allegiance is not inconsistent with birthright citizenship because a person owes his allegiance to the country of his birth and that country owes him protection. The focus of the 14th amendment is not on the parents birth place but the child's. The citizenship clause states,

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 14th amendment has been bastardized by those with an agenda and who are illiterate in understand original intent.

The Supreme Court is illiterate.. Hmm ok.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Atencio

[Heracles 417]

Are you guys for real? Regardless of what the 14th amendment says, it has outlived its time and is now being exploited. What sort of geniuses decide on things ruled once upon a time ago, in a totally different era and circumstances.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Heracles

[Atencio 43]

And the framers of the 14th Amendment never intended it to apply to citizens of foreign nations, but that, again, has been gone over many times and people will still disagree.

The 14th amendment applies to the children not the parents.

[Pooky 3,809]

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.

When you quote the clause, include the accompanying clarifications, from where controversy over interpretation stems. What you would like to make seem cut and dried by your simple quote, is anything but when taken in context.

[Atencio 43]

Are you guys for real? Regardless of what the 14th amendment says, it has outlived its time and is now being exploited.

As I said Hercules, get rid of the all the illegal aliens and secure the border, then changing this law makes sense I suppose. Otherwise it is just feel good talk and does nothing to correct the real problem....a porous border

[Heracles 417]

When you quote the clause, include the accompanying clarifications, from where controversy over interpretation stems. What you would like to make seem cut and dried by your simple quote, is anything but when taken in context.

Few grasp context here, or the reality that you couldn't just get on a plane and travel to the US from any part of the world. Or the fact that when the legislation was drafted, less than 38 million lived in the US.

[Atencio 43]

When you quote the clause, include the accompanying clarifications, from where controversy over interpretation stems. What you would like to make seem cut and dried by your simple quote, is anything but when taken in context.

You know the interpretation I gave is the opinion of the Supreme Court. Don't shoot the messenger. And how pray tell is it out of context? Please elaborate so I can assess if I am wrong.