14th Amendment

#4
#4
Well I have Canadian citizenship but I am marrying an American woman - should my kids get dual citizenship?
 
#5
#5
The problem only occurs if you are here illegally and have the kid. The whole idea of an anchor baby is ludicrous.
 
#6
#6
Seems to me that if they would just secure the border, this would be less of a problem.
 
#7
#7
The problem only occurs if you are here illegally and have the kid. The whole idea of an anchor baby is ludicrous.

Ya. No simple problem either. I worked in Canada with a man who escaped Vietnam who arrived by boat. His brother died on route - he hasnt been able to get citizenship, but his son has it. I don't know where to draw the line.
 
#8
#8
Ya. No simple problem either. I worked in Canada with a man who escaped Vietnam who arrived by boat. His brother died on route - he hasnt been able to get citizenship, but his son has it. I don't know where to draw the line.

In that situation we have protocols, I'm sure Canada does as well. Just have to put your hope in asking for asylum.

We can't have a Running Man immigration policy, just because you make it here doesn't mean you can stay.
 
#9
#9
Ya. No simple problem either. I worked in Canada with a man who escaped Vietnam who arrived by boat. His brother died on route - he hasnt been able to get citizenship, but his son has it. I don't know where to draw the line.

Does Canada still offer citizenship for enough money invested in Canada? I heard that was a big attraction for people from Hong Kong in the five years prior to China taking over.
 
#11
#11
The problem only occurs if you are here illegally and have the kid. The whole idea of an anchor baby is ludicrous.

Background.

Justice Brennan's Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies - HUMAN EVENTS

The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."
----------------------------

For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)

And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." .......

Brennan's authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. ....................... Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge -- just some guy who wrote a book.

Bouve was a Harvard professor fwiw.

And if you think Brennan was bad, wait til you get a load of Kagan, should we be so unfortunate.

If the republicans can't mount some sort of realistic oppostion to the seating of Kagan I'm not so sure what I may do but I've already crossed them off my Christmas list and told them why.

I wouldn't give a present day democrat the time of day.
 
#12
#12
Seems to me that if they would just secure the border, this would be less of a problem.

That's kinda what I'm thinking...

And if this did actually happen, would it revoke the citizenship of these so called "anchor babies," or would it only apply to those born after the change?
 
#13
#13
And the dilemma of strict construction vs. original intent. So many people have combined these two for years. Those arguing for interpretation based on just the words are now having to say what the original intent was. The problem is that 'original intent' is a difficult thing to prove. It wasn't just one person's statement that deems the original intent.

One of the first cases to test the amendment United States v. Wong Kim Ark said that children of non-citizen immigrant born in this country had citizenship. There was no requirement of being here "legal" since then there was no national policy.
 
#15
#15
to be hounest this whole border thing is retarded...there has ALWAYS been a open border between mexico and the US the real problem is the drugs and crime at the border... leagalize pot and no lethal drugs and take the power away from the underword. the price of pot will drop and the cartels will find other markets to pursue. bling blam bang border problem solved and no more flooding jails with pot people. we would save BILLIONS.....
 
#16
#16
to be hounest this whole border thing is retarded...there has ALWAYS been a open border between mexico and the US the real problem is the drugs and crime at the border... leagalize pot and no lethal drugs and take the power away from the underword. the price of pot will drop and the cartels will find other markets to pursue. bling blam bang border problem solved and no more flooding jails with pot people. we would save BILLIONS.....

san-ysidro-border-crossing-by-flickr-user-otzberg.jpg


yeah, that looks pretty open to me
 
#17
#17
to be hounest this whole border thing is retarded...there has ALWAYS been a open border between mexico and the US the real problem is the drugs and crime at the border... leagalize pot and no lethal drugs and take the power away from the underword. the price of pot will drop and the cartels will find other markets to pursue. bling blam bang border problem solved and no more flooding jails with pot people. we would save BILLIONS.....

Simplistic, shallow and unworkable.

While it is true we could legalize the use of marijuana, take applications, give alottments, grow, tax and sell pot, that wouldn't stop illegal smuggling of pot and anyway there is a lot more money in cocaine, heroin, meth and other assorted drugs.

This in no way curtails illegal immigrants who come to work and send theri money back home, while draining welfare programs. In some locations over 70% of the babies delivered in hospitals belong to illegal aliens.

And that doesn't even mention those illegal border crossers from assorted countries who are arriving in preparation for violent jihad for political purposes.
 
#19
#19
my favorite was the texas representative, Louie Gohmert I believe, saying that if the 14th amendment wasn't changed, then Al Queda would send pregnant women over to America to have a baby and then start to train these babies to be terrorists
 
#20
#20
my favorite was the texas representative, Louie Gohmert I believe, saying that if the 14th amendment wasn't changed, then Al Queda would send pregnant women over to America to have a baby and then start to train these babies to be terrorists

That is the objective of Hamas, Hezbollah and Al-Shabab.

They have said so themselves and seem to be doing very well at it.

The 14th amendment doesn't need to be changed, the unfounded, idiotic interpretation of it needs to be challenged in court.

Someday we may even elect people who will use the considerable power of the justice department and other federal agencies on behalf of the American people rather than against them.

The way the current administration and the supreme court interpret the law, the rulings of the Nuremburg trials would be ruled nul and void.
 
#21
#21
I figured you'd like a crazy theory that only a single representative (who has some other issues on what he thinks) belives like that :p

however i do agree on your point that the amendment doesn't need to be change
 
#22
#22
I figured you'd like a crazy theory that only a single representative (who has some other issues on what he thinks) belives like that :p

however i do agree on your point that the amendment doesn't need to be change

One only has to read what terrorist leaders say and follow current events. There is no need for crazy theories or even to call what the man said a crazy theory anyway, that's crazy.

