E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThe debate over the citizenship rights of children of illegal immigrants doesn’t seem to be going away.
In the latest development, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales – who is of Mexican descent – spoke out against GOP-backed proposals to amend the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent automatic citizenship for all children born in the United States regardless of their parents’ immigration status.
“Because most undocumented workers come here to provide for themselves and their families, a constitutional amendment will not solve our immigration crisis,” he wrote in a Washington Post op-ed. “People will certainly continue to cross our borders to find a better life, irrespective of the possibilities of U.S. citizenship.”
Some have disagreed with Gonzales’s assessment. Cable news channels and the blogoshere have been abuzz in recent weeks with chatter and debate about a phenomenon called “drop and leave.”
The expression is blunt political short-hand for what some claim is a common occurrence: immigrants deliberately traveling to the United States for the purpose giving birth on U.S. soil to a child, and then returning home.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants "birthright citizenship" to any individual born in the United States. Critics of "drop and leave," including some members of Congress, claim illegal immigrants are abusing that provided right, and have been calling a new amendment of the Constitution to eliminate that very provision.
“To have a child in America, they cross the border, they go to the emergency room, have a child, and that child's automatically an American citizen,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said on FOX News last month. “That shouldn't be the case. That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons.”
Critics call such children "anchor babies," because as citizens they can “anchor” their families in the U.S.
Lawmakers and pundits who favor possible changes to the Fourteenth Amendment, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., have pointed to recent news reports about “birth tourism” -- describing businesses that provide travel packages to expectant mothers wanting to deliver their children in the United States.
A recent Washington Post report described how one Taiwanese couple has helped over 500 Chinese mothers give birth to citizen babies in America over the five years they have been in business. A June 2010 Times of London story detailed a package offered by one hotel in New York City (the Marmara Manhattan hotel, part of a Turkish hospitality chain). The paper reported that the package offered a two-month stay, including medical fees for mothers-to-be, for a total of about £28,000 ($43,440). A sales official for the hotel said that no such package exists at this time, but would not comment on whether or not recent press reports about the program were accurate. A Marmara public relations spokesperson declined to comment for this story.
Does "drop-and-leave" happen? Do non-residents of the United States come to American hospitals specifically to have babies who automatically become American citizens? And is it common?
Although it does happen -- there have been some documented cases -- there's no hard evidence that non-citizens are motivated to have children here simply because of the incentive of citizenship for a member of their family.
According to a birth report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a total of 7,775 U.S. births in 2007 were to parents who did not reside in the United States. That’s less than two tenths of one percent of all births nationwide.
But that figure only includes births to parents who are temporary visitors to the U.S. It does not include the number of births to parents who are already living the United States illegally. It's difficult to count or calculate that number, although a 2009 study by the Pew Hispanic Center estimated there are about four million American-born children of illegal immigrants living in the country today.
Graham and other Republicans are correct in saying that estimates of the number of citizen children of illegal immigrants is on the rise. The estimated number of U.S. citizen children with at least one undocumented parent rose from 2.7 million in 2003 to 4 million in 2008, according to Pew.
But the claim that automatic citizenship “attracts” illegal parents to have children on U.S. soil lacks such definitive data.
Jeffrey Passel, a demographer who co-authored the Pew Hispanic Center study, says that there is not conclusive evidence that having American-born children is a major motivator for undocumented immigrants who make their way into the United States.
“If having a baby was the incentive, we’d see more females” migrating across the border to the United States, he said. (The flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico is more than 60 percent male.)
Some who support changing the Fourteenth Amendment argue that undocumented immigrants view having a U.S.-citizen “anchor baby” as a way to discourage federal authorities from deporting them if they are apprehended.
But Anna O. Law, a political science professor at DePaul University, says that courts are not sympathetic. She points out that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a strict standard of evidence for those wishing to defer deportation. They must demonstrate “exceptional and unusual hardship.”
“Exceptional and unusual hardship’ does not include the fact of having a U.S. citizen child,” she said. “Absolutely not.”
Whether or not many illegal parents are having children on U.S. soil as a strategy to stay in the U.S., one statistic shows the U.S. continues to deport significant numbers of illegal parents who have had children here.
According to a 2009 Department of Homeland Security report, U.S. immigration officials deported more than 100,000 non-U.S. citizens between 1998 and 2007 despite their having at least one child with U.S. citizenship. About 80 percent of those parents had recorded criminal convictions; 20 percent were deported based on their immigration status alone.
NBC's Rich Gardella contributed to this report.
Leave a Comment:
Ahh, nothing here on FR about the presentation by the left-wing Herndon Alliance regarding the "abject panic' at the WH regarding the unpopularity of ObamaCare.
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/has-obamacares-unpopularity-caused-abject-panic-at-the-white-house/
Here is the presentation:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM153_pp.html
Cicero
Cicero,
Think Progress: “The Politico article incorrectly assumes that reform is hanging on for dear life and that Democrats and their allies are making one last ditch effort.”
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2010/08/20/smith-message-shift/
The article says that there is little evidence of the anchor baby phenomenon, but maybe the focus is on the illegals from the south. There are absolutely Chinese anchor babies, or as this article calls them "terror tots" who are seeking to ruin the American way of life. When you check these out, you may feel differently about crazy Louie Gohmert, China and the 14th Amendment.
