This would basically be my take on the situation. The child is a US citizen, plain and simple, but the parents are not here legally. Their choice should be simple: return to where they came from with their child, who will be free to remain in America with a guardian here legally or return home with the parents and be free to return to the US via legal channels any time they choose.

 

And yes, this is legislation rooted in xenophobia and (sometimes) racism. Not everyone who wants to build a Berlin wall is a xenophobe or racist, but the politicians who are spewing the idea of ending birthright citizenship are certainly making an effort to appeal to those crowds.

The willful ignorance of this is astounding. This is history repeating itself with mexicans in the place of blacks in a less overt way. 

---

The willful ignorance of this is astounding. This is history repeating itself with mexicans in the place of blacks in a less overt way.

Not even close. Certainly, there are plenty of phobes out there, but to even compare the two is pretty insulting to blacks.


Border Patrol Agents and ICE Agents are equally, if not more, frustrated by the Romanians and Indians which are presently exploiting the laws in the same way. It has nothing to do about race and everything to do about lawlessness and the disregard for American sovereignty.

---

Not even close. Certainly, there are plenty of phobes out there, but to even compare the two is pretty insulting to blacks.


Border Patrol Agents and ICE Agents are equally, if not more, frustrated by the Romanians and Indians which are presently exploiting the laws in the same way. It has nothing to do about race and everything to do about lawlessness and the disregard for American sovereignty.

I was talking about the politicians appeal to the phobes and peoples ability to ignore they are appealing to that. 

---

I was talking about the politicians appeal to the phobes and peoples ability to ignore they are appealing to that.

Politicians of all sides always appeal to every kind of phobe. Thats nothing new. Democrats have been appealing to Plutophobes as a base for many years.

---

Politicians of all sides always appeal to every kind of phobe. Thats nothing new. Democrats have been appealing to Plutophobes as a base for many years.

Considering we are living in a plutocracy I guess that means they are correct. For pete sake. Hillary and a third Bush. 

 

Still does not deny that the Republican politicians appeal to the racist minority on the right. 

---

Considering we are living in a plutocracy I guess that means they are correct. For pete sake. Hillary and a third Bush.


Still does not deny that the Republican politicians appeal to the racist minority on the right.

Yes, they do. Just as democrats appeal to racists on the left. It doesn't make every thing a race issue, however.

---

Yes, they do. Just as democrats appeal to racists on the left. It doesn't make every thing a race issue, however.

No, but for many people it is.

 

It is, however, an issue of xenophobia. Those who hide behind the "illegal" argument are just using it to obscure what they really feel about the topic: those born in this country to illegal aliens are not "good enough" to be American citizens.

---

Horse crap and you should know better. 93 million people out of the labor force the lowest labor force participation rate in the last 4 decades 75 trillion in unfunded liabilities a new massive healthcare entitlement a school system already stressed etc etc. As a black guy i can personally testify math is colorblind. We should be talking about a moritorium on immigration period until the evonomic growth demands expansion of the labor force beyond the citizens in this country.

---

Horse crap and you should know better. 93 million people out of the labor force the lowest labor force participation rate in the last 4 decades 75 trillion in unfunded liabilities a new massive healthcare entitlement a school system already stressed etc etc. As a black guy i can personally testify math is colorblind. We should be talking about a moritorium on immigration period until the evonomic growth demands expansion of the labor force beyond the citizens in this country.

Careful, progressives will call you a xenophobe.

---

Illegal immigration is hardly exclusive to one race. The point being made is birth right citizenship should be to children born with at least one parent legally residing or a citizen of the home nation.


Not granting citizenship based soley on birth right to offspring of illegal residents doesn't change our ability to enforce laws. They're mere presence is illegal so in your example the 18 year old would still be guilty of illegal residence, in addition to crimes against citizens.

 

That's not what the 14th Amendment says.

 

I don't see how, non citizens are still subject to our law while on US soil.

