Way to go border patrol.
- Thread starter scottnlisa
- Start date
Originally Posted by mrdc
http:///forum/post/3278754
Now AZ (I think) is mulling a law making it where a child born to an illegal in this country doesn't automatically make them an American citizen. This should stir up some protests. Might be some constitutional issues with this one.
Funny how they never ask the general public what they think when it comes time to debate proposals like this. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of American Citizens would be in favor of this.
http:///forum/post/3278754
Now AZ (I think) is mulling a law making it where a child born to an illegal in this country doesn't automatically make them an American citizen. This should stir up some protests. Might be some constitutional issues with this one.
Funny how they never ask the general public what they think when it comes time to debate proposals like this. I'd be willing to bet the vast majority of American Citizens would be in favor of this.
bionicarm
Active Member
Looks like some New Mexico Republican candidate stole my idea about placing land mines along the Mexico border:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...mexico-border/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...mexico-border/
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3278730
Applying the 14th to illegals was not one of the court's more shining moments.
Section 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.
Kinda hard to get around all persons born in the united states are citizens...
http:///forum/post/3278730
Applying the 14th to illegals was not one of the court's more shining moments.
Section 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.
Kinda hard to get around all persons born in the united states are citizens...
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3278768
Section 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.
Kinda hard to get around all persons born in the united states are citizens...
But how do you interpret the phrase " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? If the 'jurisdiction' of Arizona states that it doesn't accept births by illegal immigrants to be automatic citizens, does that deny those indivduals their right to automatically be US citizens? I look at it by using your logical 'and' or 'or' theory. A person has to be born or naturalized AND has to abide by the jurisdiction of the respecitive State they reside in before they can become a citizen. That's how I read it.
http:///forum/post/3278768
Section 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.
Kinda hard to get around all persons born in the united states are citizens...
But how do you interpret the phrase " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? If the 'jurisdiction' of Arizona states that it doesn't accept births by illegal immigrants to be automatic citizens, does that deny those indivduals their right to automatically be US citizens? I look at it by using your logical 'and' or 'or' theory. A person has to be born or naturalized AND has to abide by the jurisdiction of the respecitive State they reside in before they can become a citizen. That's how I read it.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3278768
Section 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.
Kinda hard to get around all persons born in the united states are citizens...
"And subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is the rub. Illegals never subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the US because for legal purposes they are not residents of the country. The court has never ruled directly in a case regarding children of illegal aliens. Current law is based on a case where legal vs illegal was left unaddressed.
http:///forum/post/3278768
Section 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.
Kinda hard to get around all persons born in the united states are citizens...
"And subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is the rub. Illegals never subjected themselves to the jurisdiction of the US because for legal purposes they are not residents of the country. The court has never ruled directly in a case regarding children of illegal aliens. Current law is based on a case where legal vs illegal was left unaddressed.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3278775
But how do you interpret the phrase " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? If the 'jurisdiction' of Arizona states that it doesn't accept births by illegal immigrants to be automatic citizens, does that deny those indivduals their right to automatically be US citizens? I look at it by using your logical 'and' or 'or' theory. A person has to be born or naturalized AND has to abide by the jurisdiction of the respecitive State they reside in before they can become a citizen. That's how I read it.
Now that is an interesting argument. (although I personally would doubt you'd get most of these (here I go again) left wing fruitloop judges or the AG to go along with that interpretation)
http:///forum/post/3278775
But how do you interpret the phrase " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? If the 'jurisdiction' of Arizona states that it doesn't accept births by illegal immigrants to be automatic citizens, does that deny those indivduals their right to automatically be US citizens? I look at it by using your logical 'and' or 'or' theory. A person has to be born or naturalized AND has to abide by the jurisdiction of the respecitive State they reside in before they can become a citizen. That's how I read it.
Now that is an interesting argument. (although I personally would doubt you'd get most of these (here I go again) left wing fruitloop judges or the AG to go along with that interpretation)
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by Beth
http:///forum/post/3278616
Right, and knifes only chop up dead animals that have already been killed for you.
For some reason I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I see Beth enter a debate/political discussion.
I was thinking the same exact thing. That same knife also chops up vegetables and fruit...is this not life as well?
http:///forum/post/3278616
Right, and knifes only chop up dead animals that have already been killed for you.
For some reason I get all warm and fuzzy inside when I see Beth enter a debate/political discussion.
I was thinking the same exact thing. That same knife also chops up vegetables and fruit...is this not life as well?