Read this article. It is VERY FUNNY.
http://www.dailygoat.com/?p=2608
How do you know it is Friday afternoon? The loons and the bigots come to First Read for a lengthy Happy Hour.
Me? I'm off to the Dew Drop Inn with my good friends.....First round's on me.
See you there Gingerbread Mamma - I'll bring the popcorn & deep dish pizza! ;0)
"The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants "birthright citizenship" to any individual born in the United States."
That's not completely true. For example, children born in this country whose parents are part of a foreign consulate are NOT granted American citizenship because they are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", even though they live in this country. In a similar way, while the Supreme Court hjas ruled that children born to legal foreign permanent residents ARE granted citizenship, there are no rulings regarding whether those who reside here illegally are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in this country. Obviously, a case could be made that, by breaking the law to be here, are they REALLY making themselves "subject" to our jurisdiction?
I wish the Supreme Court would rule on this issue and put it to rest once and for all. Perhaps the current dramatization of the issue will prompt such a ruling.
PS - If only one of the parents is an American citizen, or even a legal permanent resident, then the child IS given citizenship, and if one of the parents is an American citizen, then the child is automatically granted citizenship - even if the child is born in a foreign country.
”subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means very specifically that diplomats and staff or embassies and consulates’ are not subject to our laws, otherwise known as “Diplomatic Immunity” So the argument you are making is that anyone who is in the US illegally is also immune to our laws. That all Illegal immigrants are not subject to the Jurisdiction of the US courts or legal system, the same way diplomats are when acting as an extension of a foreign government within the US… I’m quite sure they would like that as it would mean it would mean that the police would have no legal ability to arrest them, nor the courts the right to order their deportation.
Glyph....your take is interesting but incorrect. "Subject to the jurisdiction" was never intended to be language whored out to those trying to simply take advantage of U.S. generosity and apathy. The author of the citizenship clause (Senator Jacob Howard - MI) was clear during the debate when he said the clause "excludes persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.". He went on to say that the term jurisdiction meant the U.S. possessed a "full and complete jurisdiction" over the persons described in the amendment. That would not be true of someone illegally in the country. It is no surprise that all modern nations have eliminated birthright citizenship except the U.S. which is seeminly intent on imploding under the financial burden caused by the immigration problem.
If nothing else... this ought to SEND the right wing nitwits into a 'tizzy'!
Let the Drudge Drones decend in 3...2...1...
Why would it do that? It is just an opinion and that is all. I wouldn't expect anything else from Gonzales.
Why the hell would the right want the poor immigrants to have anything? Hell, they don't even want our OWN poor citizens to have anything!
Just for clarification, drive-by...
Are you speaking of legal immigrants...those who are willing to accept (and comply) with current federal immigration law to enter the United States?
If you are, I think you'll find that most Americans (again...MOST, not all) are willing to welcome and assist legal immigrants to the United States.
Without a workable system to evaluate who is entering the country and why, in these times...
The immigration policy of the United States is simply a disaster waiting to happen.
The Reagan Administration gave us amnesty without border security.
This time...it's border security first.
We can sort out the rest afterwards, eh?
Devil's ALWAYS in the details, Bag Boy.
driveby - our own Poor Folks have received $13 Trillion in "means tested" government giveaway programs since the programs started. As soon as the illegals become legal they qualify for all those taxpayer paid programs. They will NOT be paying income taxes because of EIC and child tax credits. Get your facts straight.
Mixed Bag, You're right that Americans are willing to accept legal immigrants, but a lot of money is being poured into groups that don't feel the same way. The ironically named FAIR, Commission for Immigration Studies, and NumbersUSA exist soley for the purpose of spewing out anti-immigration propaganda. Rupert Murdoch has developed a reputation for being long opposed immigration by non-Anglos (a handful of Europeans excepted) into Australia, Britain, or the Untied States. SB1070 in Arizona is designed largely to urge Latinos (citizens, legal immigrants, or otherwise) to just leave the state, which is why Pearce (a man who pals around with Nazis at political rallies) introduced it in the first place. It has nothing to do with border security, which is why nothing in it adresses border security. It has everything to do with encouraging people who are ethnically undersirable to leave, which is exactly the same policy espoused by John Tanton (and the propaganda groups he helped spawn, such as FAIR, CIS, and NumbersUSA).
Ronald Reagan gave us amnesty and an immigration policy based ENTIRELY on BORDER SECURITY as a substitute for meaningful immigration reform. Reagan's "reforms" consisted of a quotas on laborers of 5,000 people a year, at a time when an expanding economy demanded a hundred times that many. Do the math. With 500,000 jobs available and only 5,000 visas, laborers had to choose between accepting a job without first receiving a permit from the federal government (as citizens, you and I did not have to apply for such a permit, thank God) or going to the back of a line with a promise that in 100 years the laborer would be first in line, if still living and breathing. You might think that's a good system, but it flies in the face of the free market and does nothing except invite disrespect for the law.