 

They are except in cases of diplomatic immunity.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I think that there can be a common sense discussion about how we can reconcile the clauses of the ammendment and still have an immigration policy

---

I think that there can be a common sense discussion about how we can reconcile the clauses of the ammendment and still have an immigration policy

An immigration policy isn't the issue. An attempt to subvert via legislation the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment is. The only way one can counteract a Constitutional amendment is with another Constitutional amendment, and that's not going to happen. Birthright citizenship isn't going anywhere because there is no practical way to do away with it.

---

An immigration policy isn't the issue. An attempt to subvert via legislation the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment is. The only way one can counteract a Constitutional amendment is with another Constitutional amendment, and that's not going to happen. Birthright citizenship isn't going anywhere because there is no practical way to do away with it.

This argument seems like it would be similar to someone proposing a new amendment or legislation to limit the 2nd amendment to mean militias and not just citizens as a means to sweeping gun control. I.E. not very reasonable. 

---

I don't think even a sizable minority of the furthest right of the furthest right in the Republican party exists in favor of altering or circumventing the 14th Amendment. This is much to do about nothing.

---

1.) from a legal standpoint i don't think it's that far of a stretch to interpret the text of the 14th amendment (born in or naturalized to the United States, and SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION there of)to positively infer that for the birth to qualify then the presence of the child and the parents would have to be in accordance with the laws of said jurisdiction.  

 

2.) from a political standpoint, this is overkill and unnecessarily getting in the weeds.  if you build the wall or close the border by other means then this problem goes away without having a protracted pissing contest with the Supreme Court.  

 

3.) I wish people read the plain text of the 1st amendment before banning religious expressions in the public square.  

 

4.) I and others supporting stronger immigration enforcement have also said that a reasonable compromise would be to leave the current interpretation in tact but not extend special privilege to the parents after the birth of the child in circumvention of immigration law.

---

1.) from a legal standpoint i don't think it's that far of a stretch to interpret the text of the 14th amendment (born in or naturalized to the United States, and SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION there of)to positively infer that for the birth to qualify then the presence of the child and the parents would have to be in accordance with the laws of said jurisdiction.  

 

2.) from a political standpoint, this is overkill and unnecessarily getting in the weeds.  if you build the wall or close the border by other means then this problem goes away without having a protracted [BAD WORD REMOVED] contest with the Supreme Court.  

 

3.) I wish people read the plain text of the 1st amendment before banning religious expressions in the public square.  

 

4.) I and others supporting stronger immigration enforcement have also said that a reasonable compromise would be to leave the current interpretation in tact but not extend special privilege to the parents after the birth of the child in circumvention of immigration law.

1. I think it is quite a stretch, a stretch so far that no court would uphold it. Trying to use "jurisdiction" as a loophole would end in failure based upon the simple fact that, as jagibelieve pointed out, every single person in the US (aside from the few covered by diplomatic immunity) is under the jurisdiction of its laws, including a newborn child.

 

2. Building a wall is a physical impossibility unless you want to start effectively ceding large chunks of land to Mexico by building it 20-50 miles off the border in areas where terrain and/or the natural flow of the Rio Grande make it impossible to build it on the dotted line. Closing the border is a practical impossibility and a shot in our own foot economically.

 

3. Huh? Where'd that come from?

 

4. I'd be all in favor of this. I don't think it's unreasonable to tell parents that they can leave their citizen child in the care of legally-present relatives or the state and return home, or take their child home with them knowing that the birth has been documented and a birth certificate issued, the child is a citizen, and that child is free to return anytime so long as they cross the border with a legal US resident or by themself if they're of age to do so. The birth of a child in the US should not grant parents here illegally the right to stay in the US. That just opens up too many problems, both legal and ethical (should a woman eight months pregnant really be sneaking through the desert in July?), to be helpful at all in solving the problem of illegal immigration.