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3278775
But how do you interpret the phrase " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? If the 'jurisdiction' of Arizona states that it doesn't accept births by illegal immigrants to be automatic citizens, does that deny those indivduals their right to automatically be US citizens? I look at it by using your logical 'and' or 'or' theory. A person has to be born or naturalized AND has to abide by the jurisdiction of the respecitive State they reside in before they can become a citizen. That's how I read it.
"AND has to abide by the jurisdiction of the respecitive State they reside in"
I can see your point. But I have to ask, how is the child born here NOT abiding by the jurisdiction. Unless the child breaks a law they are abiding.
http:///forum/post/3278775
But how do you interpret the phrase " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? If the 'jurisdiction' of Arizona states that it doesn't accept births by illegal immigrants to be automatic citizens, does that deny those indivduals their right to automatically be US citizens? I look at it by using your logical 'and' or 'or' theory. A person has to be born or naturalized AND has to abide by the jurisdiction of the respecitive State they reside in before they can become a citizen. That's how I read it.
"AND has to abide by the jurisdiction of the respecitive State they reside in"
I can see your point. But I have to ask, how is the child born here NOT abiding by the jurisdiction. Unless the child breaks a law they are abiding.
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3278793
"AND has to abide by the jurisdiction of the respecitive State they reside in"
I can see your point. But I have to ask, how is the child born here NOT abiding by the jurisdiction. Unless the child breaks a law they are abiding.
Define 'jurisdiction' as it relates to Arizona laws. If Arizona passes a law stating it's against the law for an illegal alien to birth a child within its borders, then both the mother and newborn child would be violating the laws, and jurisdiction, of the State of Arizona.
http:///forum/post/3278793
"AND has to abide by the jurisdiction of the respecitive State they reside in"
I can see your point. But I have to ask, how is the child born here NOT abiding by the jurisdiction. Unless the child breaks a law they are abiding.
Define 'jurisdiction' as it relates to Arizona laws. If Arizona passes a law stating it's against the law for an illegal alien to birth a child within its borders, then both the mother and newborn child would be violating the laws, and jurisdiction, of the State of Arizona.
mrdc
Active Member
I found an article on the anchor baby thingie ...
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...996064,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...996064,00.html
bang guy
Moderator
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3278795
Define 'jurisdiction' as it relates to Arizona laws. If Arizona passes a law stating it's against the law for an illegal alien to birth a child within its borders, then both the mother and newborn child would be violating the laws, and jurisdiction, of the State of Arizona.
I hope we never get to the point where it's illegal to be born.
http:///forum/post/3278795
Define 'jurisdiction' as it relates to Arizona laws. If Arizona passes a law stating it's against the law for an illegal alien to birth a child within its borders, then both the mother and newborn child would be violating the laws, and jurisdiction, of the State of Arizona.
I hope we never get to the point where it's illegal to be born.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3278795
Define 'jurisdiction' as it relates to Arizona laws. If Arizona passes a law stating it's against the law for an illegal alien to birth a child within its borders, then both the mother and newborn child would be violating the laws, and jurisdiction, of the State of Arizona.
Actually I don't think so. The mother would still be the only person breaking the law. as she is the only one birthing a child in this case. The child is just the result of her "crime". Not the actual criminal.
http:///forum/post/3278795
Define 'jurisdiction' as it relates to Arizona laws. If Arizona passes a law stating it's against the law for an illegal alien to birth a child within its borders, then both the mother and newborn child would be violating the laws, and jurisdiction, of the State of Arizona.
Actually I don't think so. The mother would still be the only person breaking the law. as she is the only one birthing a child in this case. The child is just the result of her "crime". Not the actual criminal.
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3278810
Actually I don't think so. The mother would still be the only person breaking the law. as she is the only one birthing a child in this case. The child is just the result of her "crime". Not the actual criminal.
Depends on how the law is worded. The baby could be considered 'contraband', and as such, fall within the parameters of also being part of the law that is broken.
http:///forum/post/3278810
Actually I don't think so. The mother would still be the only person breaking the law. as she is the only one birthing a child in this case. The child is just the result of her "crime". Not the actual criminal.
Depends on how the law is worded. The baby could be considered 'contraband', and as such, fall within the parameters of also being part of the law that is broken.
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3278809
I hope we never get to the point where it's illegal to be born.
