The photo I posted was shot not during a parade, but rather during a rally against stronger immigration laws. Doesn't take a Harvard grad to reach the reasonable conclusion that these people have a dog in that hunt. I could probably find some shots of those signs saying that they "want their country back".

Given the event (again, not a parade), I'd say it speaks well against the assertion that there's any affinity, at all, for the United States...

__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":




Sayeth John Drake - 10/13/08: "OK, you're right, I admit to LYING"

Great thread!


My understanding is the 14th amendment was for the purpose of ensuring freed slaves were guarenteed citizens. At the time, I don't think there was any concept of the problems we see now. The intended purpose of the amendment should be retained with a new amendment and the fourteenth repealed to disallow the possibility of illegals sneaking here in time to give birth and establish greater access to our resources through the "citizenship" of a family member - the child.

I can't even remember if nationality is entered on a birth certificate, but if it is, the nationality of the parents should be applied to a child born here. No reason it should automatically be American.

If someone born here to parents of non-citizens has such an affinity for more than handout programs, there is a process to attain citizenship.

The world is full of innocent people. Innocence doesn't demand American citizenship, or count as a reason to allow the anchor baby process employed by illegals.

That's a problem for the parent's nation to solve isn't it? If a couple visiting from Zimbabwe gives birth here during their visit, and Zimbabwe doesn't recognize the couple's child as a citizen, that's something this couple should take up with their government. Its a reason for another country to amend their constitution, not a reason why we shouldn't correct a problem with ours.

Interesting point if I understand you correctly. I don't think there will ever be a successful program of deporting illegals. By successful, I guess I mean thorough.

As long as the parent's nation allows it? Why wouldn't they? Because the child is a citizen here? That would be remedied by changing the consitution, not leaving it as is.

__________________
-Eric

"For whoever habitually suppresses the truth in the interests of tact will produce a deformity from the womb of his thought." -Sir Basil H. Liddel-Hart

Self-composed.com

Sure there is. They already have a process--they are Americans born and raised here just like yourself as I presume you were.

As for the parents, immigrants are not supposed to qualify for welfare benefits, legal or illegal. When our family immigrated here (legally), several things has to be in order: (1) clear a background check to assure acceptability on things like having no criminal record, not being a politically hostile person, etc, (2) be healthy, (3) had to have a sponsor--either an American citizen or a company of sufficient financial means and character--that vouched for you and guaranteed that they would aid you should you need any financial or other needed assistance, (4) no welfare eligibility, (5) must be employed, (6) must register for selective service, etc.

The problem going on has to do with the government. It simply has seriously eroded the paths to legal immigration by making the process too restrictive, difficult, costly, time consuming and burdensome whilst intentionally leaving the borders wide open for illegal entry. This is intentional because what is really desired is a disenfranchised working underclass. There is no other rational explanation for it, especially seeing how this large mass of people are let in and used. Place blame where it belongs--those who are allowing this shady process to occur, and that blame lies in Washington, DC. And because the politicians are elected by the American people, they too have accountability for whom they elected.

Those who are not innocent are the American government and those here profiting off illegals, first those directly, and then those indirectly. The illegals trying to make a dollar here are far less culpable. Although illegal which does not make them innocent, they have a much more understandable reason for being here, namely seeking a better life and opportunity. They were let in and are employed here by constructive consent. American born children of such people are totally innocent. Thus, they have the highest moral and meritorious claim on this subject.

Moreover, being an American does demand American citizenship. People who are born and raised here are Americans. Who their parents were doesn't change that. There are plenty people around my area who are born and raised here whose parents did not come here legally. It doesn't make them any less American than the rest. A person born and raised here is an entirely different human being than their parents and their reason for being here is entirely different. If their parents were not born here and are not otherwise citizens, and their status here is illegal, then they are deportable. Such people have no right to be here. But the different factual and legal status of any relatives, including children, are irrelevant to their own and vice versa.

To even consider going down this path can and will open Pandora's Boxes beyond that assumed because it brings into question chain ancestry. If you were born here and so were your parents, but your grandparents were not lawfully admitted, then your parents would not be citizens and thus you would not be too. Many Americans are descended from all sorts of illegals whether or not the person even knew the entry was illegal. Many crossed into the US from Canada, Mexico and other destinations by ship in older days and walked in without technically filing necessary paperworks. It's just that the tracking systems back then did not care too much and were also unable to handle the process. Even where paperwork was taken, it often wasn't filled out correctly, and statements with incorrect informations were not valid. To avoid these things, any amendment would have to at least grandfather all those before the ratification. There are already millions who would need to be grandfathered, and it makes the whole point moot should the government just do the job it is supposed to do in a fair and efficient manner (have a sensible, fair and speedy legal immigration system along with border control and strict enforcement of the immigration process).

No, it is really the US' problem and fault. If Zimbabwe won't accept American born children as their own, they don't have to accept them. Even the US did that years ago before laws changed in regard to children of Americans. For example, in the Korean War, the US government regularly refused to accept Korean born children of American servicemen and not treat them as citizens even though Korea did not want them and wanted them sent to their father's home nation. Such people often remained in Korea, often facing discrimination because of their Amerasian heritage.

