Nah, don’t think so, my foreign friend. I hope you weren’t relying on that for anything important?
This is one of the few issues that I agree with the anti-immigration crowd on. I don’t feel citizenship by birthplace should be valid if neither of the parents were legally residing in the birthplace.
Thank you for actually looking up some facts. My bold. (Although I wouldn’t trust the cite from FAIR 100%. It’s a partisan group. The Southern Poverty Law Center, another partisan group, considers FAIR a Hate Group.)
Yes, racism and/or xenophobia are behind this wish to diddle the Constitution.
The complications of changing citizenship by birth to a naturalization process make it a ridiculous proposal.
If you’re born in this country why would you not be a citizen? Why should you not deserve that right, like every other baby born in this country? I’m sorry but this is just another fine example of lingering racism. Can’t push away the black folks, let’s hit the brown folks. It’s not about “illegal immigration” it’s about this great wave of Mexicans coming to the United States.
Yeah it’s personal. My daughter is half Mexican. I am American by birth, of Irish stock. She is no less American than my other daughter, also half Mexican. One of their fathers is not legal, but it’s not her fault. She shouldn’t have to pay for his crime by loss of citizenship on the day of birth.
The claim is that it makes it easier for illegal immigrants to gain a foothold in acquiring eventual citizenship. Well is that not a GOOD thing? That’s what we want, right? Then they’ll be legal taxpayers. If we take away their child’s citizenship do you think they’d stop coming here? They aren’t coming here for citizenship. If they’re like my SO’s family they’re coming here because they don’t to starve to death. Do some people just not watch the news? Or are they in denial about just how bad it is in these countries we’re seeing the majority of illegal immigrants flowing from?
I think this is just another BS way to pull our attention away from more pressing matters and appeals to certain individuals who already have a problem with this brown wave of immigrants.
Ah, the racism card. Well, that’ll end the debate!
Sorry, but you’re not a victim here. As a US citizen, your kids are US citizens regardless of the status of the father. You could visit Mexico, get pregnant while there with a Mexican citizen, and your kid would still be a US citizen.
Not necessarily. Some people want that, but others don’t. And some people want to remove the incentive that exists to have kids here when you’re not in the country legally.
I think this is an attempt to smear the other side of the argument with the charge of racism. While it is surely true in some instances, it’s not in all.
Are we so delicate that we have to amend the constitution to avoid sob stories, now? Because it’s not like those sob stories are stopping them from deporting the parents.
What about the practical issues? If being born in the US is not sufficient for being a US citizen, how does anyone prove that they are a citizen?
It used to be that a birth certificate was enough. But that wouldn’t be enough anymore. You’d need the birth certificate and documents to show your parents were here legally. Or proof that a parent was a citizen.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I can’t provide that documentation. So we’d have to have some sort of grandfather clause for current citizens. But that won’t help our descendants. Will they have to carry pedigrees showing their ancestry back to someone who was born before a certain date?
Yes—you would have to do a “title search,” like in Real Estate transactions. 
Actually, I think what would happen would be either:
(a) At the hospital, parent provides his or her own birth certificate or other proof of citizenship, upon approval of which the newborn is issued a birth certificate
(b) At the hospital, the parent is UNABLE to provide his or her own birth certificate or other proof of citizenship; child is issued a “proof of birth” certificate that clearly states “THIS IS NOT PROOF OF US CITIZENSHIP.” Presumably, if mom and dad simply forgot their documents in the haste of the birth, they can have it amended later and get the kid a real birth certificate. If they’re not citizens, then, well, things stand.
Of course, since each state does their own BCs, there will inevitably be weird differences.
So then every Presidential candidate will have to go through months of “is s/he or isn’t s/he?” nonsense.
Yeah, it’s all about me and my delicate constitution. :rolleyes:
I don’t know where you live, but here in CA we get this ALL THE FREAKIN’ TIME.
Here’s the meat of the argument. You want to control immigration. Clearly, some of your countrymen don’t wish to control it in the same way or to the same extent as you do.
Under the present constitution, anyone born in the USA is a citizen. (And of course, a citizen is a future voter.) Changing citizenship qualifications is a way to deny franchise to those who disagree with your particular stance on immigration policy. It appears exactly as legitimate as any other denial of rights to a minority culture with potential to become a majority culture. Should Protestants have denied Catholics the vote? Should whites have denied blacks the vote?
The slaves were here legally, but they weren’t citizens & had no recognized human rights in much of the country. They were considered an inferior race.
Anyone thinking that immigration law today is just about gently deporting to their homelands persons who we consider equal in dignity to ourselves isn’t paying attention.
And of course persons born here to parents living underground may not have any record of their existence in their parents’ homelands.
Multi-generational lack of legal nationality is a way to sneak slavery back in through the back door.
So, no, take your interpolation of “legal” in “permanent residents” & stuff it very much.
Shall we put this to a vote? That’s fine with me.
I wasn’t aware that newborn infants had political beliefs.
Only because you think you’ll win.
Hispanics tend to favor rights for Hispanics. Anglos tend to oppose them. That’s what this is about. Keeping the resident Hispanic population disenfranchised, through long naturalization terms or denial of legal status entirely; or deporting Hispanics altogether, is a means to ensure Anglo domination. California is already trending Latino, the Anglo dominant culture in other states is scared.
If you think the debate is about anything else, you are what we call a “useful idiot.” If you claim the debate is about anything else, you are probably an Anglo & lying through your teeth.
I can see that debating with you is not a useful endeavor, since your argument is to slander anyone who disagrees.
An ad hominem is not slander if it’s true.
That said, it’s not a great way to win a debate, either.
It’s not true.
In this forum you’re not allowed to make these kinds of statements about another poster. (You’re allowed to make them about nonposters although it poisons the well and generally ruins the debate.) Don’t suggest other posters are liars or idiots because they disagree with you.
I don’t think there’s anything at all wrong with it, especially now that the minor children cannot sponsor anyone into the country.
First of all, the landmark case Wong Kim Ark did involve parents who were here legally. Although never tested if the parents were illegal immigrants AFAIK it is assumed that it would apply to them as well. It also goes against the legislative intent of granting citizenship to former slaves and not indians and illegal immigrants. The problem is it is a poorly written amendment. It should have read something simpler like: “All persons born in the United States before the ratification of this amendment except (insert exclusions) are citizens of the United States of America. All persons born who has at least one parent who is a citizen of the United States and (insert residency clause or naturalization status as desired) shall be a natural born citizen.”
I for one favor rewriting the 14th Amendment to something like this.