If I had a kid while visiting Mexico, does my child automatically become a Mexican citizen? It's perfectly 'legal' to be born in another country, you just shouldn't be able to claim citizenship to that country simply because that's where the mother was at when the birth occurred.
http:///forum/post/3278809
I hope we never get to the point where it's illegal to be born.
If I had a kid while visiting Mexico, does my child automatically become a Mexican citizen? It's perfectly 'legal' to be born in another country, you just shouldn't be able to claim citizenship to that country simply because that's where the mother was at when the birth occurred.
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3278816
I was born in Japan. I had every right to become a Japanese citizen according to the Constitution of Japan. I would hope I wasn't committing a crime by being born. I have this romantic notion of everyone being born innocent.
I imagine you didn't accept your Japanese citizenship because you had nothing to gain from becoming a Japanese citizen. That's not the case for the majority of Mexican women who come here specifically to have their babies born in the US so they can have that automatic US citizenship.
Not sure in the case of Japan, but most countries make you choose which citizenship you want to have - EITHER/OR. Not too many allow dual citizenships if I'm not mistaken.
http:///forum/post/3278816
I was born in Japan. I had every right to become a Japanese citizen according to the Constitution of Japan. I would hope I wasn't committing a crime by being born. I have this romantic notion of everyone being born innocent.
I imagine you didn't accept your Japanese citizenship because you had nothing to gain from becoming a Japanese citizen. That's not the case for the majority of Mexican women who come here specifically to have their babies born in the US so they can have that automatic US citizenship.
Not sure in the case of Japan, but most countries make you choose which citizenship you want to have - EITHER/OR. Not too many allow dual citizenships if I'm not mistaken.
bang guy
Moderator
Japan allows dual citizenship, the US does not.
I currently believe that securing the border is a better answer than trying to deal with the effects of an open border after the fact. It's expensive, sure, but the invasion that's happening now is killing us. If we're going to employ non-citizens then we should put them to work building a wall.
I currently believe that securing the border is a better answer than trying to deal with the effects of an open border after the fact. It's expensive, sure, but the invasion that's happening now is killing us. If we're going to employ non-citizens then we should put them to work building a wall.
bionicarm
Active Member
Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3278823
Japan allows dual citizenship, the US does not.
I currently believe that securing the border is a better answer than trying to deal with the effects of an open border after the fact. It's expensive, sure, but the invasion that's happening now is killing us. If we're going to employ non-citizens then we should put them to work building a wall.
The question is, what percentage of illegal aliens would be detered from coming to the US anyways, knowing they would never have the opportunity to become a naturalized US citizen? Not to be crass, but wasn't it the Nazi's that had the Jews dig their own graves, and put their own people into the furnaces?
http:///forum/post/3278823
Japan allows dual citizenship, the US does not.
I currently believe that securing the border is a better answer than trying to deal with the effects of an open border after the fact. It's expensive, sure, but the invasion that's happening now is killing us. If we're going to employ non-citizens then we should put them to work building a wall.
The question is, what percentage of illegal aliens would be detered from coming to the US anyways, knowing they would never have the opportunity to become a naturalized US citizen? Not to be crass, but wasn't it the Nazi's that had the Jews dig their own graves, and put their own people into the furnaces?
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3278820
I imagine you didn't accept your Japanese citizenship because you had nothing to gain from becoming a Japanese citizen. That's not the case for the majority of Mexican women who come here specifically to have their babies born in the US so they can have that automatic US citizenship.
Not sure in the case of Japan, but most countries make you choose which citizenship you want to have - EITHER/OR. Not too many allow dual citizenships if I'm not mistaken.
Japan used to allow dual citizenship as my wife was a dual citizen for a while. Not sure anymore if they still do.
The contraband comment...interesting. Ok, let's try this, a mom smuggles drugs in a baby's diaper. Is the baby a criminal as well in this instance? If so, explain. If not, how is this different than the baby being born?
http:///forum/post/3278820
I imagine you didn't accept your Japanese citizenship because you had nothing to gain from becoming a Japanese citizen. That's not the case for the majority of Mexican women who come here specifically to have their babies born in the US so they can have that automatic US citizenship.
Not sure in the case of Japan, but most countries make you choose which citizenship you want to have - EITHER/OR. Not too many allow dual citizenships if I'm not mistaken.
Japan used to allow dual citizenship as my wife was a dual citizen for a while. Not sure anymore if they still do.
The contraband comment...interesting. Ok, let's try this, a mom smuggles drugs in a baby's diaper. Is the baby a criminal as well in this instance? If so, explain. If not, how is this different than the baby being born?