| Red Mosquito http://archive.theskyiscrape.com/ |
|
| Outcry over "birthright citizenship" http://archive.theskyiscrape.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=30647 |
Page 1 of 4 |
| Author: | Athletic Supporter [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 9:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Outcry over "birthright citizenship" |
By David Crary The Associated Press 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, 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 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." According to a survey last month by Rasmussen Reports, a nonpartisan public-opinion research firm, 49 percent of Americans polled 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. 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." 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. Immigrant-rights groups say the number of such cases is smaller than critics allege. ******************** I really don't think children of illegals should be citizens. I do, however, think it should be easier to become a citizen here. Anyhow, found it interesting. |
|
| Author: | Green Habit [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 9:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Outcry over "birthright citizenship" |
I saw this article earlier, and meant to post it but forgot. Good job. Athletic Supporter wrote: I really don't think children of illegals should be citizens.
I do, however, think it should be easier to become a citizen here. That pretty much sums up my commentary on this subject. |
|
| Author: | shades-go-down [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 9:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Good luck changing the constitution. |
|
| Author: | Green Habit [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 9:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
shades-go-down wrote: Good luck changing the constitution.
What case determined it would be unconstitutional? |
|
| Author: | pjam81373 [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 9:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
shades-go-down wrote: Good luck changing the constitution. So you think the following is wrong? Quote: Some conservatives in Congress, as well as advocacy groups seeking to crack down on illegal immigration, say the amendment has been misapplied, 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.
|
|
| Author: | Athletic Supporter [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 9:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
shades-go-down wrote: Good luck changing the constitution.
True, but like any other part of that fine document, interpretation is the key. |
|
| Author: | broken iris [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 9:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
This would not require changing the constitution, it would require a federal law which passes a Supreme Court challenge. It's about goddamn time they attempted something like this. When that amendment was written the US population was like 1/5 of what it is now and they rightly claim the intention of that amendment was to prevent federal/state/local governments from revoking the citizenship of children whose parents whose citizenship has been removed. The benefits of citizenship should earned, not given. |
|
| Author: | Athletic Supporter [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 9:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
broken_iris wrote: The benefits of citizenship should earned, not given.
How would it be earned? |
|
| Author: | broken iris [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 9:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Athletic Supporter wrote: broken_iris wrote: The benefits of citizenship should earned, not given. How would it be earned? Not Starship Troopers -esque. I remember taking a citizenship test..... |
|
| Author: | Athletic Supporter [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 9:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
broken_iris wrote: Athletic Supporter wrote: broken_iris wrote: The benefits of citizenship should earned, not given. How would it be earned? I remember taking a citizenship test..... I never took one, are you naturalized? |
|
| Author: | broken iris [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 10:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Athletic Supporter wrote: broken_iris wrote: I remember taking a citizenship test..... I never took one, are you naturalized? No, born and rasied in the DC suburbs. I took one in 10th grade in Maryland in 1992. Is that no longer required of high school students? |
|
| Author: | jwfocker [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 10:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
broken_iris wrote: Athletic Supporter wrote: broken_iris wrote: I remember taking a citizenship test..... I never took one, are you naturalized? No, born and rasied in the DC suburbs. I took one in 10th grade in Maryland in 1992. Is that no longer required of high school students? I guess not, I never took one, tis strange |
|
| Author: | Athletic Supporter [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 10:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
broken_iris wrote: Athletic Supporter wrote: broken_iris wrote: I remember taking a citizenship test..... I never took one, are you naturalized? No, born and rasied in the DC suburbs. I took one in 10th grade in Maryland in 1992. Is that no longer required of high school students? I was in 10th grade in 1992 also and we took nothing of the sort. Was it something official? What if you failed?  OFF TO NICARAGUA!
|
|
| Author: | Chris_H_2 [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 10:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't see Bush signing a bill like this . . . |
|
| Author: | JimNasium [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 11:01 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Coming from a non-US citizen, I also agree that they shouldn't get American citizenship. But, if the Conservatives are saying that a section of the constitution is being "misapplied" they better shut the fuck up about the Right to Bear Arms |
|
| Author: | Sandler [ Tue Dec 27, 2005 11:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Outcry over "birthright citizenship" |
Athletic Supporter wrote: it should be easier to become a citizen here. Absolutely. JimNasium wrote: if the Conservatives are saying that a section of the constitution is being "misapplied" they better shut the fuck up about the Right to Bear Arms
I really don't see how these two issues relate. |
|
| Author: | simple schoolboy [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
JimNasium wrote: Coming from a non-US citizen, I also agree that they shouldn't get American citizenship. But, if the Conservatives are saying that a section of the constitution is being "misapplied" they better shut the fuck up about the Right to Bear Arms
Now now friend, those pesky commas are at fault for the ambiguity that stems from our favorite ammendment. 
|
|
| Author: | punkdavid [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 7:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
broken_iris wrote: This would not require changing the constitution, it would require a federal law which passes a Supreme Court challenge. I agree. This is a matter of Constitutional interpretation. Quote: It's about goddamn time they attempted something like this. When that amendment was written the US population was like 1/5 of what it is now and they rightly claim the intention of that amendment was to prevent federal/state/local governments from revoking the citizenship of children whose parents whose citizenship has been removed. Huh? I thought the original intention of the 14th Amendment was to make it so that former slaves and their descendants would be classified as citizens. Where does this "removing citizenship" stuff come from? Quote: The benefits of citizenship should earned, not given.
Watch out for that slippery slope, my friend. I've got a list of Americans whose families have lived here for generations whose citizenships I think should be shitcanned.
|
|
| Author: | Buffalohed [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 8:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
This issue makes me so furious that I am pretty sure it would be impossible for me to add anything meaningful to this thread, aside from saying that I fucking hate that law from the bottom of my heart, and illegal immigrants crossing the border to give berth makes me want to murder people more than anything else in this country, except maybe Bush. |
|
| Author: | LittleWing [ Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Quote: Watch out for that slippery slope, my friend. I've got a list of Americans whose families have lived here for generations whose citizenships I think should be shitcanned.- PD
I'm telling you, Immigrant Exchange program. How easy should it be to become a US citizen? |
|
| Page 1 of 4 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|