| Author |
Message |
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
 Mon Dec 26, 2005 8:09 pm Birthright Citizenship |
|
| Quote: | Bitter Debate Over 'Birthright Citizenship' By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer
Mon Dec 26, 1:21 PM ET
NEW YORK - A proposal to change long-standing federal policy and deny citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants on U.S. soil ran aground this month in Congress, but it is sure to resurface � kindling bitter debate even if it fails to become law.
At issue is "birthright citizenship" � provided for since the Constitution's 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.
Section 1 of that amendment, drafted with freed slaves in mind, says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Some conservatives in Congress, as well as advocacy groups seeking to crack down on illegal immigration, say the amendment has been misapplied over the years, that it was never intended to grant citizenship automatically to babies of illegal immigrants. Thus they contend that federal legislation, rather than a difficult-to-achieve constitutional amendment, would be sufficient to end birthright citizenship.
With more than 70 co-sponsors, Georgia Republican Rep. Nathan Deal (news, bio, voting record) tried to include a revocation of birthright citizenship in an immigration bill passed by the House in mid-December. GOP House leaders did not let the proposal come to a vote.
"Most Americans feel it doesn't make any sense for people to come into the country illegally, give birth and have a new U.S. citizen," said Ira Mehlman of the Federation of American Immigration Reform, which backs Deal's proposal. "But the advocates for illegal immigrants will make a fuss; they'll claim you're punishing the children, and I suspect the leadership doesn't want to deal with that."
Deal has said he will continue pushing the issue, describing birthright citizenship as "a huge magnet" attracting illegal immigrants. He cited estimates � challenged by immigrant advocates � that roughly 10 percent of births in the United States, or close to 400,000 a year, are babies born to illegal immigrants.
"It's an issue that we are very concerned about," said Michele Waslin, director of immigration policy research for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy organization that opposes any effort to revoke birthright citizenship.
"This was always seen in the past as some extreme, wacko proposal that never goes anywhere," she said. "But these so-called wacko proposals are becoming more and more mainstream � it's becoming more acceptable to have a discussion about it."
Alvaro Huerta of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles said his organization opposes Deal's proposal and is girding for a battle for public opinion.
"This is red meat for conservatives," he said. "They throw out these issues they know aren't winning issues, and they create an environment of anti-immigrant sentiment. We need to do better job of educating people why it's wrong."
According to a survey last month by Rasmussen Reports, a nonpartisan public opinion research firm, 49 percent of Americans favor ending birthright citizenship, and 41 percent favor keeping it. The margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., a leading proponent of tougher measures to stop illegal immigration, believes public opinion could shift further in favor of Deal's measure.
"Any issue that has a `damn right' response, you can go with," Tancredo said. "You ask if we should stop illegal immigrants from coming onto this country and having a baby here who is an American citizen, and most people say, `Damn right.'"
However, Tancredo acknowledged that Deal's measure faces major obstacles. Though he believes the House GOP leadership will eventually allow the proposal to come to a vote, Tancredo said it could flounder in the Senate or draw a veto from President Bush, who has sought to steer a middle course on some immigration issues.
The best strategy, Tancredo suggested, might be to avoid presenting the measure as a separate, stand-alone bill and instead add it to a broader piece of legislation that the Senate could not disregard.
Tancredo, Deal and others have noted that the United States is among the relatively few wealthy nations that allow birthright citizenship.
However, Lucas Guttentag, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Immigrants' Rights Project, said some Western European nations with different policies have suffered problems.
"Look at Germany � the children of guest workers are not citizens," he said. "That creates enormous social and racial tensions. That's the opposite of where we want to go."
Guttentag also said the federal courts would probably strike down any measure that challenged the 14th Amendment's citizenship guarantees.
"It's a far-fetched, fundamentally misguided and unconstitutional proposal," he said. "It's not the kind of proposal that gets taken seriously by those who actually want to grapple with immigration issues."
Some critics of current policy refer to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants as "anchor babies" because � when they reach adulthood � they can sponsor their parents for legal permanent residency. Immigrants-rights groups say the number of such cases is smaller than critics allege, but authoritative statistics are scarce. |
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051226/ap_on_re_us/illegal_immigrants_birthright
This is uh...interesting topic. Although I'm not too sure where I stand on this. I see both sides.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Dec 26, 2005 8:16 pm |
|
I'm pretty much on the anti-birthright citizenship side. For instance, I don't think that if you're parents come to this country illegally and you're born right on our side of the border that you should be a citizen. That's not just right and gives someone who breaks our laws an excuse to be here. That's where I think I stand, although I can, yes, see both sides.
(I do believe that someone who's born to a legal resident of the US that they should be automatic citizens, though.)
