Thread: Should being born in a country entitle one to citizenship?

I voted "no, not at all".

If there had been a choice that read "the mother must be a U.S. citizen" then I would have voted for that answer.

And if a non-U.S. citizen is the father, even though the mother might be a U.S. citizen, a child born to them who is thus, by virtue of the mother, a U.S. citizen, does not constitute an "anchor baby" for the father, the father still being subject to legally specified potential deportation, if necessary, while the baby remains behind with the mother if the mother wishes to remain in America.

Originally Posted by Steve

It absolutely is.

But go ahead and regurgitate the liberal "bigotry" mantra if it makes you feel better...



Your position is a fucking pipe dream.

Do you honestly believe that we can just kick the borders open, allow anyone and everyonoe who wants to come here do so, and not suffer for it?

Really?

Why are you so unwilling to find a compromise between the numbers we do let in as opposed to the numbers we could let in? All you want to do is let every swingin' dick that wants to come to the US do so, and that would be devestating.

Why is it all or nothing with you? Why do you have such an aversion to people following the law?



I say kick 'em out and let 12,000,000 people who come here legally do those jobs. Oh, right, that would require compromise on your part, and you're incapable of that. If we allowed 12,000,00 people into the country legally, would that work for you?



Your position on immigration isn't irrational?

"Let 'em all in" is essentially your position. Given that, where the fuck will they all live? Where will they all work (I know libs aren't fond of, you know, "jobs", but give it a shot)? What will they do for sustenance?

I doubt you're big enough to even begin to answer those reasonably, but I'm hoping you might surprise me. I fully expect more of your uneducated liberal bullshit, and I know that's what's comin'.

Prove me wrong...

Useless to comment.

Originally Posted by Hafke

Um, great. Please explain how a race blind dislike of illegal immigration is "bigotry". Please explain how what worked (more or less) in the past would work now.

Its in the application of the law, not what is written in the law itself. For instance, a police officer stops three men, one from Ireland, one from Japan, and one from Mexico. All do not have the proper identification on them, speak very little or very poor English, and all say they are here legally. After some more questioning, the officer suspects one is illegal. The area is Arizona, Phoenix, to be exact, and the officer is a Mariposa sheriff deputy. Who do you think the officer will arrest?

If you believe this article it might be the Hispanic first before the person from Japan or Ireland. No add to the fact that most of us here do not nor will not carry the documentation to prove our citizenship all the time, sorry the DL just does not cut it, then who do you think will have the higher incidence of arrests based on the presumption that illegal will eventually mean Hispanic first, all others second.

You have to look at human nature, psychology, and political pressure to make an accurate determination. That is where the problem in the law comes.

If we state the police officer arrest anyone and everyone who does not carry the proper identification, then you will have a whole bunch of angry soccer moms and dads who believe it is always the other person at fault. Eventually, the law will become useless and ineffective similarily to prohibition.

Hudson, there are a couple of problems with your theories:

(1) There are no Irish people who speak "no or very poor English"

(2) The law says that you can only be searched if the police have stopped you for something else and they suspect you're not legal. The reason it's not going to affect the soccer moms is because they're less likely to be in that situation to begin with.

(3) Aren't most illegals, particularly in Arizona, Hispanic? The Irish/Japanese variable might work in a place like New York, not Arizona.

(4) Seriously, how likely is your hypothesis? If it actually happened, he's hardly going to let two possible illegals go.

Originally Posted by Hafke

And what about the parents? I was wondering about this from another thread. Should a person be entitled to citizenship from being born in a country, regardless of the status of their parents? Should that citizenship then apply to their parents?

According to the US Constitution Online Citizenship is defined as follows:
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "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." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

* Anyone born inside the United States *
* Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
* Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
* Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
* Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
* Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
* A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

Given the specifics, any argument requiring a change requires a constitutional amendment. Many of those who have played an important role in the history and growth of our country would have not been citizens based on the criteria being requested. To strip people of their constitutional rights is a serious issue. It seems to me that in today's environment it has become acceptable to modify what we believe based on the actions of an individual and/or our innate fear.
If we believe in the Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and our constitutional process it shouldn't be applied only when it's safe or convenient. How can we say that we believe in our system and then change that system because it's safer and quicker to use military tribunals outside of our country that to demonstrate that, even in difficult times, we adhere to our standard of justice irregardless of the actions of the defendant. To do less is to suggest that we do not believe in our Constitution and what it stands for.

Originally Posted by Hafke

Hudson, there are a couple of problems with your theories:

(1) There are no Irish people who speak "no or very poor English". . .

Ever been to whesht Cork?

YouTube - Tommy Tiernan talking about the Cork accent

Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

Ever been to whesht Cork?

YouTube - Tommy Tiernan talking about the Cork accent

Cork is still part of Ireland?!? I thought they seceded around the time of the Roy Keane saga?

(A gal can dream, right? )

Originally Posted by Hudson

Its in the application of the law, not what is written in the law itself. For instance, a police officer stops three men, one from Ireland, one from Japan, and one from Mexico. All do not have the proper identification on them, speak very little or very poor English, and all say they are here legally. After some more questioning, the officer suspects one is illegal. The area is Arizona, Phoenix, to be exact, and the officer is a Mariposa sheriff deputy. Who do you think the officer will arrest?

Continuing from my other post, you are aware that not all Irish people are white? And that the Japanese, er, tend to not be Caucasian?

Originally Posted by Hafke

Cork is still part of Ireland?!? I thought they seceded around the time of the Roy Keane saga?

(A gal can dream, right? )

But then we couldn't listen to Mick Mulcahy on Cork 96 FM's Big Breakfast show winding up the culchies with that classic accent, e.g.,:

YouTube - 96fm - The Dog License

Poor culchie couldn't even get that Richard Ceann meant 'dickhead' as as inside joke.

Originally Posted by Hafke

Continuing from my other post, you are aware that not all Irish people are white? And that the Japanese, er, tend to not be Caucasian?

Yes, I am aware, but that was not the intention of the post Hafke.