Fourteenth Amendment

[IrishGirl]

Again, Windrush.

There have also been a number of cases of people who have lived in this country for several decades, since arriving as a toddler, and holding a British passport, being denied re-entry o the UK after visiting family abroad.

Which is SHOCKING given that the British protested deportation of an immigrant to his native country even though he was convicted of rape along with a man that was part of ISIS.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6273199/Somali-man-deportation-stopped-good-plane-passengers-revealed-gang-rapist.html

[wayne3218]

The US isn’t the only country now trying to deport its citizens

There are cases in Australia where young children have arrived in Australia as immigrants. Have been granted citizenship or Australian resident status and have lived here for over fifty years. With the right to vote and be called up for national service ( the Vietnam war) have had their citizenship or visa cancelled due to character grounds and been deported.

Even being on KB is enough to get a person deported as everything on this site is illegal in Australia.

Thousands of foreign nationals deported from Australia every year.
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/thousands-of-foreign-nationals-deported-from-australia-every-year/news-story/821010593f8910290894f0fe96eddecf

[psiberzerker]

Plyler v. Doe

You get a woo!  For that.

[MissBarbara]

https://www.wnd.com/2010/08/187785/
 
Anchor babies, those of aliens who have not entered the United States legally, provide such supposed 'citizens' by their U.S. Born progeny, due to a Footnote which Justice Brennan added to a 5-4 SCOTUS decision he wrote, having to do with an unrelated matter, in 1982.

President Trump could jump start the process to correct the current impression by virtue of elevating the discussion so that SCOTUS can review, discuss, and rule about how the Amendment is currently, incorrectly being applied, and see our way clear to correcting such interpretation.

In this article, Ann Coulter echoes herself verbatim from the article above. Here denounces the source of Justice Brennan's source for his assertion on birthright citizenship, dismissing the source as "not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge -- just some guy who wrote a book." In the first article, her source for her assertion about the "real meaning" of the 14th Amendment is "not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge -- just some guy who wrote a book."

I see.

Most to the point, it was the accepted practice to grant citizenship to all children born on U.S. soil, save for a few noteworthy exceptions, from long before Justice Brennan wrote his "obscure footnote." Liberals had nothing to do with it. And, as I noted above, the original purpose of the 14th Amendment has absolutely no determination on how the Amendment might be applied going forward.

So, again Joan, nice try...

[Lois]

Birthright citizenship existed long before the 14th Amendmnet, but back then it was only restricted to white people.

The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, before we had immigration laws and our borders were open.  The first laws restricted criminals, Chinese, and Eastern Europeans.

People from the Americas (Mexicans, Canadians, Central Americans, etc.) were considered "white" and a visa for entry was not required for entry into the US until 1965.

So can it be said that birthright citizenship was never intended for undocumented entrants?  I suppose, but since this whole documentation requirement is relatively new this argument sounds spurious.

[Athos_131]

It sounds racist.

#Resist

[Levorotatory]

... someone who was born elsewhere and arrived in the country at a young age and grew up there must apply for citizenship like any other immigrant.

Perhaps you've heard of the UK's "Windrush generation" controversy, where exactly that was happening to the children of people invited to the UK in the 1950s and 1960s?

There are even cases of such people who never applied for citizenship and then rendered themselves ineligible by getting into trouble with the law being deported from the only country they have ever known to one they have no connection to.  It makes no sense.

Again, Windrush.

There have also been a number of cases of people who have lived in this country for several decades, since arriving as a toddler, and holding a British passport, being denied re-entry o the UK after visiting family abroad.

I actually had some Canadian examples in mind, but I'm sure the same has happened in any country that confers citizenship at birth and also accepts immigrants as permanent residents.

A person has no inherent connection to their place of birth, and children of immigrants often have a rather tenuous connection to the country of their parents, so why are these the primary criteria by which many nations confer citizenship?