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Mon Dec 26, 2005 10:25 pm |
|
I agree with RM *ghasp*. I don't think that if you're parents are illegal and you're born here that you're a legal citizen or should be by any means, on the other hand if you're parents are legal us citizens and your born out of the country, you should be a legal us citizen.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Dec 26, 2005 10:27 pm |
|
Perhaps refugees (from, say, Cuba) could be an exception, but I'm suprised! Yet again Starbuck and I actually, God forbid, agree on something! 
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Mon Dec 26, 2005 10:56 pm |
|
I am for the birthright citizenship. I really don't have to much an issue with it, but that's probably because I don't have too much of an issue with illegal immigrants either, so yeah.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Dec 26, 2005 11:08 pm |
|
So you think that if someone is born here just after crossing the border they should immediately be able to have citizenship (not to mention that they're parents, who entered illegally, would have to be allowed to stay)?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Mon Dec 26, 2005 11:09 pm |
|
Yeah, I would be for that. I think that it would definately give the kid a chance at a better life, which I think is the most important thing.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Dec 26, 2005 11:20 pm |
|
I disagree, but very well.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Tue Dec 27, 2005 3:21 am |
|
Also got to remember those people who break the law, they also are working under the table. Taking away American's jobs. People are loosing everywhere due to illegal immigrants. I am not racists at all so don't take me the wrong way. Now if they was born into America, yeah get a job like us legal. I have a Mexican-American friend who feels the same way I do. He lost his job due to the illegal immigrants. Yeah I know my spelling. 
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Tue Dec 27, 2005 12:50 pm |
|
Why should a child pay for the sins of its parents?
Born in the U.S.A = citizen.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Dec 27, 2005 1:20 pm |
|
Why? Because they were born here illegally, and it gives their parents an excuse to stay. It's a loophole that's just not right.
Born legally in the USA = citizen
Born illegally in the USA = not citizen
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Tue Dec 27, 2005 1:59 pm |
|
How can one be born illegally? That's nonsence. It's not like a child can refuse to be born until it is "legal". I thought we've gotten beyond forcing children to pay for the sins of their parents.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Dec 27, 2005 2:05 pm |
|
Not when it comes to citizenship.
If two parents are caught by the border patrol and in the process of taking them to the center the woman has her baby. That baby should not become a citizen, especially because it allows for the parents to remain here and mooch off the system and add to the amount of people in the classrooms, medical care required, and things like that when they entered this country illegally. It allows them to get by and an excuse to remain in the country, which isn't right.
I see your side but respectfully disagree. I'm not one for allowing illegal aliens benefits that they shouldn't get just because their baby is a citizen.
Now, on the other hand, if they were deported a month later or so, when the baby is ready, back to their country and the baby returns years later, when old enough and comes legally, they could be considered citizens. So if they return LEGALLY later, their citizenship would stand. That I'd be fine with.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Tue Dec 27, 2005 11:04 pm |
|
I'm not sure where I stand on this issue. Why should the baby be denied the right to a better life? But then again, why should the parents be automatically allowed to virtually live off the system? It should also be taken into account how radically expensive it is to become a citizen. There really aren't any clear-cut answers.
However, if anyone is to blame, it's the US government.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Wed Dec 28, 2005 10:27 am |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | Why should a child pay for the sins of its parents?
Born in the U.S.A = citizen. |
Why should society pay for the "sins" of the parents?
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Wed Dec 28, 2005 5:56 pm |
|
If a child is born in the U.S. and raised in the U.S., goes to school here (For better or worse) that qualifies as a citizen to me. It's not by any means right that the parents are here, and illegal immigration does have to be dealt with. However... if you've lived in America all your life, what other country could you possibly belong to?
-------signature-------
Not the doctor... yet
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:17 pm |
|
| webtaz99 wrote: | | LightningBoy wrote: | Why should a child pay for the sins of its parents?
Born in the U.S.A = citizen. |
Why should society pay for the "sins" of the parents? |
Since when is it "paying" for a child to have the opportunity to make something of hisself, and someday, contribute to society in the U.S.
The best argument for immigration is the next generation. The U.S. was founded on tired, hungry, and worn out immigrants who made something of themselves. I don't see why that should change now.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Dec 29, 2005 2:23 pm |
|
The U.S. was founded on tired, hungry, and worn out immigrants who made something of themselves, yes--but how did they come here? They came here LEGALLY.
What he means is the costs of education, medical coverage, etc. Do you know how many classrooms are maxed out because of illegal immigration--how many hospitals have been forced to report bankruptcy--all because of people who entered this country illegally and had to be supported? And how many illegals are on welfare, and how (just a little interesting side-note) 1/3 of all US prisoners are illegals (and not for being here illegally, either)?
