End birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants

[gocolts 300]

link

 

Elvira Arellano’s saga made good copy for the media, and immigrant advocacy groups now want the recently deported, high-profile illegal immigrant who sought sanctuary in a Chicago church to be allowed to return here because her son, born in the U.S., is considered an American citizen.

 

In 1997, Arellano had been deported back to Mexico but re-entered the country illegally and gave birth. She was arrested again in 2002 and convicted of using a phony Social Security number.

 

The day she was to appear before immigration authorities, she hid out in the Chicago sanctuary. She went to Los Angeles last month, where she was arrested and again deported back to Mexico.

Because of the misapplication of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens like Arellano are granted automatic, or “birthright,” citizenship.

 

Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., introduced the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, which would end the practice. Under the present “anchor baby” scam, illegal immigrant parents of a baby born in this country can apply for all sorts of government aid for the baby. Once the child reaches adulthood, he can sponsor his parents and a “chain” of other family members.

 

Deal’s bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify who is or is not a citizen. Citizenship would be granted only to children born in the U.S. with at least one parent who is a citizen, national, legal resident or an alien in active duty in the armed forces.

 

It is about focking time. This is one of the most stupid things I have ever heard. Some criminal breaks into the country to have a baby in the US just for the benefits.

 

I am so sick of this and the stupid idiotic argument that by enforcing our laws, we are breaking up families. That is total focking BS. What kind of a person would leave their kid in a foreign country if they were forced out of that country??? I know of one for sure. It is this criminal b1tch this article is about. She actually left her kid here when she was deported back to Mexico. Talk about mother of the year. Incredible what some will do.

[torridjoe 48]

#1, if you have birthright citizenship, you are neither illegal nor an immigrant, by definition.

 

Second of all, this dumbass promoting the law doesn't even seem to recognize it would take an amendment to the constitution.

 

Thirdly, if you're born here you're a citizen. Period. Unless you'd like someone to challenge YOUR citizenship, which is based on exactly the same clause in the Constitution.

[jerryskids 6,794]

#1, if you have birthright citizenship, you are neither illegal nor an immigrant, by definition.

 

Second of all, this dumbass promoting the law doesn't even seem to recognize it would take an amendment to the constitution.

 

Thirdly, if you're born here you're a citizen. Period. Unless you'd like someone to challenge YOUR citizenship, which is based on exactly the same clause in the Constitution.

Torrid sighting. 'sup bro?

 

While your amendment comment is valid, I don't get the rest of your message. You described the status quo, and this guy is trying to change it. To argue "welll... that's the way it IS!@#" isn't very strong IMO.

[hellothere 1]

#1, if you have birthright citizenship, you are neither illegal nor an immigrant, by definition.

 

Second of all, this dumbass promoting the law doesn't even seem to recognize it would take an amendment to the constitution.

 

Thirdly, if you're born here you're a citizen. Period. Unless you'd like someone to challenge YOUR citizenship, which is based on exactly the same clause in the Constitution.

 

 

i feel like i just caught Nessie on video, joe has become a phantom

[gocolts 300]

#1, if you have birthright citizenship, you are neither illegal nor an immigrant, by definition.

 

Second of all, this dumbass promoting the law doesn't even seem to recognize it would take an amendment to the constitution.

 

Thirdly, if you're born here you're a citizen. Period. Unless you'd like someone to challenge YOUR citizenship, which is based on exactly the same clause in the Constitution.

Guess you don't know much about this issue and didn't bother to read this piece. Let me quote some more of it for YOU.

 

Because of the misapplication of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens like Arellano are granted automatic, or “birthright,” citizenship. Did the founders and ratifiers intend for babies of people who’d entered and remained in the country in defiance of U.S. law to become Americans simply because they were born on American soil?

 

The amendment was passed in 1868 to protect the rights of freed slaves. In Dred Scott v. Sanford (1856), the Supreme Court held that blacks, whether free or not, were neither citizens of the U.S. nor could they become citizens. The Citizenship Clause essentially struck down this ruling.