The easier answer is border control. Pregnant women should not be ordinarily given visas. Proving lack of pregnancy is a burden that can and should be fairly and squarely placed upon the person seeking a visa, and all visas should be issued or denied in the home nation of the applicant. As for the border, they are supposed to be policed, so illegal entry should not even occur. For those who do so, they should be prosecuted and/or deported, taking their children with them given they are minors and their legal custodians should the parents' home nation take them, and if not, just deport the parents.

The incentive is to make people come here legally, and have a zero tolerance policy on fence jumping and other tactics intended to subvert the immigration policy. This is easily enforced when a sensible and fair legal immigration policy is set in place, which right now is not. Most people just want a job and better life, and desire to come legally and in a timely manner. So long as the demand and desires exists, people will still come one way or another. To think that they won't come illegally when the doors to legal immigration are so closed is fanciful thinking that denies reality and thus should be dismissed as such and realistic policies and procedures adopted. Should that happen, the borders and all their hustlers would be very significantly reduced, making it easier to police borders. Those jumping the fence would also likely be those the nation does not want, because the inference is that they would come legally but cannot.

Sure there can be.

It just won't happen with a system that slams the door to legal immigration by law or reality (backlogs that take years, and backlogs that shouldn't be there if the government simply got its act together) and then leaves the door wide open for any and all millions of god-knows-whos to waltz in wherever they want.

Take Ireland for example. In recent years its economy exploded into massive wealth and proficiency. This brought a huge demand for immigrants. Ireland formulated guest worker programmes that have been a benefit to all involved. People got visas to come in and develop the Irish infrastructure and perform other desireable tasks. In turn they paid taxes on their wages whilst they did useful work. Ireland got to know the people coming in had jobs--useful jobs. And the immigrants played by the rules because Ireland offered them a good chance to come in and make money that they couldn't get at home. It also allowed Ireland to properly investigate and document such workers to assure they were desireable immigrants.

Ireland also took measures to create disincentives for spongers and fence jumpers. The laws have consistently been closing loopholes and have cracked down on all BS. For example, lawfully admitted immigrants cannot qualify for benefits. That means no dole, housing, medical, etc, on the public taxpayer. This shushed off hordes of would-be spongers who had the idea that Ireland was a great place to come flop on the dole. Nobody wants those kinds of people. Productive people are wanted, not moochers and leeches.

Similarly, Ireland experienced abuse of its asylum laws by those looking to avert the immigration laws. These laws have been clamped down consistently in recent years and a tough stance taken on those trying to use asylum claims to park themselves in Ireland. Those trying that avenue are now being housed in special detention centres rather than released, with processing the claims done quickly unlike before, and with criteria for asylum being made very high and the burden of evidence placed fairly and squarely on the applicants. Thus, Ireland is getting them isolated and deported quite quickly now. This has started to run off all others thinking Ireland is a sucker for such attempts.

Ireland has also taken a big no-no to baby anchor attempts. It did pass a recent amendment on birthright citizenship, but it is now being recognised as a moot point and likely an inequity given it failed to do first what it should have done--change its policy on baby anchoring. Now, simply coming to Ireland and having an Irish born child is not a path to legalisation. They get deported and are required to take their children with them, whether they are citizens or not.

This applies even if the baby anchor attempt is with an Irish citizen--something Americans need to pay attention.

The majority of people attempting a baby anchor tactic do not have children with fellow illegals. They have them with native citizens. For example, an illegal immigrant is far more likely to try to impregnate or get impregnated by a local citizen because they view that choice as what vastly increases their chance to remain, as opposed to just having a child with a fellow illegal, which is far more often just a result of a genuine relationship.

Amending birthright citizenship laws do nothing whatsoever to cure that tactic. What is required is for governments to grow a nutsack and still say no to such tactics.

Both Ireland and the US allow deportation of those attempting a baby anchor argument. However, the US is quite deferential in regular practice.

A most recent example last week I saw was an illegal Mexican immigrant in a tricky custody case I was litigating. He impregnated his girlfriend, a native US citizen, twice and now has two children. He was 8 years older than her when the relationship commenced, and the mother was only 15 when it commenced. The woman broke off the relationship due to the man being physically abusive. It was even a statutory rape relationship that has never been prosecuted. The illegal Mexican has a criminal record here too (DUIs, assaults, false reports, etc). Yet, the immigration courts have refused to deport him because he always claims he has two children here. Here is a guy who I believe--and have argued--ought to be deported ASAP. It offends me that he is still here. And the courts always take no action or consideration of his status or his deportability. It's not even a party thing either. Every court proceeding I have mentioned have had Republican judges on the bench.

Things aren't going to change with lackadaisical attitudes like that. However, I will say that the immigration authorities are finally getting better insofar as cooperation in the criminal courts in my area, where detainers get lodged on immigrants once they get incarcerated for deportation.

