The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007

[almaty 19]

much ado about nothing...typical poitical bullsh!t....it will not get enough votes in the house much less senate..

this has been the law in the constitution, since this country began...and to change it..is nothing but a knee jerk reaction to failed policies of this country

ie, political grandstanding.

move along folks. nothing new here.

Daniel

:energetic:

It's an issue the illegal alien cheerleading squad wishes would go away.

The fact is that the illegal alien cheerleaders use it as their "anchor baby" agenda to push the notion that immigration laws don't apply to illegal aliens as long as they can give birth on US soil. To say this isn't so is an outright deception to put it mildly.

In a modern welfare state that borders a Third World country...this is total insanity. People are beginning to wake up. It is a huge magnet and incentive for illegal aliens to break the law. And they do by the hundreds of thousands!

A vast majority of mature First World countries have done away with the archaic notion of automatic birthright citizenship for illegal aliens long ago for obvious reasons. Isn't it about time that the USA moves into the 21st Century and faces modern realities without bleeding heart notions that are not in the best interests of America and the vast majority of Americans?

I say YES!

and the anti-immigrant xenophopbic crowd latches onto another one liner solution to a complex problems.

Fortunately, the majority of thinking americans can see through this and continue to look for a better solution.

...

proud american with no fear,

Daniel

:energetic:

well stated daniel-san

Edited August 30, 2007 by almaty

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

third world/anchor babies. spit and blather of xenophobes. calling like it is.

you and your brethen have an opinion. good. now try changing the constitution. good luck.

Daniel

:energetic:

Stop calling me a xenophobe! Your insults just show how weak your argument is. Calling someone a xenophobe who has a wife from another country on a immigration board is the hight of stupidity. The constitution doesn't need to be changed. We have seen time and again that all it takes is the supreme court to "interpret" the constitution in a different way. God willing that is something that will happen.

care to volunteer a description then? I don't know you, or any other person on this board, so any 'name-calling' really can't be applied with direct knowledge. So maybe are not a xenophobe. And maybe I made a mistake in using your quote to reply to. But a lot of posts from the 'anti-illegal-immigrant' crowd use phrases and logic that cross the line into xenophobic territory. To these fearmongers I will stand up to.

The problem is far more complex than they will have us believe. Their solutions are knee jerk reactions. Cooler heads will need to prevail to come to a solution that will work and reflect our values.

Daniel

:energetic:

[almaty 19]

for those who wrap themselves in the law,...re..illegals,,

well, it is the LAW...that if you are born here..you are an American period..it will not change anytime soon ..and should not be changed over..the US failed policy on this matter...enforce the laws first..and quit cutting business a break.

[GaryC 7]

much ado about nothing...typical poitical bullsh!t....it will not get enough votes in the house much less senate..

this has been the law in the constitution, since this country began...and to change it..is nothing but a knee jerk reaction to failed policies of this country

ie, political grandstanding.

move along folks. nothing new here.

Daniel

:energetic:

It's an issue the illegal alien cheerleading squad wishes would go away.

The fact is that the illegal alien cheerleaders use it as their "anchor baby" agenda to push the notion that immigration laws don't apply to illegal aliens as long as they can give birth on US soil. To say this isn't so is an outright deception to put it mildly.

In a modern welfare state that borders a Third World country...this is total insanity. People are beginning to wake up. It is a huge magnet and incentive for illegal aliens to break the law. And they do by the hundreds of thousands!

A vast majority of mature First World countries have done away with the archaic notion of automatic birthright citizenship for illegal aliens long ago for obvious reasons. Isn't it about time that the USA moves into the 21st Century and faces modern realities without bleeding heart notions that are not in the best interests of America and the vast majority of Americans?

I say YES!

and the anti-immigrant xenophopbic crowd latches onto another one liner solution to a complex problems.

Fortunately, the majority of thinking americans can see through this and continue to look for a better solution.

...

proud american with no fear,

Daniel

:energetic:

well stated daniel-san

Poorly stated brother Almaty. Calling someone a xenophobe here makes no sense. On this point you are not right thinking.