---

It's not the workers that are the problem... it's the companies that hire them... attack the disease, not the symptom.

---

1. I think it is quite a stretch, a stretch so far that no court would uphold it. Trying to use "jurisdiction" as a loophole would end in failure based upon the simple fact that, as jagibelieve pointed out, every single person in the US (aside from the few covered by diplomatic immunity) is under the jurisdiction of its laws, including a newborn child.

 

2. Building a wall is a physical impossibility unless you want to start effectively ceding large chunks of land to Mexico by building it 20-50 miles off the border in areas where terrain and/or the natural flow of the Rio Grande make it impossible to build it on the dotted line. Closing the border is a practical impossibility and a shot in our own foot economically.

 

3. Huh? Where'd that come from?

 

4. I'd be all in favor of this. I don't think it's unreasonable to tell parents that they can leave their citizen child in the care of legally-present relatives or the state and return home, or take their child home with them knowing that the birth has been documented and a birth certificate issued, the child is a citizen, and that child is free to return anytime so long as they cross the border with a legal US resident or by themself if they're of age to do so. The birth of a child in the US should not grant parents here illegally the right to stay in the US. That just opens up too many problems, both legal and ethical (should a woman eight months pregnant really be sneaking through the desert in July?), to be helpful at all in solving the problem of illegal immigration.

 

1.) first It would not be the argument that the child or the parents aren't under the law or that america is ceding its jurisdiction.  The argument would be that America has standing as an expression of its jurisdiction to control who is in this country, and that someone who violates the law would forfeit the jus soli conferment of citizenship to the child.  Again would it hold up in court, i'm not sure.  But if i were submitting the brief then thats how i would structure the argument and Donald Trump has mentioned that a challenge to the universality of jus soli doctrine based ON the text of the 14th amendment would be the way that he would try to deal with the births to illegal immigrants.  

 

2.) In the actual building of the wall obviously you would use the natural terrain in certain areas coupled with mobile surveillance.  That would mean that it wouldn't have to be contiguous and thus cost less.  We landed a man on another celestial mass in 1969.  The great wall was built how long ago?  I think it can be done.  And a better word would be control.  obviously you want free flow of legitimate commerce, but at the same time cutting off roughly 40% of the drug trafficking (the cartells not immigrants) wouldn't be all that bad either. 

 

3.) Its just an aside.  The establishment clause is called the establishment clause for a reason.  At the time the constitution was written, there was actually something called an established religion, meaning an official state religion that everyone was subject to.  That provides direct context to the plain meaning of the first amendment as it regards certain forms of faith based expression within the public square.  The concept of a great wall of separation was added later and doesn't appear in the constitution.  It was just an aside about the true plain text of some amendments that we take for granted.  

 

4.) I think that's a reasonable standpoint and the path of least resistance as a legal remedy.  

 

I'd just like to reiterate.  I think that there can be a common sense debate about how best to secure the border.  I think that there can be common sense debate about how we handle the parents of kids born here.  I think there can be a common sense debate about how many people we want to let into the country on an annual basis as we assess the economic impact.  I also think that we can all agree that the current system of no holds bared millions of people here undocumented isn't really all that common sense.

---

So Walker and Trump agree that being born in the USA should not make you a citizen.  

 

Walker tried to walk back the idea....  http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-...tizenship/

 

But is this something that republicans think is a good idea?  I personally think getting rid of birth right citizenship is not a good idea for many reasons...

 

I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on this first...

My wife is a nurse. There are many women who come to the USA a week or less before the birth to have their babies. Common excuses are that they were vacationing, or visiting family. 

---

TravC59, aka JacksJags. @TravC59 on Twitter
;
; "This is really good, you want a bite, Honey?"

Do I really have to answer that question? Nobody wants an amendment overturning birthright citizenship to stop those dastardly Canucks from procreating on our soil.

Are those dastardly Canucks here legally or illegally?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.