 

The key phrase as it relates to the present immigration debate is “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which indicates there are exceptions to granting citizenship to those born in the U.S.

 

The Supreme Court tackled this issue in 1898 in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, finding that the language “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excluded from American citizenship children born to diplomats, alien enemies in hostile occupation, and members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws.

 

One could argue that people like Arellano are “alien enemies in hostile occupation,” though it might be a stretch. Regardless, why should she benefit from her criminal activity simply because she gave birth to a child here?

 

#1 that is just your interpretation, not fact by any means.

 

second, you are wrong again. The founding fathers did not want this to be the way some have interpreted it.

[Strike 5,539]

Being here illegally isn't a crime!!! Being here illegally isn't a crime!!!

[akaoni 0]

Guess you don't know much about this issue and didn't bother to read this piece. Let me quote some more of it for YOU.

#1 that is just your interpretation, not fact by any means.

 

second, you are wrong again. The founding fathers did not want this to be the way some have interpreted it.

 

I don't know about you, but I haven't heard of many cases coming before the US Supreme Court challenging citizenship bequeathed by birth. If there was any sort of doubt on this one, I'm sure there would have been quite a number of cases before the Supreme Court by now.

[Strike 5,539]

I don't know about you, but I haven't heard of many cases coming before the US Supreme Court challenging citizenship bequeathed by birth. If there was any sort of doubt on this one, I'm sure there would have been quite a number of cases before the Supreme Court by now.

 

Nothing you've said is relevant to this discussion, but points noted.

[Toro 1]

So would we require citizenship classes for every infant born? :sarcasm:

 

Look, it's really simple. Kick the parents out. If they take the kids, then that is their choice.

[torridjoe 48]

So would we require citizenship classes for every infant born? :sarcasm:

 

Look, it's really simple. Kick the parents out. If they take the kids, then that is their choice.

 

Now THERE'S a solution. What country wouldn't want to take on a few million wards of the state?

[Toro 1]

Now THERE'S a solution. What country wouldn't want to take on a few million wards of the state?

 

So you really think that illegals will come over, have a baby, and then give them up to a state agency to be deported? How heartless do you think these people are?

[gocolts 300]

So you really think that illegals will come over, have a baby, and then give them up to a state agency to be deported? How heartless do you think these people are?

Elvira Arellano did. But she gave her child to the god parents I think.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Now THERE'S a solution. What country wouldn't want to take on a few million wards of the state?

 

So the better solution is to keep letting people stay here illegally?

[torridjoe 48]

So the better solution is to keep letting people stay here illegally?

Yes, obviously so.

[Strike 5,539]

So the better solution is to keep letting people stay here illegally?

 

Why not? It's not like it's a crime

[Sho Nuff 720]

Yes, obviously so.

 

So...we overlook one illegality to not take a child into custody...where does it end?

[akaoni 0]

So the better solution is to keep letting people stay here illegally?

 

No, the solution is to make laws that reflect the economic realities here in the US. Just like the so-called war on drugs, an attempt to crack down and deport/imprison all the illegal immigrants here in the US will cost a bundle in enforcement and imprisonment and will do little to solve the problem. Give people a legal vehicle to come here and work, and you'll be able to police the boarder and weed out criminal elements and fight terrorism more effectively. Anything else is just fighting the invisible hand. It's costly and inneffective.

[torridjoe 48]

So...we overlook one illegality to not take a child into custody...where does it end?

 

where it ends now? They work here, their kids learn and succeed here, we all benefit?

[Sho Nuff 720]

where it ends now? They work here, their kids learn and succeed here, we all benefit?

 

We all benefit? Except for the taxpayers footing the bill for services for illegals right?

I meant the where does it end as to deciding which crimes (and yes, despite your crazy notion, being here illegally is a crime) would make it necessary to take in said children as wards of the state. Do we only do it for crimes which you think are crimes?

