The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007

[Fandango 1,440]

If passed, the bill will require parents either to be U.S. citizens, or to be an alien who has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S., or an alien performing active service in the armed forces.

Oh, and this is just dumb. Hope no one ever gets stuck in name checks and has a kid while their AOS is pending. Not to mention the people that have kids while on F-1s, and the adjust to permanent residence through a job years later. Perfectly legal, perfectly contributing, but their kid can be deported.

Bad bad bad bad bad law.

Even if this were to pass, that child would be granted citizenship through the USC parent.

I think it'd be a GREAT thing. They don't call them 'ANCHOR BABIES' for nowt. Think about it.

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

Plyler v. Doe

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) did not explicitly address the question of so-called "anchor babies" born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents; the children dealt with in the case were born outside the U.S. and had entered the country illegally along with their parents.

However, the court's reasoning was significant because it ruled that illegal immigrants residing in a state are "within the jurisdiction" of that state. This implies that the U.S.-born children of such immigrants are "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]", and therefore qualify for birthright citizenship under the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This implication is made explicit in a footnote that states

no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful [3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_ci...ates_of_America

....

In case near sightedness was a problem for some here.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

If passed, the bill will require parents either to be U.S. citizens, or to be an alien who has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S., or an alien performing active service in the armed forces.

Oh, and this is just dumb. Hope no one ever gets stuck in name checks and has a kid while their AOS is pending. Not to mention the people that have kids while on F-1s, and the adjust to permanent residence through a job years later. Perfectly legal, perfectly contributing, but their kid can be deported.

Bad bad bad bad bad law.

Even if this were to pass, that child would be granted citizenship through the USC parent.

I think it'd be a GREAT thing. They don't call them 'ANCHOR BABIES' for nowt. Think about it.

exactly who calls them 'anchor babies'?

didn't do that one lady much good now did it? anchor. my foot. babies. yes. citizens. yes.

Daniel

:energetic:

[almaty 19]

thanks brother steven..and it will take a constitutional amendment to change the law..and it will never happen in my life time

[Ban Hammer 13,619]

you enter country X. country X's laws apply to you becasue you are under country X's jurisdiction. no? baby born in country X. country X's law says all persons born in country X are citizens of country X. erge, baby is country X citizen.

Daniel

:energetic:

legal - seems so.

ethical - nope!

[almaty 19]

you enter country X. country X's laws apply to you becasue you are under country X's jurisdiction. no? baby born in country X. country X's law says all persons born in country X are citizens of country X. erge, baby is country X citizen.

Daniel

:energetic:

legal - seems so.

ethical - nope!

allot of laws in american history have been unethical...

Edited August 30, 2007 by almaty

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

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.

Its stating all are afforded these things and cant be taken away "without due process"

After due process, then what?

[GaryC 7]

Maybe this will satisfy some of you. A child born in the USA by parents that are here illegally would be entitled to petition for citizenship upon their coming of age. It isn't granted automatically but would be given when the child is old enough to make that choice on his/her own. That would seem to be a reasonable compromise.

On a side note I just asked Luz what would happen in PI if an illegal person had a baby there. While she isn't a legal expert in her country she told me this: If a baby is born in PI to a parent that isn't there legally the parent would be deported without regard for the status of the baby. Since the baby is born there it would be a citizen of the Philippines and taken into state care. The parent would have to petition the courts to allow the baby to be removed from PI. The mother does not have the automatic right to leave with the baby.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

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.

Its stating all are afforded these things and cant be taken away "without due process"

After due process, then what?

Marc, you are correct. It does state that. Right after the part where it says all persons born here are citizens of here. The part you point out applies for instance, when an agent is trying to apply some law to you and must determine which process to use. Thus, first: where were you born? here? ok. citizen. aplly laws accordingly. = due process.

notice, parents' immigration status has no bearing.

Daniel

:energetic:

[GaryC 7]

thanks brother steven..and it will take a constitutional amendment to change the law..and it will never happen in my life time

As was pointed out before, the amendment was interpreted to include illegals and could be re-interpreted to exclude illegals. A new amendment is not needed. This sort of thing happens a lot.