By the way, that whole BORDER SECURITY thing hasn't worked. It didn't work for Reagan, it didn't work for Clinton, it didn't work for either Bush, and even though Obama has done a better job at it than any of his predecessors, it won't work now. As a policy, it's idiotic, unrealistic, is diametrically opposed to free market principles, American ideals, and Judeo-Christian values; and even though it's downright expensive, it's not much better than throwing money down a rathole.
Taxed, you are the one who needs to get his "facts" straight. Immigrants ADD to the economy of our great land. Working should be LEGAL. Unauthorized Americans are MORE likely to be actively engaged in the work force, LESS likely to receive welfare, and LESS likely to be incarcerated than the average US citizen. They PAY MORE in taxes than they receive in services, and CREATE JOBS for citizens by expanding the economy. If every unauthorized non-citizen American disappeared from Arizona tomorrow, the immediate effect on the state economy would the loss of 400,000 jobs and a collapsing of the state economy by the loss of $31 billion in economic output, not even counting the loss of goods and services purchased by the non-citizens. Evan after the Arizona economy had time to recover from the shock, 140,000 US citizens would have PERMANENTLY lost their jobs, and that doesn't even take into account the effect of shuttering factories and shipping jobs overseas.
Ignorance is scant excuse for a false witness. Research needs to go beyond parotting someone else's hate-filled diatribes before you start taking the bread out of someone's mouth.
Thank you Commonsense for a well thought out response!
Keep em coming!
John Bingham confirms that understanding and the construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:"[4] [5] [6]
“
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…. . .
”
- John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Do "illegals" not owe "allegiance to any foreign sovereignty" ? IE. the country of their citizenship ? Where they came from ??????? and What part of the defination of "illegal" do you not understand? And if they are "illegal", why can our country not enforce the laws written and passed by the congress of this nation????? Maybe we should just follow the laws of Mexico concerning "illegal" in the country. But that would not be politically correct would it............to actually enforce the laws passed and signed by various presidents.
P Baukman.. I am in Total Agreement with you. because when i see all these Illegals protesting laws we pass, all the while running around with the Flag of the country they are coming from makes you Wonder just exactly what their allegience is.
"Commonsense" offers an interesting perspective. Where I live and where I come from, illegal immigrants are the ones at the food pantries. They are the ones in the emergency rooms with kids, many of which simply have colds. They don't pay for the services they use and that costs everyone else a lot of money in higher medical and insurance costs, and deprives legal citizens some services.
In the police blotter section of the local newspaper, I once counted 45 incidents of people pulled over for traffic violations that had no valid license, no insurance and, I'm sorry to say, all had Hispanic names. 45 incidents out of the 57 in the village. Most don't show up on their court date. I don't like to make generalizations, and I know I'm making assumptions, but I get the feeling most were illegal.
So, much of the economic benefit "Commonsense" points out illegals provide, could very well be offset by the costs to everyone else. As they break the law and reap free services, they are not showing respect for this country or the citizens in it.
I won't even get into the exploitation of illegals that is also wrong.
I'm curious as to how all of a sudden people are able to identify 'illegals' by LOOKING at them... or they have a 'feeling'...
Must be the GIANT red 'M' tatooed on their foreheads I guess...
you are the one who needs to get his "facts" straight. Immigrants ADD to the economy of our great land. Working should be LEGAL. Unauthorized Americans are MORE likely to be actively engaged in the work force, LESS likely to receive welfare, and LESS likely to be incarcerated than the average US citizen. They PAY MORE in taxes than they receive in services, and CREATE JOBS for citizens by expanding the economy. If every unauthorized non-citizen American disappeared from Arizona tomorrow, the immediate effect on the state economy would the loss of 400,000 jobs and a collapsing of the state economy by the loss of $31 billion in economic output, not even counting the loss of goods and services purchased by the non-citizens. Evan after the Arizona economy had time to recover from the shock, 140,000 US citizens would have PERMANENTLY lost their jobs, and that doesn't even take into account the effect of shuttering factories and shipping jobs overseas.
Commonsense, can you supply the source for your facts? Especially the 'pay more in taxes' than they take in services - can't they only pay taxes if they use a stolen/made up SS#? I've posted on this article about the millions in unreimbursed medical bills at Texas hospitals, for the childbirth (alone) costs of illegal immigrants, that of course doesn't count medical costs associated with treatment for illnesses (diabetes treatment) or accidents. Are those costs offset by a housekeeper working for $7 an hour, or a drywall guy getting $10-12 an hour? How are illegal immigrants expanding our economy (your words)?
The "open border" group is fond of claiming the tremendous finacial impact illegal's add to our economy. They conveniently ignore the actual billions of dollars taken out of our economy and sent to Mexico, or the billions in free services the receive in education, healthcare, welfare and other government assistance. When they do spend money, yes they do pay sales tax...but they are not homeowners so they pay no property taxes, many are paid off the books so they pay no income tax or SS taxes and they don't have company provided healthcare benefits so they are receiving indigent care (meaning FREE healthcare) the cost of which is paid by the rest of us. They can't legally purchase auto insurance so it is a game of chance every time they hop in the car to drive anywhere. Reagan granted amnesty (I remember it billed as "one time, never again") and it didn't work because the problem is much greater now.