[thetreble 19]

There you go again! I am not anti-immigrant, just anti-illegal immigrant. Thats a label that your side uses to try to demonize those that want the law respected.

But the law IS being respected according to the constitution. The constitution is the constitution and the 14th amendment is the...you get the picture. I don't understand what you are getting at by this statement. No one is breaking the law currently by giving babies born in the US citizenship.

[Cantankerous 0]

much ado about nothing...typical poitical bullsh!t....it will not get enough votes in the house much less senate..

this has been the law in the constitution, since this country began...and to change it..is nothing but a knee jerk reaction to failed policies of this country

The 14th was designed to ensure that all former slaves were granted automatic United States citizenship, and that they would have all the rights and privileges as any other citizen. The amendment passed Congress on June 13, 1866, and was ratified on July 9, 1868.

I think most every other Country in the World requires that at least one parent be a Citizen in order for the Child to become a Citizen. There have been 27 Amendments to the Constitution; if enough States want a change there will be a change.

Edited August 30, 2007 by Tim&Lana

[Fandango 1,440]

'cheerleader' is a bit different from 'racist xenophobe who's anti-immigrant'

esp on this type of mb...come on now!

[thetreble 19]

It all depends on whether or not it falls off their radar or not. Often times these things come up like wildfire but quickly go away. We will have to wait and see.

[Jenn! 918]

'cheerleader' is a bit different from 'racist xenophobe who's anti-immigrant'

esp on this type of mb...come on now!

It's still just plain incorrect. Maybe if people don't like being lumped in with the most extreme on their side, then they should not do it to others.

Edited August 30, 2007 by jenn3539

[GaryC 7]

third world/anchor babies. spit and blather of xenophobes. calling like it is.

you and your brethen have an opinion. good. now try changing the constitution. good luck.

Daniel

:energetic:

Stop calling me a xenophobe! Your insults just show how weak your argument is. Calling someone a xenophobe who has a wife from another country on a immigration board is the hight of stupidity. The constitution doesn't need to be changed. We have seen time and again that all it takes is the supreme court to "interpret" the constitution in a different way. God willing that is something that will happen.

care to volunteer a description then? I don't know you, or any other person on this board, so any 'name-calling' really can't be applied with direct knowledge. So maybe are not a xenophobe. And maybe I made a mistake in using your quote to reply to. But a lot of posts from the 'anti-illegal-immigrant' crowd use phrases and logic that cross the line into xenophobic territory. To these fearmongers I will stand up to.

The problem is far more complex than they will have us believe. Their solutions are knee jerk reactions. Cooler heads will need to prevail to come to a solution that will work and reflect our values.

Daniel

:energetic:

It's a question of right and wrong. Those that choose to come here contrary to our laws and then expect to share in the benefits of those that are here by right and law really pizz off some of us. I am totally pro immigration, legal immigration. But those that gatecrash and expect anything from this country are wrong and will always be wrong. To claim the most precious right of all, citizenship, due to illegal actions is the worst affront of all. It isn't the fault of the babies of course but of the parents. But to give any ground on this point only compounds the problem as we have seen. Some laws are black and white. This is one of them. Illegals should not have any rights whatsoever and that includes the rights of an anchor baby to be a citizen.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

much ado about nothing...typical poitical bullsh!t....it will not get enough votes in the house much less senate..

this has been the law in the constitution, since this country began...and to change it..is nothing but a knee jerk reaction to failed policies of this country

The 14th was designed to ensure that all former slaves were granted automatic United States citizenship, and that they would have all the rights and privileges as any other citizen. The amendment passed Congress on June 13, 1866, and was ratified on July 9, 1868.

I think most every other Country in the World requires that at least one parent be a Citizen in order for the Child to become a Citizen. There have been 27 Amendments to the Constitution; if enough States want a change there will be a change.

fyi 14th:

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

not sure what will be open to "interpretation". you will have to change the constitution. tough row to hoe. but hey, this is america and you have the right to try to do so!

Daniel

:energetic:

Edited August 30, 2007 by AnaAndDaniel

[Caladan 19]

The anchor baby hand-wringing is really dumb. Look, the activist woman LOST her case. It's well known that having an American baby doesn't preclude the parents form being deported. Having a kid here does not mean you get to stay.

