No, it doesn't. I'm going to guess you like to use that "We are all immigrants" whine as the base of any illegal immigration debate. In order for any modification to do what you suggested above it would have to be made retroactive. That wouldn't happen. The purpose of the 14th amendment was to make sure slaves had the same rights as everyone else.

BTW, did you know Native Americans weren't included under the 14th amendment because they weren't taxed? Their newborns were members of their tribe and not American citizens. It took the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 to make thier people citizens. That was 56 years after the ratification of the 14th amendment.

__________________
New to the forum? Check out our Newbie's Guide!
Interested in supporting USPO? Click here!

A federal law can not be made retroactive, so your little "pick a date" theory is nonsense. It's called ex post facto and Congress is prohibited from making such laws by Article I section 9 of the U.S. Constitution.

Me thinks someone needs to brush up on the history of the 14th Amendment and basic Constitutional Law.

__________________
New to the forum? Check out our Newbie's Guide!
Interested in supporting USPO? Click here!

Whine? That's a fact.

It means a cut-off date will be required, be it retroactive or next week. Why not just include enforced abortions so children born in the US to non-citizen parents won't have to face eventual jail and deportation by the socially pure US or bring back slavery?

I was jesting at your desire to make the US socially pure. You might want to brush up on US birth rates by immigrants and non-immigrants to determine how social costs will be maintained by an aging pure society with a constantly declining population and resulting work force before establishing elitist policies.

It doesn't make any sense because the first American citizens were predominately European, not Native American. Prior to the establishment of the US there was no concept of "American citizenship"; there was no "American" nation to be a citizen of.
So someone with prior citizenship in the Apache Nation has no greater ancestral claim to citizenship in the US than someone with prior citizenship in Ireland.

You're going to have to define what you mean by "socially pure". The birth rate of both "immigrants and non-immigrants"...wouldn't that be 100% of the population. Your argument isn't adding up or making any sense. At any rate, the US is one of few countries that even has a citizenship birthright.

List of countries that DO NOT have citizenship birthright (not a complete list):

• Algeria
• Australia
• Belgium
• Colombia
• Czech Republic
• Egypt
• France
• Germany
• Ireland
• Israel
• Japan
• Kenya
• Kuwait
• Nigeria
• Norway
• Philippines
• Poland
• Republic of Korea
• Saudi Arabia
• Sweden
• Switzerland
• Syria
• Taiwan
• Turkey
• United Kingdom
• Zaire

I think there are a lot of very respectable countries on that list and they are not on the brink of collapse because they don't allow birthrigh citizenship. Just because I want to revise the 14th amendment doesn't mean I want to kick out the 12 million illegals who are here and put a stop to all immigration. I would like to see the process be simplified to a certain extent. I think people wish to come legally but find the wait exhaustive. While our economy may rely on immigrants, it doesn't rely on birthright citizenship. We will still have immigrants without birthright citizenship.

__________________
New to the forum? Check out our Newbie's Guide!
Interested in supporting USPO? Click here!

I know. I just think it absolutely ridiculous to establish a social barrier based on heritage during a period of global redistribution of labor function and the migration to a two-tiered US economic social structure.

Were the british immigrants when they came to Plymouth Rock?

At 26,000 annual legal immigrants in the unskilled or semi-skilled work immigration category from any one country the only viable solution is a feasible, enforceable guest worker program to sate supply and demand. After that's established residency requirements can be examined to determine a balance that will satisfy labor demands and population growth to furnish and receive social benefits.

Are you including American born children of lawfully present noncitizen parents in your desired amendment?

__________________
James Hoban. Irish Architect. Member of the Royal Dublin Society. Hoban designed and built the White House and based it upon the top exterior and interior two floors of Leinster House, then known as Kildare House, which is now the current Irish Parliament building. He was also a supervisory architect of the US Capitol Building.

I think that's understandable, though I doubt Crystal meant that being born of American parents should be the only to citizenship. The target appears to be the so-called "anchor babies" who are born to illegals just on the American side of the border and then used as leverage.
Personally, I think we should continue to extend citizenship to all those born on our soil; there are better solutions to the "anchor baby" problem.

I know what you're getting at. Smartass. I'm putting you on the next boat back to Ireland

"Lawfully" is the keyword. What is the intent of these lawfully present new parents? Do they, or at least one of them, intend on being citizens? What does their paperwork indicate? Also, just because someone is here legally doesn't mean they intend to stay and build a life in America. I think your parents are an excellant example of how to do it properly and I don't see why it has to be an all or nothing issue. Were your parents granted citizenship based solely on the fact that you and your brother were citizens? I have a feeling the US govt would beg your dad to become a citizen and when he became a citizen it had more to do with his accomplishments and not so much with you and your brother. Forgive me, but I can't remember when your dad became a citizen and for some reason I'm thinking he was a citizen when you and your brother were born - I could be wrong. I know your mom became a citizen much later. If they are here lawfully they are obviously not abusing the system, which is my concern with people here illegally. People who are here illegally have already demonstrated disregard for the law.

So, sure, let's say people who are here legally may give birth to citizens. I don't see why we can't be that specific, even if it seems picky or discriminatory. I don't want to lump law abiding immigrants with lawbreakers. Perhaps this way it would encourage people to come over legally instead of rewarding illegals. I do place law abiding immigrants above illegal immigrants and wouldn't object to showing favoritism towards those here legally. I don't view all immigrants as equal and I think it's a slap in the face to those who do come over legally to view them all as such. I would much rather reward and show preference to those who come over legally.

__________________
New to the forum? Check out our Newbie's Guide!
Interested in supporting USPO? Click here!

It does raise interesting questions. My best man was born in the UK to UK citizen parents who moved here a few years later as permanent resident aliens. They had a second son, who was born in the US, and is thus a US citizen. Should he have been denied citizenship because his parents were born elsewhere? Neither of the boys knows the UK or life there. They are as American as anyone else.

Crystal didnt answer my question.

There was no nation here, but there were British holdings. Technically, no, they weren't immigrating.