The solution is simple, mandate the use of everify for every employer. Implement a miminum $100,000 fine for every illegal worker found in any company and offer a $25,000 reward for anyone who provides authorities information on companies that are employing illegals.
Eliminate birthright citizenship to children unless one parent is a legal U.S. citizen. Every illegal arrested should be deported immediately.
Oh, and secure the border.
There, Mr. Obama how effing hard was that?
Hi, Feisty-
Why don't you ask your pal patHuntingtonNY about how to identify illegals?
Seems he's had some experience with illegals...right in his own neighborhood!
He'll tell you, sweetie...
Hello, Feisty,
You would call those driving around with no licenses or identification "undocumented."
These are your words... not mine Candice...
It's a scary/sad day in this country when people have a 'feeling' that people that don't look JUST like them are 'illegal'...
I pray for anyone who is unlucky enough to have you on their jury...
Have a nice evening... all 'feelings' aside...
So there I was driving along, making a left turn from the left turn lane, when up comes a car on my left side and slams into my cute little red mustang. The guy driving had no license. No identification. No insurance and didn't speak English. He didn't show up in court and basically disappeared.
Hmmmm. A law abiding citizen? Here on a work visa? Or possibly illegal? What do you think? I don't know. We're not allowed to ask.
I know you're not naive. It's okay to admit illegal immigration is a problem that needs to be addressed.
I don't make assumptions about people because of their looks or their names. Combined with no i.d., no license, no insurance, little or no English, not showing up in traffic court (why would that be?), makes me a bit suspect. But maybe you're right. What are the chances one or a few of the estimated 11 million Hispanic illegals in the country are here in Illinois - a sanctuary state?
Why would you envision an "M" on their foreheads, Feisty? "M" for what? Many illegals are from many different countries. It's not wise to make generalizations and assumptions about people or groups.
Any way, thank you -- I hope you have a very nice evening, too.
Thanks for the 'back-peddling' I expected nothing less out of you...
It was YOU who said you had a feeling after READING local police blotters... now you want to talk about your car accident? Too funny! lol
As for the 'M' on their foreheads - I'm not making assumptions just reading the blog here at FR and noticing how prominent the evil 'M' word (as in Mexican) is mentioned...
Moonlighting, you ask a VERY GOOD question, and I thank you for it.
The bit about paying more in taxes comes from a study prepared by the Office of the State Comptroller of Texas ("Undocumented Immigrants in Texas: A Financial Analysis of the Impact to the State Budget and Economy", Texas Office of the Comptroller, 2006). This is the best and most scientific study I have been able to find on the subject. Republican Carole Keaton Rylander was the State Comptroller at the time the study was published.
The bit about impacts to the Arizona state economy comes from "An Analysis of the Economic Impact of Undocumented Workers on Business Activity in the US with Estimated Effects by State and Industry", The Peryman Group, April 2008.
Both studies can be found on the internet.
.
Texas, if someone earns money and wants to send some of it to relatives in Mexico, or on the moon for that matter, it's their money and their business, not yours.
The Constitution, on the other hand, is as much MY business as anyone's, and I intend to keep it as is.
I appreciated FR's expansion to mention nationalities other than Mexican (Chinese and Turkish). Tightening up the southwest boarder isn't going to do anything to prevent them from coming here. What this all comes down to is that if you have the money to fly in, no problem! But if you're poor and wade across the river - watch out!
Drive-by , Why do you give away the whole damn country. That's all you Lefties have been doing since the beginning of time. You and your GREAT LEADER and his minions have been giving everything , no wonder we are in the state we are in now. Now, you want to distribute the wealth, so now you can give to the outsiders who broke our laws. This country has not known any peace since the Bama took office. His polls is in the tank and not in the water tank but the septic tank. Good riddance in Nov.
"This country has not known any peace since the Bama took office"
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
BTW, Subversive Juven- you aren't form Fairfax, by any chance, are you? You know- "sharing with fellow human beings- BAD, "ME FIRST"- good.
Jeez, and I said Joe from Albany proved he was an idiot with every post. This Juven guy has him beat 10 times over.
Did your Mommy forget to medicate you today?
Who gave us amnesty? Just go back to watching Glenn Beck will ya?
The right wingers are the same people who told Joseph there was no room at the inn, but he could use the stable.
They wrongly assume that the problems of America come from the Mexicans. Its the other way around.
When there were twelve million Mexicans here, all our housing was filled and home prices were solid. THen the short-sighted whining conservatives started talking about "All these illegal immigrants" and half went home, causing the housing bubble to burst.
That's correct, Bill O'Relley started this movement and so caused the depression. Of course, I know better, it was the lack of financial policy that ruined the economy and caused the Bush depression, but it was yelling about the Mexicans that made it much worse.
Why is it the conservatives can piss in the well of our commonwealth then complain about the taste of the water (all the while drinking Perrier.)