THAT'S the crux of the matter here. It gives the parents an excuse to stay, mooch off our system, and all that--and also adds to the crowded school systems, etc. That's the driving reason for my position.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Dec 29, 2005 6:25 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | THAT'S the crux of the matter here. It gives the parents an excuse to stay, mooch off our system, and all that--and also adds to the crowded school systems, etc. That's the driving reason for my position. |
Should impoverished people be forbidden from having children too then? Or should the children of the poor, who live off "the system" be denied citizenship?
(I'm just trying to establish the hitherto undefined criteria for who is "worthy" of the vaunted "citizenship".)
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Dec 29, 2005 6:27 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | THAT'S the crux of the matter here. It gives the parents an excuse to stay, mooch off our system, and all that--and also adds to the crowded school systems, etc. That's the driving reason for my position. |
Should impoverished people be forbidden from having children too then? Or should the children of the poor, who live off "the system" be denied citizenship? |
They are the children of rightful citizens. It's a completely different thing.
I'm talking those who come into this country illegally and then mooch off the system. I'm not talking about any poor citizens who have children or anything.
And I've said absolutely nothing about forbidding people from having children. Not at all.
It seems to me that you misunderstand my argument.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Dec 29, 2005 6:47 pm |
|
Why would a child having citizenship allow the parent to "mooch" from the system?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Dec 29, 2005 6:57 pm |
|
Oh, I don't think that it should give them reason to mooch of the system, no, don't misunderstand me. As a matter of fact, I want reform all around, so that no one can mooch of the system.
But what's really messed up, in terms of this argument, is how parents who entered this country illegally can use their child, who was born while they're in the US (even JUST AFTER crossing over), as an excuse to stay and mooch off of our system--using any of the benefits that legal citizens get because their child was born here--is especially wrong.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Thu Dec 29, 2005 7:08 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | The U.S. was founded on tired, hungry, and worn out immigrants who made something of themselves, yes--but how did they come here? They came here LEGALLY. |
Native Americans would disagree with you. 
I'm on the fence here still. Neither side really proved much. Its hard to believe that EVERY illegal who gave birth here, did it soley to "mooch" off the system.
I can understand why people get angry about it, but its a little hypocritical. America, a GREAT nation first and foremost, was founded on illegals. I don't mean Mexicans, Chinese, or any other illegals. Even the founding fathers. The Native Americans had claim to this land first and when they stood up and tried to kick out the "illegals", they were massacred.
I know that those were different and lawless times. Now we have become more civilized. I'm just saying to take into consideration that not every illegal is evil and here to screw the system.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Dec 29, 2005 7:20 pm |
|
You misunderstand history. I don't seem to remember the Native Americans having immigration procedures or forming a specific state that was recognized by the international community. Not that I'm advocating the things done to them, but still.
The United States of America is a sovereign state with its own borders and immigration procedures, and those procedures and laws must be followed and respected.
Now, I'm not saying that all Mexicans come to the US ready to give birth simply to mooch off the system, but nevertheless, it is what's happened. Hospitals have been forced to report bankruptcy and schools have been overcrowded due to illegal immigration, and too many illegals are on welfare--and this usually ends up happening with illegals who have kids, especially those who are born upon crossing the border.
And I don't even think that most illegals are evil. Most want to make a better life for themselves. But that doesn't change the facts, nor that it's wrong for parents to mooch off the system (as many illegals do) simply because their child was born on this side, instantly, for all intents and purposes, making it so that they are allowed to stay on this side of the border because their child is a citizen for being born here.
I know that even most don't do that (have children here specifically to mooch off the system), but nevertheless.
We have laws and they must be respected. Simply because the child of two parents was born after crossing this border doesn't mean that we can forget their crimes and allow them to stay here--simply because their child is, by default, a "citizen."
I can see the other argument but, knowing this, entirely disagree.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Dec 29, 2005 7:28 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | You misunderstand history. |
According to whom? History is written by the victors and is in fact mostly a fiction, except for the parts that are True�.
| Republican_Man wrote: | | I don't seem to remember the Native Americans having immigration procedures |
Oh they didn't, did they?
| Republican_Man wrote: | | or forming a specific state that was recognized by the international community. |
There was no such thing as an "international community". Imperialism meant that either the French or the English would colonise it, unless it was Russia. Because Russia was cold.
On the topic though . . . I'm still not getting over this whole point about denying the rights to the child. Those who are against abortion claim that a child has no choice when it is born into this world, that it is wrong to terminate that child's life because the child has done nothing wrong. So why is this different? The child has done nothing wrong. The teenage mother of a child can request social assistance (right?) and yet we don't consider them to be "mooching" apparently.
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