I'm not sure about the point on which we agree.

Are you saying the 14th amendment doesn't need to be changed to end the practice of giving citizenship to 'anchor babies,' or do you think we should continue to issue citizenship to anchor babies.

Since we cannot or should not imo deport an American citizen and to deport it's parents wouldn't be in the best interest of the child, then effectivly we give the parents the right to reside in America as well. (and according to the likes of Kerry et al, who seem to despise the family unit usually, think all the grandparents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles and cousins should also be given permanent entry visas so as to maintian family cohesiveness.)

Let me give an example, I was talking with a lady down in new Orleans a few years ago. She married an American merchant marine a long time ago and became an American citizen also. She is originally from Guatamala and had just returned from a trip there and was proud to announce that she had counted 105 nephews and nieces in attendendance at a family reunion.
 
#23
#23
One only has to read what terrorist leaders say and follow current events. There is no need for crazy theories or even to call what the man said a crazy theory anyway, that's crazy.

I'm not sure about the point on which we agree.

Are you saying the 14th amendment doesn't need to be changed to end the practice of giving citizenship to 'anchor babies,' or do you think we should continue to issue citizenship to anchor babies.

Since we cannot or should not imo deport an American citizen and to deport it's parents wouldn't be in the best interest of the child, then effectivly we give the parents the right to reside in America as well. (and according to the likes of Kerry et al, who seem to despise the family unit usually, think all the grandparents, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles and cousins should also be given permanent entry visas so as to maintian family cohesiveness.)

Let me give an example, I was talking with a lady down in new Orleans a few years ago. She married an American merchant marine a long time ago and became an American citizen also. She is originally from Guatamala and had just returned from a trip there and was proud to announce that she had counted 105 nephews and nieces in attendendance at a family reunion.

You seem to know a lot about the terrorists' plans. Are you a terrorist yourself posting on Vol Nation?
 
#24
#24
You seem to know a lot about the terrorists' plans. Are you a terrorist yourself posting on Vol Nation?

If what I say scares you, jump in my pocket.

To answer your question, no and furthermore one must be living in some sort of cocoon to not know what I say is true, one only has to read the statements of islamic leaders and comments made by retired FBI and counter-terrorism experts and from former muslims who have renounced such a devilish doctrine.

http://www.lorenzenfamily.com/paul/islam/militant-islam.html

"One of them [American converts to Islam], Jeffrey Lang, writes of his dismay attending a lecture in a San Francisco mosque not long after his conversion and hearing an immigrant medical student issue a seditious call to arms:

We must never forget - and this is extremely important - that as Muslims, we are obligated to desire, and when possible to participate in, the overthrow of any non-Islamic government - anywhere in the world - in order to replace it by an Islamic one.

But calling on Muslims to overthrow the U.S. government, Lang protested to the lecturer, means that accepting Islam was tantamount to an act of political treason. "Yes, that's true," the lecturer blithely replied.

Just read the basic texts from which the 'terrorists' derive their rhetoric.

Qur’an:9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”

Qur’an:9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”

Qur’an:9:123 “Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you.”

Read posts # 276 and 278.

Instead of rational responses from the white house, state department, homeland security and various other federal agencies and most politicians, particularly democrats, we get pusillanimitous poppycock such as this:

Fitzgerald: What, Mr. Gibbs, is that "idea that has corrupted a religion"? - Jihad Watch

Is it the idea that under the Shari'a, the Holy Law of Islam, non-Muslims at best can expect to endure life as dhimmis, that is, as people who are locked into a permanent status that guarantees deliberate humiliation (as in the conditions that accompany the payment of the Jizyah), degradation, and physical insecurity? (See Antoine Fattal, Le status legal des non-musulmanes en pays d'Islam).

Is it the idea that the world belongs to Allah, but that right now, that world which belongs to Allah is divided between those parts where Muslims already rule, the Dar al-Islam (the House, or Domain, of Islam), and Dar al-Harb (the House, or Domain, of War, where Infidels not yet subject to Islam still dominate), and that it is the duty of all Muslims to participate, directly or indirectly, in the Jihad or struggle to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam?

Is it the idea that a state of permanent war, though not always of open warfare, must exist between Believer and Unbeliever, Muslim and Infidel?

Is it the idea that women and non-Muslims are permanently inferior to Muslim males in a well-ordered society, that is, one where the Holy Law of Islam, the Shari'a, prevails?

What is it, exactly, that Mr. Gibbs, and behind Mr. Gibbs the Administration for which he stands, thinks is the "idea that has corrupted a religion," the "religion" (a Total Belief-System really, which offers a system of Complete Regulation of Life, and is not only a "religion" as we carelessly use that unexamined term, but also a politics and a geopolitics) being Islam?

We all want to know.

And then you have brainwashed, gullible young fools regurgitaing such nonsense in this forum.

Then too there is the occasional one such as yourself that asks such an asinine question as your have.


More on the anchor baby question.

Across Texas, 60,000 babies of noncitizens get U.S. birthright | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Latest News

Still, the debate could resonate in Texas, where not only 1.5 million illegal immigrants are estimated to reside but at least 60,000 babies are added to their households annually.

Parkland Memorial Hospital delivers more of those babies than any other hospital in the state. Last year at Parkland, 11,071 babies were born to women who were noncitizens, about 74 percent of total deliveries. Most of these women are believed to be in the country illegally.
---------------------------------

"I've checked the Congressional Record for when the 14th Amendment was written, and the author was quoted as saying that it did not apply to foreigners," he said. "There's no question in my mind about it."
 
#25
#25
Let me get this straight...the 14th Amendment which is an amendment that Republicans passed and has been seen as one of their greatest achievements in the history of this great nation is now being threatened with repeal/modifications by Republicans?
 
Advertisement





Back
Top