Maybe you could tell us what it is that he has explicitly given away.And please don't say things like heath care or welfare as those are things that were in place before he got there.And he would be doing more to fix these things if the party of hell-no would do something besides running for the next election by trying ( to put it politely) confuse there minions about the truth.Many of the problems we are now experiencing are not new they have been here for a long time and instead of trying to blame Obama the rep should try and come up with some work able answers,but they don't because it is easy er to run around pandering to the i got mine you can get your own crowd and they now if they came up with soom solutions they would piss of some of these people and that would mean lost votes.And we all now that the next election and then the one after that and the one after that is the only thing that is important to them.
The world has gone over the edge. Toouncommon believes the inn keepers in Bethlehem were Republicans because of their poor treatment of Mary and Joseph.
I think it is also fair to mention that U.S. citizenship for family members of these babies can only be applied for when the child is 21yrs old. U.S. citizenship for families is also not guaranteed.
American citizenship is a prized possession, even with the current Dem, Old Europe, socialist leaning govt.
What the HELL is wrong with requiring that a baby being born in a U.S. hospital having two American citizen parents in order to qualify as a newborn American citizen??
Joe,
Do you want to take my citizenship away now? if so, where will I go? Kansas where my mother is from or Kenya? or is your new proposal just for freshly born babies... I hope so, because along with my arse being depoted, we will be deporting a whole lot of your arses~!!!! living only Native Americans as true citizens of this land.
First, we gotta find the true citizens of America... whooppss they are mostly all dead... .who killed them by the way.... oh yeah, that's right... your great grand-parents... we thank them for their wisdom in getting rid of those native americans....
Oh yeah, why we are in the middle of repealing (or modifying the 14th), why dont we just push down the Statue of Liberty.... we no longer need that "Give me your poor, tired..." stuff anymore. The gate is closed....
I'll just stop now, because I doubt I'm really getting across that cranium of yours..
I'd much rather that they had two INTELLIGENT parents, and not two ignorant, xenophobic bigots.
And what if only one of their parents is a genuine American citizen?
Shotgun Joe: Does not understand that his positon runs contrary to the US Constitution. "Less than 2 tens of one percent. That's .002%. I think this country is strong enough to manage that. Could it be that conservative Joe becomes real uncomfortable around...aliens. Oh, don't bother to call me a moron. You have already used that ploy.
So my cousin's kids, born here in the United States, should not be citizens because even though my cousin is a citizen his wife is not?
Article V of the original Constitution provides, wisely, for a process to amend it when it no longer works. It is a long, arduous, process by intention, but, it has been successfull 27 times, including the first 10 amendments named the "Bill of Rights". The 14th Amendment was adopted in a period that has long passed. It's purpose, championed by those "evil" Republicans, was to ensure that freed slaves and their children wouldn't be descrimiinated against by former confederate states post-Civil war laws.
It was NEVER meant to confer automatic citizenship to chldren of illegal aliens thet dropped their ba babies across the line from Mexico/
LoL Could be, Ron. Maybe we should play MEN IN BLACK and give him a dose of that flashy thing.
Joe you might want to think through your "two American Citizen Parents" position. Although I don't agree that the 14th amendment should be changed, I can at least see the logic against giving citizenship to a child born for two illegal alien parents.
But requiring that both parents be citizens? I don't think many Americans would agree with that. What about two legal permanent resident parents? What about a US citizen mother and an illegal alien father? What about an American citizen mother that got pregnant overseas by a non-U.S. citizen? There are a lot circumstances in-between the two extremes.
I am a citizen (my ancestors came over on the Mayflower) and my son was born a few months before my wife became a citizen. Should my son not be a citizen?
Oh, right, Joe ... I should have thought of that. All that nasty discrimination against former slaves is over. Everyone is equal now. No more need for that outdated, uncomfortable thing called civil rights.
It's just like I used to say about the Equal Rights Amendment. It might be superfluous and unnecessary, but hey, I'm a woman ... humor me.
While we are at changing the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, that Second Amendment thing is a nuisance. Maybe we could drop that and only have 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
The righties will trade you the Second for the Fourth, and an amendment to be named later.
Anna. are you really that dense??
Post civil war laws in former Confederate states that descriminate agaist former slaves are gone, that was the purpose of the 14th Amendment.
Regarding: the ERA. the Constitution's Article V "Amendment" provision is a long and arduous process for a reason: History shows that ERA didn't meet the test of being constitutional amendment material. Ir you want to blame anyone, blame the "three fourths of the several States," that didn't approved it, as required under Article V.
"Oh yeah, why we are in the middle of repealing (or modifying the 14th), why dont we just push down the Statue of Liberty.... we no longer need that "Give me your poor, tired..." stuff anymore. The gate is closed...."
Ummm, yeah, the 1800's were a different time from today in 2010.
Simple enough explanation for your cranium to comprehend???
Of course, I'm dense, Joe. I'm a liberal. What else do you expect?
By the way, I've been called worse. Obtuse beats dense, any six days of the week, and twice on Sundays.
But just because those discriminatory laws are gone, Joe, it doesn't mean discrimination is gone.
As for the ERA, just goes to show, doesn't it? Actually, 35 states initially ratified it, and in several others, it passed one house of the legislature. Which means that a majority of states were for it, even after five states rescinded during the extended ratification period. But that red herring doesn't go to my point, does it? The reason usually given for not ratifying it was that we didn't need it. If it was harmless, then why were people so unwilling to give women that token of equality that they craved? What's wrong with saying that women are equal?
