The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007

[natty bumppo 297]

better leave today ... after all the country is ... let me get this right .... "literally falling apart"

You obviously have not traveled outside America or south America for that matter to other developed nations..

:lol: :lol: As bugs bunny would say ... "what a _____ "

I won't waste my time listing the various developed and developing countries I've visited. Hint ... I work in industrial automation and have spent the past 17 years working for company's with global customer bases ... and I live in Houston.

So to use your word ... you "obviously" made an accusation that is impossible for you to support.

Edited August 31, 2007 by Natty Bumppo

[GaryC 7]

What have I argued for thats not constitutional? Anchor babies are constitutional, and will remain so, unless congress and the states change the constitution.

So you don't care, what are you doing in this thread?

The difference is I do. I come from a country where our number 1 priority is still our country. Hence why I have been shocked to see so many people here who simply do not give a ###### about America. It is no longer about right or wrong. It is all about 'rights' and being constitutional and what someone can get for nothing.

The problem with that, is what you may consider not giving a ###### about the country, may be by others opinions just fine. So, more correctly, not enough people care about making the country the way you want it. Which would be correct.

The way I want it... Lol. It is like your telling me your Audi S6 is ####### and I prefer my F150 pickup truck..

No its like telling me I should drive an F150 because you want everyone to drive F150s and everyone who doesn't doesn't care about the country. (Substitute F150's for any recent political debate)

I can distill this whole debate down. One side thinks it's OK for people to break our laws and come into this country without proper documentation. They also resist any ideas that would impede those wanting to break our laws down to the very idea that we should reward said illegal actions with the granting of US citizenship to their offspring. Now the pro illegal side makes it's case that it's only "fair" that we treat these people with the same rights as citizens and people that came here legally. When called on their obvious mistaken judgment they retort calling anyone that does not hold their beliefs a racist, xenophobe or an anti-immigrant.

The other side just wants the laws enforced. They want people to respect the fact that we have laws governing who can come in and who cannot. They see the irony in the idea that someone that breaks our laws are being rewarded by giving their children our most precious gift, citizenship. All they want is our laws obeyed.

You tell me who is right and who is wrong. It's very clear to me.

[Dan J 277]

What have I argued for thats not constitutional? Anchor babies are constitutional, and will remain so, unless congress and the states change the constitution.

So you don't care, what are you doing in this thread?

The difference is I do. I come from a country where our number 1 priority is still our country. Hence why I have been shocked to see so many people here who simply do not give a ###### about America. It is no longer about right or wrong. It is all about 'rights' and being constitutional and what someone can get for nothing.

The problem with that, is what you may consider not giving a ###### about the country, may be by others opinions just fine. So, more correctly, not enough people care about making the country the way you want it. Which would be correct.

The way I want it... Lol. It is like your telling me your Audi S6 is ####### and I prefer my F150 pickup truck..

No its like telling me I should drive an F150 because you want everyone to drive F150s and everyone who doesn't doesn't care about the country. (Substitute F150's for any recent political debate)

I can distill this whole debate down. One side thinks it's OK for people to break our laws and come into this country without proper documentation. They also resist any ideas that would impede those wanting to break our laws down to the very idea that we should reward said illegal actions with the granting of US citizenship to their offspring. Now the pro illegal side makes it's case that it's only "fair" that we treat these people with the same rights as citizens and people that came here legally. When called on their obvious mistaken judgment they retort calling anyone that does not hold their beliefs a racist, xenophobe or an anti-immigrant.

The other side just wants the laws enforced. They want people to respect the fact that we have laws governing who can come in and who cannot. They see the irony in the idea that someone that breaks our laws are being rewarded by giving their children our most precious gift, citizenship. All they want is our laws obeyed.

You tell me who is right and who is wrong. It's very clear to me.

If you just want laws to be enforced, the anchor babies are legal, constitutionally protected. So why are you arguing to change the law? You said it yourself you just want them to be enforced. If all you want is enforcment, then write to your lawmakers and get them to double or triple the budget or whatever it takes of the ICE, so enforcment can actually happens. This citizenship debate will not change the enforcment issue one bit.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

What have I argued for thats not constitutional? Anchor babies are constitutional, and will remain so, unless congress and the states change the constitution.

