House Passes Bill To Avoid Government Shutdown

[yuna628 9,712]

So anyone who has children with their foreign wives on this forum have anchor babies then? You're going to have a hard time getting rid of the 14th and not open up that can o' worms

Edited January 22, 2018 by yuna628

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

32 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

So anyone who has children with their foreign wives on this forum have anchor babies then? You're going to have a hard time getting rid of the 14th and not open up that can o' worms

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

2 hours ago, Merrytooth said:

USA should build a underground tunnel for the illegal immigrants all the way to Canada instead 

Haha.. the only thing is that most illegal immagration is actually visa overstays. 

 

So we would have to build various satellites tunnels for these illegal 👽. 

Or maybe we should be building space ships that run on poutine and maple syrup. 🤔🤔🤔

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

So anyone who has children with their foreign wives on this forum have anchor babies then? You're going to have a hard time getting rid of the 14th and not open up that can o' worms

My wife and I spoke about this a little  bit because she was wondering about the whole birth right citizenship issue. She did not know that ANYONE born in the USA was automatically a US citizen because of where they are born. She was wondering why that was because the majority of other countries don't do that at all. 

 

She had an idea of ending the 14th amendment but still leaving that rule somewhat in tact. Basically anyone born in the USA with at least 1 parent as a USC should be given citizenship at birth. Just like how CRBA's are given out to children born overseas to a USC parent. It would have to start on the day the law passes and not be retroactive.

 

If neither parent is a citizen then the child would a national of the parents resprotrective country. Just like how it is done in the majority of the rest of the world.

 

Tell me does that make some kind of sense or what?

Edited January 22, 2018 by cyberfx1024

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

4 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

If it aint you, what makes you think I am talking about you ? 

Often times, a guilty conscience speaks for itself.  That may not be the case here though.

[smilesammich 10,727]

1 minute ago, IDWAF said:

Often times, a guilty conscience speaks for itself.  That may not be the case here though.

there's no guilt. i'm the only one that has ever said anything about open borders (besides the constant "oh you disagree with me so then you want open borders' accusations)

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, Ebunoluwa said:

The 'fix borders first' is a silly tactic used politically with promises of THEN after the border fix we will figure out what to do with DACA recipients. Yeah right !
Miller would be chomping at the bits to play dirty with that one.
I am sure congress is capable of multitasking and doing both at the same time.
If not then get more women in there who can. Others have to multitask in their jobs too. 
 

Sadly I'm not so sure Congress is that good at single-tasking, let alone multi-tasking.

[bcking 3,157]

18 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

My wife and I spoke about this a little  bit because she was wondering about the whole birth right citizenship issue. She did not know that ANYONE born in the USA was automatically a US citizen because of where they are born. She was wondering why that was because the majority of other countries don't do that at all. 

 

She had an idea of ending the 14th amendment but still leaving that rule somewhat in tact. Basically anyone born in the USA with at least 1 parent as a USC should be given citizenship at birth. Just like how CRBA's are given out to children born overseas to a USC parent. It would have to start on the day the law passes and not be retroactive.

 

If neither parent is a citizen then the child would a national of the parents resprotrective country. Just like how it is done in the majority of the rest of the world.

 

Tell me does that make some kind of sense or what?

As long as it would be a prospective change, I would go for that in some form. As a compromise - What about if at least one parent is a legal permanent resident, but doesn't have to be an actual USC yet? If someone is permanently allowed to live here legally, I feel like their children should be able to be born as naturalized citizens.

 

I tend to be more in the middle when it comes to immigration issues though, so I imagine maybe "left-leaning" people may not agree.

Edited January 22, 2018 by bcking

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

33 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

My wife and I spoke about this a little  bit because she was wondering about the whole birth right citizenship issue. She did not know that ANYONE born in the USA was automatically a US citizen because of where they are born. She was wondering why that was because the majority of other countries don't do that at all. 

 

She had an idea of ending the 14th amendment but still leaving that rule somewhat in tact. Basically anyone born in the USA with at least 1 parent as a USC should be given citizenship at birth. Just like how CRBA's are given out to children born overseas to a USC parent. It would have to start on the day the law passes and not be retroactive.

 

If neither parent is a citizen then the child would a national of the parents resprotrective country. Just like how it is done in the majority of the rest of the world.