And what's wrong with saying that people are entitled to civil rights? Who, exactly, is hurt by that?
There is nothing worse, than a liberal, their stock in trade, is staeal money from the peopl ethat earned it, use it for their own ends or hand it to a parasite.
We want the crimonal aliens, out of our county
Unfortunately, Joe in Albany doesn't see (or want to see) the inherent danger for amending or repealing the 14th Amendment. You see, the 14th Amendment is a BIRTHRIGHT given to ALL Americans (unlike in Europe, you had a birthright because of your parents) that CANNOT be taken away.
Joe in Albany wants to change that.
That's OK, but what Joe in Albany fails to realise is that if you open the door to change or repeal the 14th Amendment, then ALL of the amendments are fair game. It also opens the door for a maniacial regime (let's call it the Pietro Administration) to use that as precedence to repeal the citizenship of whom they want to go after.
It will allow that madman Pietro (of the Pietro Administration) the RIGHT and the legal precedence to revoke or strip the citizenship of all people in albany whose name is 'Joe'. And as maniacal as the Pietro Administration is, he can then go after all Republicans in New York - just because he doesn't like them - and be successful in rebuffing a legal challenge.
Joe, can you see where I am going here?
Repealing or changing the 14th Amendment is a BAD IDEA. The writers of that Amendment were very deliberate in their language so that a person's citizenship CANNOT be revoked - unless the protections of the 14th Amendment are removed.
Is that what you want, Joe?
Joe in Albany writes:
Well, Joe, you may want to take that point up with the REPUBLICAN Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal. You see, Bobby Jindal is what is lovingly referred a an 'ANCHOR BABY'. Bobby was born in the United States of two immigrant parents from India.
If you had your way, then Bobby Jindal would NOT be an American Citizen. Bobby Jindal would NOT be able to be President of the United States one day.
Its also pretty interesting that Bobby Jindal is STRANGELY silent on this issue.
Although I do not like Bobby Jindal's politics, I do believe, as an American citizen, he has the RIGHT to run however he wants. Of course if Joe in Albany had his way, Bobby jindal would NOT be welcome in this country.
Its Amazing how a BAD idea becomes worse when a REPUBLICAN is involved, isn't it?
NOW you did it Pietro...
You had to go and bring up the rising star of the right... lmao
Rory-2227116,
Really? Really?? I mean Really??? "stock in trade"???? "Crimonal alien..."????
".....There is nothing worse, than a liberal, their stock in trade, is staeal money from the peopl ethat earned it, use it for their own ends or hand it to a parasite.
We want the crimonal aliens, out of our county....."
From reading your post Rory, I can probably bet you are parasite on our economy....
Do you by any chance know that illegal immigration is on the decline (the ain't got too much to offer at this time) or that President Obama has done more to stem illegal immigration that any other president in the last 50years, or that he has deported 10% more illegals than your prez BUSHY?
The Good Lord please take this guy's cranium away, if he aint gonna use it.
HAHAHA... u r a fery fery fonny dud~!
Anna Molly says "Of course, I'm dense, Joe. I'm a liberal. What else do you expect?
By the way, I've been called worse. Obtuse beats dense, any six days of the week, and twice on Sundays.
But just because those discriminatory laws are gone, Joe, it doesn't mean discrimination is gone
_____________________________
Where in my post did you see me saying: "discrimination is gone"??
All I said was the historical purpose of the 14th Amendment was "to ensure that freed slaves and their children wouldn't be discrimiinated against by former confederate states post-Civil war laws."
Sorry that 35 states approving ERA is not enough to pass the Article V requirement of the Constitution for amendment . Sucks to be you.
Joe are you realy sticking to your position of TWO American citizen parents or are you cool with one American citizen parent or legal resident parents?
Pete, Nasty Redhead,et al,
The "good ole USA" is becoming such a sh!tty country to live in since the Dems took over in 2006, that I'm actively looking for an alternative for my retirement years. Ausrtralia, New Zealand. and even, Antarctica are top prospects.
Regardless, you, will still be wasting your time ankle-biiting Mitch Mcconne.ll
Joe, let be the first to point out that this issue with 'Anchor Babies' was a problem long before 2006. Even President Reagan addressed this by offering amnesty.
The 'Good 'ole USA' is not up to your standards, I see.
Good luck trying to get through the immigration issues that Australia and New Zealand have. I hope you have MONEY and a degree because you'll need it.
If you want to live in Antartica, you will have to be friendly with the Canadians first.
Living in Albany, you already know (and love) Canadians, no?
Joey-Albanian,
Dems actually took control of Congress at the end of Jan 07. You say dems managed to somehow harm the country; please elaborate, Dear Sir...
A brief history for the umpteenth time, Capitalism w/o regulation crashed the economy in 2000 (due to speculation that all dot-cons would someday become profitable, even if they had no products)....9/11 further exacerbated the situation forcing Bush's boy Alan Greenspan to try to prop the economy up by providing lower interest rates.