See above, where I believe it is answered. Again, I believe in real and fair immigration policies as outlined above. But, IMO, it is all ass backwards here on all fronts, and in the most inequitable manners both for the immigrants and the natives. Amending birthright citizenship will do nothing to remedy the problems and only serve to hurt an innocent person, which is pointless and doing the wrong things by targeting innocent and irrelevant American people just to feel better about what it not being done right about the immigration issue.

It's another one of these whipped up scapegoats that politicians like to create to avoid addressing the real problem. Scapegoats and irrelevant people are perfect for that. These native born American people are such things, and the right answer is to tell the politicians that their records are what is accountable on this subject, not some innocent citizens for whom those politicians' faults and failures are being pushed upon them.

Alright, you scallywags. For those who oppose the 14th Amendment, what are you doing to change the constitution? Because that is the only way to change birthright citizenship right now.

And what is your alternative? Richard Osborne is the only one who has offered an alternative. Here is an idea, lifted straight from fiction (cookie for the reference): Voluntary federal service before citizenship is granted. Now, this includes more than just the military, as some folks are simply not fit for military service, no matter how much we relax the physical requirements. But "Federal service" could mean anything. Like, for example, the Federal janitor's corps, who are responsible for cleaning federal buildings. Or the "Federal Migrant worker subsidy," where people who are not fit (or not willing) for military service can work as migrant farm workers to subsidize the loss of illegal immigrants for the farmers. Make it a minimum term of two years, and allow the volunteers to quit at any time if they wish. But if you quit before your two years are up, you do not achieve citizenship.

What say you?

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

hum....perhaps...but there appears to be more and more people that this template does not apply too. Or lets say they don't run with it. The US it appears, is the land of the big PX to many.
The canadiens repealed theirs, and they don't seem worse for wear.

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

Well, if you read the 14th amendment, I think you'll find that that is exactly what it does.
The people who make arguments like the one you posted, that is, citing Europe's strict citizenship processes, neglect to mention the problems that come with this.

For instance: race riots all over France by the children of (legal) immigrants who aren't citizens themselves, but grew up knowing only France and speaking French as a native language.

An inclusive, welcoming policy is better for everyone.

__________________
"Jesus said: I have cast fire upon the world, and behold I guard it until it is ablaze."
Gospel of Thomas

Ok, lets look at that again...pay attention to the part in bold:


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.

A child born to someone illegally in the US is not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The child is his parents responsibility, and as such, carries the citizenship of his parents.

Consider this: children of resident aliens and diplomats do not automatically gain US citizenship. Why should the children of criminals get special treatment?

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Diplomats get immunity.

Illegals are subject to criminal penalty for breaking laws within the US. Thus, they are subject to its jurisdiction.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

Jurisdiction means a lot more than just simply being subject to criminal penalty

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

from Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online

1: the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law
2 a: the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate b: the power or right to exercise authority : control
3: the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised

Which part are you using, then?

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears

It's new there, and it really hasn't fixed the problems they sought to fix and/or wasn't necessary to fix them. It won't prove to make Canada any better and may actually do worse.

People who don't want to be in the US simply won't remain here. It's commonplace for unhappy immigrants to repatriate. American citizens who would rather be somewhere else move there. Thus, the pond weeds itself out on that one.

The focus has to be on border control, and that means internal policies as well as actual border policing. That means cracking down on illegal entrants, bogus asylum petitioning, etc, and deporting them expeditiously and deny any backdoor avenues just because they have native born children. Other nations, including Canada and of course the US, have done a horrible job at just doing their job on that as they are supposed to do. Going after native born children of those they are supposed to address is just a red herring for the personal failings and misguidedness of the governments at issue.

In Europe, birthright citizenship has been largely nonexistent because--at least originally--of desires by locals in each nation to protect the race and culture of the traditional ethic people from outsiders. Yet, for the longest time, they never fixed the real issues--controlling their borders and having a sensible immigration policy with proper control for allowing those permitted and quickly removing those who are not. And even when permitted to remain, they were not assimilated. Now, you see all the problems this has caused--deluges of outsiders and unassimilated descendants of them who are ghettoised by the combined force of local xenophobes in conjunction with radical chic liberals who believe 'assimilation' is a bad thing and 'multiculturalism' is preferable.

In fact, denying birthright citizenship only makes the above cited problem even worse. The biggest asset to a nation is assimilation. Other countries have not sought to do that. Far more destructive IMO--and Canada is a big one on this--is the concept of multiculturalism that rejects assimilation. To me, that is what has harmed and will continue to harm social cohesion in these countries.

pramjockey has already answered this effectively, and I have nothinbg to add.

Cite the law that states this as fact. I cannot find anything at Homeland Security or USCIS that verifies that a child of a diplomat or child of a resident alien are not granted citizenship. Can you prove that children of illegals are the only ones to gain US citizenship through birthright? I have anecdotal evidence to the contrary. A chum I had in college had parent's from New Zealand who were resident aliens, but he was a citizen of the US because he was born here.

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

I missed the resident alien part. That's completely untrue.

__________________
When they come a wull staun ma groon
Staun ma groon al nae be afraid
Thoughts awe hame tak awa ma fear
Sweat an bluid hide ma veil awe tears