So you don't care, what are you doing in this thread?

The difference is I do. I come from a country where our number 1 priority is still our country. Hence why I have been shocked to see so many people here who simply do not give a ###### about America. It is no longer about right or wrong. It is all about 'rights' and being constitutional and what someone can get for nothing.

The problem with that, is what you may consider not giving a ###### about the country, may be by others opinions just fine. So, more correctly, not enough people care about making the country the way you want it. Which would be correct.

The way I want it... Lol. It is like your telling me your Audi S6 is ####### and I prefer my F150 pickup truck..

No its like telling me I should drive an F150 because you want everyone to drive F150s and everyone who doesn't doesn't care about the country. (Substitute F150's for any recent political debate)

I can distill this whole debate down. One side thinks it's OK for people to break our laws and come into this country without proper documentation. They also resist any ideas that would impede those wanting to break our laws down to the very idea that we should reward said illegal actions with the granting of US citizenship to their offspring. Now the pro illegal side makes it's case that it's only "fair" that we treat these people with the same rights as citizens and people that came here legally. When called on their obvious mistaken judgment they retort calling anyone that does not hold their beliefs a racist, xenophobe or an anti-immigrant.

The other side just wants the laws enforced. They want people to respect the fact that we have laws governing who can come in and who cannot. They see the irony in the idea that someone that breaks our laws are being rewarded by giving their children our most precious gift, citizenship. All they want is our laws obeyed.

You tell me who is right and who is wrong. It's very clear to me.

If you just want laws to be enforced, the anchor babies are legal, constitutionally protected. So why are you arguing to change the law? You said it yourself you just want them to be enforced. If all you want is enforcment, then write to your lawmakers and get them to double or triple the budget or whatever it takes of the ICE, so enforcment can actually happens. This citizenship debate will not change the enforcment issue one bit.

perfectly stated.

Their logic is convoluted. Change the constitution! Enforce the law! emmm the constitution is the law buddy!

oh well, as stated earlier.... nothing new here folks! move along now.

Daniel

:energetic:

[GaryC 7]

perfectly stated.

Their logic is convoluted. Change the constitution! Enforce the law! emmm the constitution is the law buddy!

oh well, as stated earlier.... nothing new here folks! move along now.

Daniel

:energetic:

Giving illegals children citizenship was wrong from the beginning. The 14th amendment was never meant to do that. Fixing that is an important thing to do. The only convoluted logic is yours.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

perfectly stated.

Their logic is convoluted. Change the constitution! Enforce the law! emmm the constitution is the law buddy!

oh well, as stated earlier.... nothing new here folks! move along now.

Daniel

:energetic:

Giving illegals children citizenship was wrong from the beginning. The 14th amendment was never meant to do that. Fixing that is an important thing to do. The only convoluted logic is yours.

my logic is in agreement with the constitution of this great country. and the court system has validated it. 2-0. my favor. you, are on the other side. spin it whatever you wish. bottom line, you are still on the other side.

Daniel

:energetic:

[GaryC 7]

perfectly stated.

Their logic is convoluted. Change the constitution! Enforce the law! emmm the constitution is the law buddy!

oh well, as stated earlier.... nothing new here folks! move along now.

Daniel

:energetic:

Giving illegals children citizenship was wrong from the beginning. The 14th amendment was never meant to do that. Fixing that is an important thing to do. The only convoluted logic is yours.

my logic is in agreement with the constitution of this great country. and the court system has validated it. 2-0. my favor. you, are on the other side. spin it whatever you wish. bottom line, you are still on the other side.

Daniel

:energetic:

Not for long! Congress will right this wrong. Wrong is wrong no matter how you spin it. It is starting already. Laws that were thought to be written in stone are now being questioned. Soon you will be on the "other side". BTW, I called the congressional desk and voiced my support for the bill in the OP.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

perfectly stated.

Their logic is convoluted. Change the constitution! Enforce the law! emmm the constitution is the law buddy!

oh well, as stated earlier.... nothing new here folks! move along now.