Okay now, at this time, people started to believe their homes were their "only" nest eggs (this has been so for the last 50yrs or so)... and this coupled with the lower interest rate caused the demand in housing to exceed supply... thus house prices went up. As prices went up, banks (Capitalism) as expected became greedy and watered down lending rules (lack of regulation) so that anybody would qualify for a home loan. These same banks also figured that they could pass of the risk as SIV (structured Investment Vehicles) to both foreign investors and insurance agencies such as AIG. While home sales soared like every other bubble we've had in the last 5 centuries, no body (including the republican controlled senate and house) questioned. As long as the money flowed, everyone's happy.
But like every bubble, the bottom fell out - leaving the government to prop up AIG and the banks...
All these happened before Congress went left. Illegal immigrants flocked to the US during this time because everyone was happy here... and no one complained. Now that we have little let's just scape-goat the democrats and illegals for all our woes.
Thank God some of us had the foresight for all this problem before it crashed.... I'm one of the lucky ones that didn't lose a darn thing because I had my ears on the ground.
Just please Joey, read your posts before you post them. Good luck with your retirement though, dont come back when the economy get's better - because it will...we are Americans and we will find a way to recover from Bush's Era.
Pietro, Columbus, Ohio
Joe, let be the first to point out that this issue with 'Anchor Babies' was a problem long before 2006. Even President Reagan addressed this by offering amnesty
If that's the case... I'll toss out my idea about getting a 'pool' together to buy Joe a one way ticket like I did for Michelle last night!
I got $50 to start with... who's in with me?
PS: With all these phony patriots threatening to leave the country... this could get rather costly! lol
LoL Joe, actually, it doesn't.
And that seems to bother you. Sorry about that. Not.
You know how ignorant you look when you say that idiocy?
Obama's administration is to the right of Reagan... and Bush Senior too.
I wish Obama was a socialist: We would have free schools, hospitals, fair wages for all, work for all and a government responsible to the people, instead of lobbiests and corporations.
All you people calling Obama socialist deserve to live in a real socialist country. Try England, Canada or most of Europe.
You know how ignorant you look when you say that idiocy?
Obama's administration is to the right of Reagan... and Bush Senior too.
I wish Obama was a socialist: We would have free schools, hospitals, fair wages for all, work for all and a government responsible to the people, instead of lobbiests and corporations.
All you people calling Obama socialist deserve to live in a real socialist country. Try England, Canada or most of Europe.
Pete said: "If you want to live in Antartica, you will have to be friendly with the Canadians first."
Pete'a not too bright, as anyone that reads his posts will already know.
Pete, Antarctica is the SOUTH POLE. The only Canadians there would be a few scientists on a research mission. And we wonder why the average kid graduating from high school is a moron. Their parents have all passed on their stupidity to them.
LMAO@U!!!!!
I do believe at least one parent should be a legal US Citizen for a child to be born a citizen, both parents would be pushing it...as some married couples are in that process but not yet legal.
Joe in Albany - from what you posted, all I have to say is this: AND??
I STILL stand by my statement because only Canadians on a research mission will be able to STAND you.
You STILL haven't answered my question about the REPUBLICAN Anchor baby, Bobby Jindal. You haven't answered my remarks about the 14th Amendment and how it can affect you.
Who is not so bright now?
Toouncommon....
We already do have free healthcare, education and government services. Well I don't because I have a job "on the books" and pay taxes and buy health coverage. The illegals are getting those services for free so we are on our way to a socialist society. But I think that slide to hell may be thwarted in November.
We can hope.
By the way- I should have posted this earlier: I am NOT in favor of illegal immigration of any sort. I'm not too sure many are, unless maybe they want to hire some cheap housekeepers or lawn boys or roofers, or framers, or.....
Trouble is, drive-by, there are A LOT of those.
I agree. We would have no illegals in this country if they could not find work. Go after the corporations and people who hire them and the illegals will go away.
Ya i mean if we send off all the illegals, who's gonna work our fields? white americans? hah, we do that and itll be unionized, and then ur salad costs 40 bucks.
I want to live in a world where I'm not looked up to or down upon because of where I live, what I look like or where I'm from.
Not a lawyer but good luck in overturning judicial precedent. NOT! Long live the 14th amendment.
http://cbs11tv.com/local/Birthright.Citizenship.Constitution.2.1862301.html
A 2007 op-ed in the Los Angeles Times from Texas solicitor general James HO said that "birthright citizenship is a constitutional right, no less for the children of undocumented persons than for descendants of passengers of the Mayflower." And that right, Ho said, has been consistently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, first in 1898's United States vs. Wong Kim Ark, which held the U.S.-born child of Chinese immigrants was a citizen, and more recently in 1985's INS vs. Rios-Pineda, in which the Court unanimously upheld the citizenship of a child born to undocumented workers.
Plyer vs. Doe and US vs. Wong
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/10/opinion/oe-ho10/2
The U.S. Supreme Court long has taken the same view. In 1898, the court held in United States vs. Wong Kim Ark that the U.S.-born child of Chinese immigrants was constitutionally entitled to citizenship, noting that the "14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory . . . including all children here born of resident aliens."
