The weight of history, common law, and U.S. Supreme Court precedent all suggest that your point is a pipe dream.
It may very well be. Then again. America could be waking up. I think the protests helped in that regard. Millions of Americans that hadn’t given immigration a second thought are now aware that 12 million people are here illegally. And that these people want to make demands on our government. I couldn’t have staged a better first step if I tried. So, I am hopeful.
Thing is, what exactly would be the purpose of denying citizenship to children born in the US? Are you gonna kick them out? What exactly is that going to accomplish?
And I really object to the concept of “anchor baby”. As if having a baby in the US means you become immune to deportation. That’s simply false. Just because you have a child who is a US citizen doesn’t mean you can’t be deported. You surely can be deported.
A baby born in the United States is not an illegal immigrant, even if their parents are. A baby born in the United States is an American. This has been the law for more than 100 years, and is the law in almost every country. Whether some of the drafters of the amendment didn’t intend for the children born in the US of foreign nationals to become citizens, the fact remains that this is the law of the land today, and the way the amendment has been interpreted for over 100 years.
And there is no indication that changing the law would be good public policy. What exactly would it accomplish? How would I benefit by denying citizenship to children born in the US? It certainly wouldn’t help keep out illegal immigrants, it would just define people who are now legal citizens as illegal immigrants. How does that help?
And what, may I ask, has that to do with depriving natural-born American citizens, such as Paul’s mom, of their citizenship? They’re not here illegally; they belong here, in the country of their birth.
And should be
Cite? About the other countries, that is.
The latest Pew research poll showed that, the more people dealt with immigrants, the less fearful they were of them; the common message I see among the right wing media is a palpable disappointment that there was virtually no violence.
And since people were shown how peaceful and patriotic their relatives and friends are:
The ones that are losing hope are the hate mongers.
Paul brought that up out of the blue and I tried to explain to him that he and his Mom had nothing to worry about. I suggest a reread of the exchange.
They might be. I don’t know any or why you brought them up. I thought at issue were those who respect the laws of the United States and believe in fairness for those playing by the rules.
I read the exchange. Why in the world would you suggest that to him? It is a fact (given the background provided) that if the amendment were reinterpreted as you desire that Paul’s mother would lose her citizenship. How can you assure him that she will not? Think it through.
I wrought them up because I noticed that so far, you have choosen to ignore that your hero Minutemen have racist members.
Moreover, if one adopts magellan’s view, why shouldn’t she lose her citizenship? What makes her so special that she gets to stay? This is, apparently, a matter of principle, and as magellan keeps reminding us, you can’t compromise on those, even a little bit. If being born in America to foreign born parents shouldn’t make you an American, then it shouldn’t have ever made you an American, no matter when you were born here. If we’re shipping infant Juan back, then Mrs. Paul goes on the next ship, too.
And she can take her damn fishsticks with her!
I hope I did not in any way represent the argument. If we rule that citizenship is not passed along by nation of birth, then my Mom is not a citizen. She has been mistaken her entire life. If we take away the supposed citizenship of the next generation of ‘anchor babies’ then we would have to take away the supposed citizenship of previous ‘anchor babies.’
Is this not correct?
Further if my Mom is not a citizen (and if my Dad were not), than I would not be a citizen.
Where am I going wrong on this reasoning?
Again, I hope I am not misrepresenting the obvious legal reasoning here.
Not necessarily. The Fourteenth Amendment provides a minimal definition of citizenship, not a maximal definition. It defines a group of people from whom citizenship cannot be taken away.
If it were interpeted not to apply to particular people–for example, your mother–that wouldn’t automatically mean that those people weren’t citizens. It would mean that it was constitutionally permissible for Congress to define citizenship in such a way as to exclude them.
Furthermore, I don’t know if your mother’s family was here legally. On possible reinterpretation of the citizenship clause would be that it applied only to children of citizens and of legal aliens. If your family was here legally, such a reinterpretation wouldn’t affect you.
My Mother was born in the US to illegal aliens (‘Frostbacks,’ as they came over the northern frontier). If illegals could not have an American child, she would not be an American. If she was not an American, I would not be one.
Would this impact my military pension if it is determined I accepted my commission under false pretenses?
Ah, now you’re hitting your stride: “hate mongers”, “racists”. What took you so long? Finally couldn’t hold it in any more, eh?
But for the record, I denounce and despise the racists that may in the Minutemen, the Elks, the PTA, the ACLU, the Nation of Islam, the JDL, or any other organization in which thay may reside.
Suggest what? That I don’t think that his mother would have anything to worry about? I think that to be the case and I explained why. Now if you want to incite fear with a slipper slope argument, knock yourself out.
Nobody, to my knowledge, has argued that illegals can’t have an American child. Rather, the argument for a more restrictive reading of the Fourteenth Amendment is that Congress can define such people as noncitizens if they so choose. Even under the more restrictive reading, however, a retroactive denial of citizenship to people that had it under the accepted law of the land at the time of their birth might raise due process issues.
So for your mother to lose her citizenship, (a) the Supreme Court would have to rule that the Fourteenth Amendment, at a minimum, does not forbid Congress from denying citizenship to children of illegal aliens; (b) Congress would have to enact such a denial and make it indefinitely retroactive; and © the Supreme Court would also have to bless the retroactive denial. We’re reaching odds that would make astronomers blanch.
I’m not advocating any of this stuff, just making the point that the second and third actions don’t necessarily follow from the first.
Not necessarily; she was born here and wouldn’t be an illegal alien even if she were an alien. There was no law against children of illegal aliens living here at the time.
From: Secretary of Defense
To: Lieutenant Genral Paul
Subj: Pending retirement
General
Despite your sterling record and 50 years of loyal service and despite the fact that you single handedly won the global war on everything,
We regret to inform you that your pension benefits are hereby immediately revoked. It has come to our attention that your citizenship and hence your loyalties may be questionable (despite the above mentioned lifetime of service).
You are hereby summarily dismissed and are not entitled to any benefits.
Thank you for playing.
Gee. That would really be fucked up.
That IS the intent of the “anchor baby” proposals - to kick them out.
You saying in another thread “Thank goodness for the Minutemen” and not taking it back after other doper posted the evidence that they are not removing their racist members, speaks volumes.