[Lois]

29 other countries have birthright citizenship.  A good thing too, or we would be awash in people who are "stateless" and have no where to call home or find the protections and rights that citzenship provides.

[psiberzerker]

Also, if they write an Amendment to change birthright citizenship it will only apply to people born here, from then on.  Not citizens born here before the law was changed.  (Ex post facto.)

[watcher1]

Birthright citizenship existed long before the 14th Amendmnet, but back then it was only restricted to white people.

The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868, before we had immigration laws and our borders were open.  The first laws restricted criminals, Chinese, and Eastern Europeans.

People from the Americas (Mexicans, Canadians, Central Americans, etc.) were considered "white" and a visa for entry was not required for entry into the US until 1965.

So can it be said that birthright citizenship was never intended for undocumented entrants?  I suppose, but since this whole documentation requirement is relatively new this argument sounds spurious.

Here is the sad part of our history:

On June 2, 1924, Congress granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S. Yet even after the Indian Citizenship Act, some Native Americans weren't allowed to vote because the right to vote was governed by state law. Until 1957, some states barred Native Americans from voting.

[psiberzerker]

Here is the sad part of our history:

Or the good old days, when birthrights were for white guys, not freed slaves, anyone from the rest of the hemisphere, Ireland, Africa, Asia...

But if you're a European American, then it's not questioned.  (I guess Ireland doesn't count as Europe, because they didn't pick a side in the war?  Russia counts as Europe, and not Asia, but not the Irish.  What about the Manx?  Are they English enough for birthrights, or the Welsh?  IDFK where they draw that line.)

^That was all facetious strawmanning.^  Just to be clear.

[Jed_]

To get right to the point everyone is making, only brown anchor babies are deemed bad.

Anchor baby von Kloffenfootendork OK

Anchor baby Sanchez, not OK.

[MissBarbara]

To get right to the point everyone is making, only brown anchor babies are deemed bad.

Anchor baby von Kloffenfootendork OK

Anchor baby Sanchez, not OK.

And the very use of the term "anchor baby" indicates one's views and positions.

It's per se pejorative and derogatory, and it was coined in the late 1980s to refer to the so-called "Vietnamese boat people," and it didn't come into general usage until 2006, when it was specifically applied to the children of immigrants from Mexico and Central Americans.

Psi and Jed are both correct (and Psi is doubly correct): Today, it almost exclusively refers to "brown children," and it's almost exclusively used in a demeaning and derogatory way. On top of that, the entire "immigration debate," as both Jed and Psi point out, is focused almost exclusively on these "brown babies." There's seeming no objection to the anchor babies" born to mothers from elsewhere on the globe, their legal status notwithstanding.

I recall reading about five years ago about the Maternity Tourism Industry, where wealthy women from Japan, China, and elsewhere in Asia would travel to Los Angles, stay at exclusive hotels designed specifically for this purpose, have their babies in a U/S/ hospital, receive a birth certificate and a passport for their newborn child, and then return home. And I haven't heard a word about that since.

Let's face facts: Our current president has succeeded in creating a list of "undesirables," people who have no place in the U.S. And his supporters wildly agree with him. From the Muslim Travel Ban to this latest proposed scheme, the goal is both clear and specific: To keep these "undesirables" out of the country, or to remove these "undesirables" from the country. He and his supporters couch it in other terms, but let's stop the deliberate obfuscation and call it what it is.

(And yes, I'm patting myself on the back for successfully using the word "obfuscation"...)




 

[joan1984]

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2171093/will-donald-trump-end-chinese-boom-us-birthright-citizenship 
President Trump, and many others have expressed concern, and spoken to the unfair use of the United States as a birthing ground, Birthing Tourism as Barbara calls it, especially by Asian nationals. Such activity has become a California industry, and is encouraged, of course, by "The Sanctuary State" as well.