Daniel

:energetic:

Giving illegals children citizenship was wrong from the beginning. The 14th amendment was never meant to do that. Fixing that is an important thing to do. The only convoluted logic is yours.

my logic is in agreement with the constitution of this great country. and the court system has validated it. 2-0. my favor. you, are on the other side. spin it whatever you wish. bottom line, you are still on the other side.

Daniel

:energetic:

Not for long! Congress will right this wrong. Wrong is wrong no matter how you spin it. It is starting already. Laws that were thought to be written in stone are now being questioned. Soon you will be on the "other side". BTW, I called the congressional desk and voiced my support for the bill in the OP.

that is cool Gary. I am sure there are a number of supporter out there. Just for discussions sake, lets say it passes in the house. do you think it will pass in the Senate? Or W sign it?

Daniel

:energetic:

[Dr_LHA 3]

Giving illegals children citizenship was wrong from the beginning. The 14th amendment was never meant to do that. Fixing that is an important thing to do. The only convoluted logic is yours.

What? The 14th Amendment text is pretty clear. Its not like its being interpreted in such a way that allows illegal's children to get citizenship through a "loophole", it is plain: You're born here, you're a USC.

Your interpretation of what the 14th Amendment means is your own. As you're not a constitutional scholar I would guess that you're basing that on your own hatred of illegals rather than what the original drafters of the 14th amendment might have meant.

The facts are these: People born in the US are guaranteed citizenship by the constitution. This is a good thing, people born USCs tend to integrate into US society. I know plenty of hispanic people who are 2nd and 3rd generation, they speak perfect English with American accents. Sure they have a hispanic heritage, but they are Americans, as much as someone who would describe themselves as "Irish" and is born here is American.

Once you take away the 14th amendment you're going to end up with a subculture of generational illegal aliens in this country. People born into a country by no fault of their own that doesn't want them. If you want to enforce the law, the starting with the constitution is a good one. The people who wrote it and amended it were not idiots, they understood the ramifications of what they wrote. After all people have been pissing and moaning about immigrants since this country was founded, be it the damn Italians, the damn Irish or the damn Mexicans.

I'm anti-illegal immigrant, but changing the 14th amendment will do nothing to curb illegal immigration. As someone earlier pointed out, this is all to do with the percieved problem of "anchor babies" where the US population who is ignorant of how immigration works believe that having a child here guarantees citizenship.

[GaryC 7]

Giving illegals children citizenship was wrong from the beginning. The 14th amendment was never meant to do that. Fixing that is an important thing to do. The only convoluted logic is yours.

What? The 14th Amendment text is pretty clear. Its not like its being interpreted in such a way that allows illegal's children to get citizenship through a "loophole", it is plain: You're born here, you're a USC.

Your interpretation of what the 14th Amendment means is your own. As you're not a constitutional scholar I would guess that you're basing that on your own hatred of illegals rather than what the original drafters of the 14th amendment might have meant.

The facts are these: People born in the US are guaranteed citizenship by the constitution. This is a good thing, people born USCs tend to integrate into US society. I know plenty of hispanic people who are 2nd and 3rd generation, they speak perfect English with American accents. Sure they have a hispanic heritage, but they are Americans, as much as someone who would describe themselves as "Irish" and is born here is American.

Once you take away the 14th amendment you're going to end up with a subculture of generational illegal aliens in this country. People born into a country by no fault of their own that doesn't want them. If you want to enforce the law, the starting with the constitution is a good one. The people who wrote it and amended it were not idiots, they understood the ramifications of what they wrote. After all people have been pissing and moaning about immigrants since this country was founded, be it the damn Italians, the damn Irish or the damn Mexicans.

I'm anti-illegal immigrant, but changing the 14th amendment will do nothing to curb illegal immigration. As someone earlier pointed out, this is all to do with the percieved problem of "anchor babies" where the US population who is ignorant of how immigration works believe that having a child here guarantees citizenship.

The original writer of the 14th amendment disagrees with you. Here is a quote from him.