 

I forgot how pointless it was to try and use logic and reason with you.

[wiffleball 4,790]

The appliation of the 14th Amendment to wetbacks is such utter BS. The drafters of this amendment damn sure did not have this in mind when they wrote it. They wrote it at the terminus of a time when we were dragging people into this country in shackles. They wrote it to fill an obvious loophole created by slavery that allowed people to treat slaves & their children as non-citizens.

 

Yes, so to the extent that I drag consuela over here to wash my clothes and slob my knob - and my Government allows me to do so legally - her impending love-child should get full rights and privledges. But when consuela breaks 37 different laws getting into this country voluntarily, she - and her womb flotsam deserve jack-chit.

 

This is so thoroughly out of constitutional intent as to be ridiculous.

[torridjoe 48]

We all benefit? Except for the taxpayers footing the bill for services for illegals right?

I meant the where does it end as to deciding which crimes (and yes, despite your crazy notion, being here illegally is a crime) would make it necessary to take in said children as wards of the state. Do we only do it for crimes which you think are crimes?

 

I forgot how pointless it was to try and use logic and reason with you.

 

The best and most recent studies indicate undocumented aliens are a net benefit for America. Certainly at the federal level citizens make out like bandits; that's counterbalanced by net losses at the state level in some cases.

 

Many things are crimes that are not enforced--such as being here illegally--that make them effectively not a crime.

[torridjoe 48]

The appliation of the 14th Amendment to wetbacks is such utter BS. The drafters of this amendment damn sure did not have this in mind when they wrote it. They wrote it at the terminus of a time when we were dragging people into this country in shackles. They wrote it to fill an obvious loophole created by slavery that allowed people to treat slaves & their children as non-citizens.

 

Yes, so to the extent that I drag consuela over here to wash my clothes and slob my knob - and my Government allows me to do so legally - her impending love-child should get full rights and privledges. But when consuela breaks 37 different laws getting into this country voluntarily, she - and her womb flotsam deserve jack-chit.

 

This is so thoroughly out of constitutional intent as to be ridiculous.

 

Are you playing at being an activist judge? The constitution is quite clear--born here, you're a citizen. There's no other possible way to interpret it.

 

Nice ethnic slur though.

[Sho Nuff 720]

The best and most recent studies indicate undocumented aliens are a net benefit for America. Certainly at the federal level citizens make out like bandits; that's counterbalanced by net losses at the state level in some cases.

Many things are crimes that are not enforced--such as being here illegally--that make them effectively not a crime.

 

Please...quit repeating this nonsense. It made you look like an idiot the first time you said it and defended it...continuing on that path certainly does not bode well.

And undocumented? Please, call them what they are...illegal.

[torridjoe 48]

Please...quit repeating this nonsense. It made you look like an idiot the first time you said it and defended it...continuing on that path certainly does not bode well.

And undocumented? Please, call them what they are...illegal.

 

are you disputing that almost no one is charged with the crime of illegal entry or overstaying a visa?

 

Illegal is not the proper term. Undocumented is correct. Half of all "illegal" aliens arrived in the US legally.

[Strike 5,539]

The best and most recent studies indicate undocumented aliens are a net benefit for America. Certainly at the federal level citizens make out like bandits; that's counterbalanced by net losses at the state level in some cases.

 

no they don't, but don't let facts get in the way of your propoganda brigade

[wiffleball 4,790]

Are you playing at being an activist judge? The constitution is quite clear--born here, you're a citizen. There's no other possible way to interpret it.

 

Nice ethnic slur though.

 

The entire PREMISE of Normative Jurisprudence is not pulling some BozoFan "it says right here!" nonsense, but to understand and appreciate the overall Constiutional and/or Legislative intent of the law as well. You can't have it both ways Torrid. Either you pull this kind of blinder BS all the time, or not at all. In short, if you apply the moronic "it says right here!" standard in this case, then you have to similarly be in favor of completely unfettered gun ownershp and any and every "zero tolerance" policy ever enacted.