President Trump does not intend, nor wish to change even one word in the Fourteenth Amendment, but rather to have Congress and/or SCOTUS engage in a full review and debate as to how the 1960's to Current enforcement of US Immigration Law is affected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and further to have such enforcement revised to embrace fully the original intent of the Amendment, which so many States ratified when it was passed.

Such dialog, and any new actions taken by the Administration, and Congress, and SCOTUS will determine whether the Amendment is worthy as it stands, and whether the interpretation made in the 1960's is valid today, and in the National Interest.

Of course, this is not the only item needed to assist our Immigration Policies and Enforcement. Completion of the wall on the Southern Border, to further limit the illegal crossings there, shoring up areas along our Northern Border to further limit illegal crossings there, which will mainly serve to reduce contraband transit and other smuggling efforts, is essential.

Employers in the United States must be brought to grasp, via law enforcement as may be needed, the need for vetting employees currently, and those seeking employment for US Citizenship and Legal Immigrant Status.

Construction Trades must receive full enforcement Nationwide, via ICE visits and enforcement to insure the skilled and unskilled positions offered benefit our Citizens first, and other legal residents, and do not benefit Illegal Aliens at all.

Most of the demands are already on the books, and enforcement of laws, to include budgeting for such enforcement, with local and State  cooperation is key to the solution.

[psiberzerker]

President Trump does not intend, nor wish to change even one word in the Fourteenth Amendment, but rather to have Congress and/or SCOTUS engage in a full review and debate as to how the 1960's to Current enforcement of US Immigration Law is affected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and further to have such enforcement revised to embrace fully the original intent of the Amendment, which so many States ratified when it was passed.

Really, he gave it that much thought, and went in that much detail, including the people he needs to "Engage" into a full review and discussion?

Show me where he said that.  Show me where He, the Twitter in Cheif said any of that, because so far, he seems to believe that he can just change the law by Executive order, and hasn't a cintillaclue how long it takes to actually get a new amendment.  I would love for him to put it that eloquently, or demonstrate that much situational awareness of how government is actually done, so I will await That link.

I'm sure you have it right there, somewhere.  Cite your sources.

[psiberzerker]

Anchor baby von Kloffenfootendork OK

I just shot coffee back into my cup through my nose!

 

[MissBarbara]

President Trump, and many others have expressed concern, and spoken to the unfair use of the United States as a birthing ground, Birthing Tourism as Barbara calls it, especially by Asian nationals. Such activity has become a California industry, and is encouraged, of course, by "The Sanctuary State" as well.

President Trump does not intend, nor wish to change even one word in the Fourteenth Amendment, but rather to have Congress and/or SCOTUS engage in a full review and debate as to how the 1960's to Current enforcement of US Immigration Law is affected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and further to have such enforcement revised to embrace fully the original intent of the Amendment, which so many States ratified when it was passed.

.   .   .   

I read the interview with Trump that started this whole to do in its entirety, and he says absolutely nothing of the sort. And neither did he mention anything of this sort in his interview with reporters the following day.

He doesn't mention "birthing tourism," not does he refer to it, in either interview. Nor does he say anything about having Congress and/or The Supreme Court review the topic.

His supporters always praise him for "telling it like it is." So why, if that's truly what he meant, what didn't he, in fact, "tell it like it is"?

But you'd do an excellent job as a Trump apologist...




 

[psiberzerker]

But you'd do an excellent job as a Trump apologist...

That position's not availible, and she could never replace SH-S.

Fake News

[Jed_]

Anchor baby von Kloffenfootendork OK

I just shot coffee back into my cup through my nose!

 

I was trying to imagine a name that sounded white, and that morphed into imagining a name that sounded really white to the point of Aryan white, and then visages of satanic moronic Aryans appeared in my head and ran amok.

[psiberzerker]

It came out like Slartybartfast's Dutch cousin.  (Possibly Arfricaans.  They're not African Americans, mind you.  Yolandi Vi$$er?  Okay.  Does she have to keep the name Yolandi, though?)