By itself, birth within the territorial limits of the United States, as the case of the Indians indicated, did not make one automatically “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. And “jurisdiction” did not mean simply subject to the laws of the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of its courts. Rather, “jurisdiction” meant exclusive “allegiance” to the United States. Not all who were subject to the laws owed allegiance to the United States. As Senator Howard remarked, the requirement of “jurisdiction,” understood in the sense of “allegiance,” “will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.”

http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/wm925.cfm

As you can see the original intent of the amendment has been altered. It should be put right.

[Heracles 417]

What have I argued for thats not constitutional? Anchor babies are constitutional, and will remain so, unless congress and the states change the constitution.

So you don't care, what are you doing in this thread?

The difference is I do. I come from a country where our number 1 priority is still our country. Hence why I have been shocked to see so many people here who simply do not give a ###### about America. It is no longer about right or wrong. It is all about 'rights' and being constitutional and what someone can get for nothing.

The problem with that, is what you may consider not giving a ###### about the country, may be by others opinions just fine. So, more correctly, not enough people care about making the country the way you want it. Which would be correct.

The way I want it... Lol. It is like your telling me your Audi S6 is ####### and I prefer my F150 pickup truck..

No its like telling me I should drive an F150 because you want everyone to drive F150s and everyone who doesn't doesn't care about the country. (Substitute F150's for any recent political debate)

Good one. Like that person in Minnesota who was saying bridges should not be falling in America. LOL Come to find out they had squandered money previously allocated for bridges there on other projects.

The current way of doing things is clearly not working. The rest of the world is tightening up their borders while some here are clearly advocating America just leave the borders open for anyone to walk in as they see fit.

There comes a point where you have to look at others who are doing it better and actually learn from them. Then again this attitude of whatever I know best is embedded deep in the culture of some here. Just look at all of the foreign companies that have taken on American companies and kicked ###. Honda, Toyota, Sharp, Samsung, Canon etc. Ever heard of Deming?

[Heracles 417]

So to use your word ... you "obviously" made an accusation that is impossible for you to support.

It is an assumption based on the comments. Obviously in a forum we know little about someone's background so all we can go on is what they say.

In terms of infrastructure, transportation, roads, buildings etc the US is behind. While I have never been to Houston I have seen many cities here which need a serious renovation as they are on par, aesthetically, with Baghdad. Hence an article in Time magazine I previously listed:

Global Investment in infrastructure is soaring, but not in the US. According to a new Report by the urban Land Institute, a think tank, the nation is falling behind in critical areas, like maintenance

Mass Transit: Few cities have good public transport, and higher fares can't pay all off the bills. Chicago needs $6 billion just for subway repairs.

Railways: Forget bullet trains. The US is decades behind global standards and will need $250 billion over 20 years to catch up.

Roads: Experts say 97% of roads need improvement. Meanwhile traffic jams in some big cities tripled over the past 25 years..

Edited August 31, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[mawilson 2,133]

Children born to us citizens abroad, don't automatically receive US citizenship, but they do have a right to it.

Nooooo.....they are NATURAL-BORN citizens, which means they are US citizens by birth.

No application for citizenship is necessary.

other than registering the birth with the us embassy.

Registration is proof of citizenship - same as a birth certificate for persons born in the US.

[mawilson 2,133]

The country is literally falling apart. Billions in debt. Does not know who the hell is here anymore yet some are still arguing that anyone should be allowed to have an anchor baby here..

better leave today ... after all the country is ... let me get this right .... "literally falling apart"

####### Boo. Your beloved Australia owes a lot more money than the U.S. relative to its GDP.

[mawilson 2,133]

in my husbands country and im sure alot others...if the father is syrian the child is syrian no matter what country he/she is born in. my step daughter was born in saudi arabia but her citizenship is syrian.

Not all countries do that, and some only pass citizenship through the father, if the relationship is legitimized. But generally it depends the countries involved, and the assignment of citizenship may not happen automatically (but only when certain conditions are met).

Dan + Gemvita,

Repeat the following ten times:

Children born abroad to U.S. citizens are natural-born U.S. citizens.