So what can the anchor baby do.....Which means your Mexican anchor baby born today, let's see. 21 years before she's able to petition for legal residence for her parents... a quick look at the website a couple days ago told me parents' petitions from Mexico had a backlog back to 1991 iirc.... so, let's assume that continues, so 21 years for a baby born today, 16 years for the petition, plus a year for waiver for EWI.....

About 38 years? That's the huge incentive? More so than the economic opportunities?

You could get rid of birthright citizenship tomorrow and it would not change a damned thing about illegal immigration. Except now there'd be NO reason to bother integrating with whole generations of people being practically stateless.

It's nice political sabre-rattling, preserve America against the hordes coming here, but to see it as a solution is to really misunderstand the problem.

Could-a-fooled me! The anchor baby cheerleaders are still trying to weasel her back to the USA with an ambassadorship and plenty of sabre rattling by the Mexican government.

Stateless? How about the nationality of their parents?

Do you think a baby born to American parents at a hospital in Saudi Arabia is a Saudi citizen? I'll give you three guesses and the first three don't count.

The anchor baby sabre rattling LOST her case. People are deported every day who have kids here. This is a trumped up problem that doesn't have anything to do with illegal immigration especially as it would affect legal visa holders, too. It plays on the group of people who don't know anything about immigration and think that having a baby here gives the parents rights. It doesn't any more than getting married makes your spouse a citizen.

As to the statelessness...Skip ahead a generation. Deporting isn't likely to catch anyone barring increased enforcement. Babies born to anchor babies... they don't have American citizenship because their parents aren't legal. They don't have Mexican citizenship because their parents don't have the residency requirement. (The U.S. has this, too. If I move to Canada, have a baby, the baby's American, but baby's kids aren't unless the parents complete a residency requirement.)

Where do you deport someone, if they have no country?

I think the U.S. has done pretty well with its birthright citizenship so far. Leaders of the free world and all that. I'd be willing to bet it wouldn't do much to stop illegal work, especially since a lot don't want to stay. C. has a couple Mexican buddies who tell him that the $2000 they make in a month assisting on an oil rig is like $20,000 a month back home. There's your incentive. (These buddies are probably legal, but they're not long-term residents in any case.)

[Fandango 1,440]

'cheerleader' is a bit different from 'racist xenophobe who's anti-immigrant'

esp on this type of mb...come on now!

It's still just plain incorrect. Maybe if people don't like being lumped in with the most extreme on their side, then they should not do it to others.

not to get too technical, but a cheerleader is a supporter, yes?

HOWEVER that's not even the point.

Gary wasn't the one to call anyone a cheerleader....neither did I........and the two of us are taking umbrage with the label. Who exactly is this 'they' you speak of?

'you all did it first' really shouldn't be a plausible excuse.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

'cheerleader' is a bit different from 'racist xenophobe who's anti-immigrant'

esp on this type of mb...come on now!

It's still just plain incorrect. Maybe if people don't like being lumped in with the most extreme on their side, then they should not do it to others.

not to get too technical, but a cheerleader is a supporter, yes?

HOWEVER that's not even the point.

Gary wasn't the one to call anyone a cheerleader....neither did I........and the two of us are taking umbrage with the label. Who exactly is this 'they' you speak of?

'you all did it first' really shouldn't be a plausible excuse.

read my response to Gary for the explanation.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Jenn! 918]

'cheerleader' is a bit different from 'racist xenophobe who's anti-immigrant'

esp on this type of mb...come on now!

It's still just plain incorrect. Maybe if people don't like being lumped in with the most extreme on their side, then they should not do it to others.

not to get too technical, but a cheerleader is a supporter, yes?

HOWEVER that's not even the point.

Gary wasn't the one to call anyone a cheerleader....neither did I........and the two of us are taking umbrage with the label. Who exactly is this 'they' you speak of?

'you all did it first' really shouldn't be a plausible excuse.

Ok, whatever, Lisa. you're right, I don't want to get into it with you.

It all seems awfully hypocritical to me. But then again, most people here can dish it out but can't take it.