 

The problem with "the law is the law" nonsense is - where do you start? Because the Constitution can be argued to be the touchstone of American law. And if so, anything not originally mentioned therein is a violation of your own "the law is the law" standard. INCLUDING the 14th amendment. The constitution ('quite clear' on this one too) also allows for blacks to be 3/5 of a vote - you good with that? - oh wait a minute - that was amended wasn't it??

 

The law can misinterpreted. The law can be drafted in a context that is quite unaware of contexts 200 years hence. Without Normative Jurisprudence, without common sense, the law is as useless - and as dangerous - as an unaimed gun.

[torridjoe 48]

no they don't, but don't let facts get in the way of your propoganda brigade

 

Udall Center, U of Arizona

Office of the Controller, Texas

[Strike 5,539]

Udall Center, U of Arizona

Office of the Controller, Texas

 

And?

[torridjoe 48]

The entire PREMISE of Normative Jurisprudence is not pulling some BozoFan "it says right here!" nonsense, but to understand and appreciate the overall Constiutional and/or Legislative intent of the law as well. You can't have it both ways Torrid. Either you pull this kind of blinder BS all the time, or not at all. In short, if you apply the moronic "it says right here!" standard in this case, then you have to similarly be in favor of completely unfettered gun ownershp and any and every "zero tolerance" policy ever enacted.

 

The problem with "the law is the law" nonsense is - where do you start? Because the Constitution can be argued to be the touchstone of American law. And if so, anything not originally mentioned therein is a violation of your own "the law is the law" standard. INCLUDING the 14th amendment. The constitution ('quite clear' on this one too) also allows for blacks to be 3/5 of a vote - you good with that? - oh wait a minute - that was amended wasn't it??

 

The law can misinterpreted. The law can be drafted in a context that is quite unaware of contexts 200 years hence. Without Normative Jurisprudence, without common sense, the law is as useless - and as dangerous - as an unaimed gun.

 

The Constitution doesn't provide unfettered gun ownership, in the first place. It provides it only in the context of a well regulated militia.

 

You'll have to explain what zero tolerance articles are in the Constitution. I'm not following you there.

 

The 3/5 compromise is not in the Constitution anymore; as you note it was amended. Which you'll also note, is the only way to change the simple Constitutional truth that being native born makes you a citizen.

 

Common sense tells you that if the Constitution says you're a citizen if you're born here, the intent was to make native born people citizens.

[torridjoe 48]

And?

 

Yes, they do.

[Strike 5,539]

Yes, they do.

 

LOL Don't you have some politician to hound for your blog? Seriously, you realize you have zero credibility around here don't you? Why even post? To make yourself look even more ridiculous? To get owned AGAIN? Maybe Toro will even get a chance this time.

 

[wiffleball 4,790]

The Constitution doesn't provide unfettered gun ownership, in the first place. It provides it only in the context of a well regulated militia.

 

Common sense tells you that if the Constitution says you're a citizen if you're born here, the intent was to make native born people citizens.

 

See? I already knew where you'd weasel. You can whine for "context" when it serves you (gun ownership) and not for "context" when it doesn't.

 

If you want to use 'common sense' - Common Sense will tell you that the 14th amendment was drafted only after slavery was abolished and they had on their hands a bunch of dark people we'd dragged here with no citizenship rights.

 

You whine and dodge, but the bottom line is you either apply 'context' all the time, or none of the time. YOU don't get to pick and choose.

 

And, BTW - the constitution doesn't say jack chit about this. Amendments written by non-original drafters - by men 100 years later - wrote this. This is not part of the original constitution.

[torridjoe 48]

LOL Don't you have some politician to hound for your blog? Seriously, you realize you have zero credibility around here don't you? Why even post? To make yourself look even more ridiculous? To get owned AGAIN? Maybe Toro will even get a chance this time.