[Caladan 19]

If passed, the bill will require parents either to be U.S. citizens, or to be an alien who has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S., or an alien performing active service in the armed forces.

Oh, and this is just dumb. Hope no one ever gets stuck in name checks and has a kid while their AOS is pending. Not to mention the people that have kids while on F-1s, and the adjust to permanent residence through a job years later. Perfectly legal, perfectly contributing, but their kid can be deported.

Bad bad bad bad bad law.

Even if this were to pass, that child would be granted citizenship through the USC parent.

I think it'd be a GREAT thing. They don't call them 'ANCHOR BABIES' for nowt. Think about it.

And the law seems to want to have both parents (hence the plural) be citizens. Or permanent residents, and it's not that uncommon for a permanent resident guy to bring over his non-permanent resident wife. Or a pair of grad students to have a baby while in grad school, dad then moves from an F-1 to a work visa, years later apply for permanent residency.

They call them 'anchor babies.' They also think that C. is a citizen because we got married and that I didn't need to have a visa because he's Canadian. They call them 'green cards', even though they're not longer green. They also think that you can get deported over a speeding ticket, and that a 35 year old drug conviction wouldn't matter.

People are idiots about immigration. That doesn't make it a REAL problem, just a trumped up one. Do you seriously think that the chance in 21 years to apply for a green card that will take another decade and a half is what is driving illegal immigration?

[GaryC 7]

Plyler v. Doe

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) did not explicitly address the question of so-called "anchor babies" born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents; the children dealt with in the case were born outside the U.S. and had entered the country illegally along with their parents.

However, the court's reasoning was significant because it ruled that illegal immigrants residing in a state are "within the jurisdiction" of that state. This implies that the U.S.-born children of such immigrants are "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]", and therefore qualify for birthright citizenship under the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This implication is made explicit in a footnote that states

no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful [3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_ci...ates_of_America

....

In case near sightedness was a problem for some here.

That was an interpretation of the court. That interpretation can change and should change by a different case brought before the court.

Edited August 30, 2007 by GaryC

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

thanks brother steven..and it will take a constitutional amendment to change the law..and it will never happen in my life time

As was pointed out before, the amendment was interpreted to include illegals and could be re-interpreted to exclude illegals. A new amendment is not needed. This sort of thing happens a lot.

Do you have examples, Gary? What's stated below is pretty straight forward, no?

However, the court's reasoning was significant because it ruled that illegal immigrants residing in a state are "within the jurisdiction" of that state. This implies that the U.S.-born children of such immigrants are "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]", and therefore qualify for birthright citizenship under the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This implication is made explicit in a footnote that states

no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful [3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_ci...ates_of_America

[Caladan 19]

Sure, but that means you're going to have to bring a case to challenge it. And there's been at least three decisions confirming the application of the law. Stare decisis would put the safe money on that interpretation not going anywhere.

No one's going to want to say that illegal immigrants aren't under the jurisdiction of the government, because they clearly are and it creates a metric shitload of hassles to say that they're suddenly not subject to U.S. authority. To get the intent you want, you'd have to have 'under the jurisdiction except for giving their kids citizenship.'

There's your new amendment.

[GaryC 7]

thanks brother steven..and it will take a constitutional amendment to change the law..and it will never happen in my life time

As was pointed out before, the amendment was interpreted to include illegals and could be re-interpreted to exclude illegals. A new amendment is not needed. This sort of thing happens a lot.

Do you have examples, Gary? What's stated below is pretty straight forward, no?

However, the court's reasoning was significant because it ruled that illegal immigrants residing in a state are "within the jurisdiction" of that state. This implies that the U.S.-born children of such immigrants are "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]", and therefore qualify for birthright citizenship under the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This implication is made explicit in a footnote that states

no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful [3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_ci...ates_of_America

Just happened recently in regard to racial preferences in school admissions.

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_cour...mer.pet.rep.pdf

It can happen again and it should.