 

Tell me does that make some kind of sense or what?

No need to change the constitution. Its a living breathing document. Our forefathers could have never envisioned this. Its all open to interpretation.   

[bcking 3,157]

5 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

No need to change the constitution. Its a living breathing document. Our forefathers could have never envisioned this. Its all open to interpretation.   

It would need a new amendment though...since the 14th has already been interpreted to mean that birth on US soil grants citizenship regardless of your parent's status.

[Merrytooth 5,748]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

So anyone who has children with their foreign wives on this forum have anchor babies then? You're going to have a hard time getting rid of the 14th and not open up that can o' worms

Yawn...

 

Anchor babies refer to those have non-USC/permanent US resident parents 

 

This Jus Solis is already a can of worms which people abusing it to their advantages.

 

How many of these foreigners actually paid for their child birth in USA? 

 

http://beta.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-birth-tourism-persists-20161220-story.html

 

https://www.voanews.com/a/foreigners-seeking-american-citizenship-children-flout-law-endanger-babies/3626080.html

 

 

[charmander 692]

29 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

My wife and I spoke about this a little  bit because she was wondering about the whole birth right citizenship issue. She did not know that ANYONE born in the USA was automatically a US citizen because of where they are born. She was wondering why that was because the majority of other countries don't do that at all.

14th amendment was adopted in 1868. When you think about that era, there weren't many non-immigrant students, workers, or tourists who came here temporarily. It was just immigrants. People jumped on boats, came to US for a better life and to become Americans, most of them never had to chance or intention to go back to their home countries again. Hence in my opinion it made sense to have birth right citizenship by then.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[yuna628 9,712]

13 minutes ago, Merrytooth said:

Yawn...

 

Anchor babies refer to those have non-USC/permanent US resident parents 

 

This Jus Solis is already a can of worms which people abusing it to their advantages.

 

How many of these foreigners actually paid for their child birth in USA? 

 

http://beta.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-birth-tourism-persists-20161220-story.html

 

https://www.voanews.com/a/foreigners-seeking-american-citizenship-children-flout-law-endanger-babies/3626080.html

 

 

Oh I know what it means. But the 14th is clear.

There are many who would like to trash it, and strip the rights of those in this forum who have had children with their foreign spouses too. There are really horrible people in this country that view your kids as ''less than'' in their eyes and apply to the term to everyone broadly.

 

56 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

My wife and I spoke about this a little  bit because she was wondering about the whole birth right citizenship issue. She did not know that ANYONE born in the USA was automatically a US citizen because of where they are born. She was wondering why that was because the majority of other countries don't do that at all. 

 

She had an idea of ending the 14th amendment but still leaving that rule somewhat in tact. Basically anyone born in the USA with at least 1 parent as a USC should be given citizenship at birth. Just like how CRBA's are given out to children born overseas to a USC parent. It would have to start on the day the law passes and not be retroactive.

 

If neither parent is a citizen then the child would a national of the parents resprotrective country. Just like how it is done in the majority of the rest of the world.

 

Tell me does that make some kind of sense or what?

Well you know how the process works for ending or changing amendments and I have a feeling it's not going to happen. I certainly understand the abuses of the system, but I remain uncomfortable at the slippery slope this takes us down. I am not in favor of stripping rights once it has been given very clearly (and I believe it was understood plainly what it meant). There are a few scenarios where changes like that would make the citizenship question very complex. Just as there are many who would like the 2nd to go, I wouldn't be in favor of that either.

 

What about naturalized citizens that give birth or have given birth inside the US before they became naturalized? Just as mentioned above there are individuals that still treat 'naturalized citizens' as less than.

Edited January 22, 2018 by yuna628

[Merrytooth 5,748]

7 minutes ago, charmander said:

14th amendment was adopted in 1868. When you think about that era, there weren't many non-immigrant students, workers, or tourists who came here temporarily. It was just immigrants. People jumped on boats, came to US for a better life and to become Americans, most of them never had to chance or intention to go back to their home countries again. Hence in my opinion it made sense to have birth right citizenship by then.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So the laws or whatever amendment should be updated accordingly to the current needs.

 

[Ban Hammer 13,548]

wow this is a long thread.

 

an observation for all - never date a tennis player - because love means nothing to them.