 

 

of course I have no credibility with you--you've been universally wrong the last six years. To recognize my credibility you'd have to discount your own like the rest of us have.

 

But hey, way to get it back by claiming something that wasn't true, having it immediately pushed back in your face to point out how stupid it was of you to say that...and then claiming it's MY credibility at issue.

 

Get bent.

[Strike 5,539]

of course I have no credibility with you--you've been universally wrong the last six years. To recognize my credibility you'd have to discount your own like the rest of us have.

 

But hey, way to get it back by claiming something that wasn't true, having it immediately pushed back in your face to point out how stupid it was of you to say that...and then claiming it's MY credibility at issue.

 

Get bent.

 

ROFLMAO. Yeah, it's just ME that doesn't give you any credibility

 

 

[torridjoe 48]

See? I already knew where you'd weasel. You can whine for "context" when it serves you (gun ownership) and not for "context" when it doesn't.

 

If you want to use 'common sense' - Common Sense will tell you that the 14th amendment was drafted only after slavery was abolished and they had on their hands a bunch of dark people we'd dragged here with no citizenship rights.

 

You whine and dodge, but the bottom line is you either apply 'context' all the time, or none of the time. YOU don't get to pick and choose.

 

And, BTW - the constitution doesn't say jack chit about this. Amendments written by non-original drafters - by men 100 years later - wrote this. This is not part of the original constitution.

 

WTF are you talking about? I'm not using any context in either case--just the words of the document itself.

 

And on what planet are articles after 1-10 not part of the constitution?? Talk about weaseling...now it's the "original" constitution you want to concentrate on, as if the rest of it has less legal standing or something.

[supermike80 1,910]

This thread lost all credibility at all when it just became a b!tch fest. Are ANY of you able to intelligently discuss a very relevant topic without racial slurs or name calling like 8 yr olds? Seriously. Read your posts.

 

It's absolutely embarrassing.

[Sho Nuff 720]

are you disputing that almost no one is charged with the crime of illegal entry or overstaying a visa?

 

Illegal is not the proper term. Undocumented is correct. Half of all "illegal" aliens arrived in the US legally.

 

Im disputing, as everyone else has, your ridiculous notion that something not charged often is not a crime. Thats BS.

If I steal something from someone, but don't get caught, its still a crime.

And yes, when you are not in this country legally, illegal is the proper freakin term.

[Sho Nuff 720]

WTF are you talking about? I'm not using any context in either case--just the words of the document itself.

 

The Constitution doesn't provide unfettered gun ownership, in the first place. It provides it only in the context of a well regulated militia.

 

[Angry White Male 0]

ROFLMAO. Yeah, it's just ME that doesn't give you any credibility

Lot of people expending a lot of energy arguing with him for a guy with no credibilty.

[Voltaire 5,316]

You can argue if it's a good law or a bad one. But Torrid is right, if the law is to be changed, it would take nothing short of a constitutional amendment to do so.

 

My former girlfriend is a Singapore citizen. She was a single mom when I met her (so the kid isn't mine). Singapore would not have granted citizenship to her child even if he had beeen born in the country to a single mom citizen. They used the term "stateless" when describing her options. She had money and a good education and knew what to do though. She flew to New York -legally- and had the baby there. Paid for by medicare. Great kid by the way.

 

China also doesn't grant citizenship to the second children of one child policy violators unless people get permission first and pay a big fee. Also China doesn't recogniize duel citizenship, my baby is only American. Everyone in China -it seems- knows having a baby in the US makes them a US citizen and not Chinese. The logical conclusion for them is that we're stoopid for having our baby in China since the baby must be a Chinese citizen. Wrong of course. The baby isn't Chinese, she's American and this surprises them.

 

Anyways, there is a precedent in other countries to not recognize the citizenship of babys born even to their own citizens under certain circumstances.