The court has reiterated this view in subsequent decisions. In Plyler vs. Doe (1982), the majority concluded, and the dissent agreed, that birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment extends to anyone "who is subject to the laws of a state," including the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens. And in INS vs. Rios-Pineda (1985), a unanimous court agreed that a child born to an undocumented immigrant was in fact a citizen of the United States.
From above:
"But the claim that automatic citizenship “attracts” illegal parents to have children on U.S. soil lacks such definitive data.
Jeffrey Passel, a demographer who co-authored the Pew Hispanic Center study, says that there is not conclusive evidence that having American-born children is a major motivator for undocumented immigrants who make their way into the United States.
*******************************************
I think this is another instance of the right-wing media ginning up hate against anyone that isn't White or Republican ("not like us"). I'm not denying that our immigration system needs fixing--but that it be based upon Wisdom and Compassion instead of vitriol and mindlessness.
Even John McCain was for that before he was against it. Lou Dobbs on CNN banged the drum of immigrant phobia for years, then it caught fire on Fox. The immigrant has thus joined the Muslim in the circle of fear.
Why not examine things that have worked and things that don't work and implement new solutions that cure the problems of the past?
All this talk of "drop babies" is hysteria fed by the media. Plain and simple. Just as a community center turned into a mosque.
“If having a baby was the incentive, we’d see more females” migrating across the border to the United States, he said. (The flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico is more than 60 percent male.)
This could get interesting in a Hurry. We have Bushes AG, standing up against the TeaParty & Palin's 'Armey of Ignorance".
We've gone from "Drop & leave", to "Terror Babies".
Last, Jon Stewart hadda segment on Fox News showing some character on thier morning show "Sponge Bob, with Dueche. This man, hadda piece of cardboard & 4 thing's Highlighted, showing in order, how the Mosque contraversey, evintually tied into Iran, thru Hamas & 2 other things. This man said the mosque would be Terrorist Central Headquarters. Well in Jon's Extraordinary way of making Fox & thier listeners seem as Stupid as they actually are, Jon broke it down in terms, even Fox listeners could Understand.
Rupert Murdoch, who owns newsCorp & is the largest shareholder, has ties to a saudi businessman, who is the 2nd largest shareholder in NewsCorp. This saudi businessman has ties to the binladen family, who has ties to the Carlyle Group, who has ties to Rupert Murdoch, which in turn makes: Wait For It:
FoxNews, The Central Terrorist News Agency!
Is'nt it amazing how you can tie something to something else & make it seem like they're indeed, whatever you wanna makem.
You Betcha!
Hey CU, lets hope & pray that the Druggies from Drudge get a comesee, what i just Posted about FoxNews being a Terrorist News Agency!
Pop some Popcorn, Feisty!
Hahaha that's the funniest shizz I've read today...
Typical republican nut jobs... it just seems like they are just dumber and dumber each day after Prex Obama took office.
Thanks for putting laughter in my day bud~! :)
Rick, Ky: You hit it out of the ball park!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL!! I'd give ya a high-five if I could.
I call it "ignorant armies clash by night" (Matthew Arnold)
Rick: Finally someone has had the courage to do the homework on Rupert Murdoch and the Fake News Network. Look at his history in Australia and Great Britain, look at his connections to the CIA, why was his citizenship for this nation approved in record time? This county has had it's political system hi-jacked, and the reason has yet to be determined! How many of you people who watch Fake News Network actually fact check the "Alleged News" that they report? How much truth do you hear from their media shrills? It is time that in the words of the tea boogers "We Take Our Country Back From Rupert Murdoch and his minions"!!
THANK GOD for Jon Stewart.
All these people who think they joined an authentic political movement are really just suckers, making Rupert Murdoch richer.
Murdoch's Mindless Minions do not even know who is paying for the piper that calls the tune they are so eager to dance to.
Say, just what DO "Conservatives" conserve, anyway? Besides their stock portfolios?
The whole concept of immigration as a problem is a ruse. This is a way to abuse Mexicans, who labor in fear, are underpaid and cheated by rich white business owners. Legal status would give them power to file charges against the many abuses they suffer daily.
Thank God for Jon Stewart!
Another problem is that there is not enough INS personnel to actually go out and enforce our immigration laws. I live near an area that is clearly swarming with illegal alien day laborers [Huntington Station, google it, and you know I am right]. We just closed down the Day Laborer hiring site, and now they are all over the main road. Its disgusting, because they just loiter around all day, cross the street without regard to traffic, and makes the area look like a ghetto. However, if INS strolled through once in a while, then they would all just leave, either through deportation, or voluntarily knowing they are not welcome. They bring down property values. It looks like Mexico City! And btw...I'm a liberal democrat saying this!
Easy solution to this Pat. Buy a baseball cap and have them put the initials "INS" on them. Wear it wherever you need to go. All the illegals will leave the area where you are located faster than a speeding bullet.
And btw - I am a democrat maybe not as liberal as some though.
Hey Pat - why not find out who is HIRING these immigrants and publish it? I mean, those guys would not be standing out there waiting for work if there was NO WORK.
The fact ofthe matter is - SOMEONE is hiringthese guys. If this was a waste of their time, they would go somewhere else, wouldn't they? If there was no money to be made, they would be pretty stupid to stand there and mane NO MONEY, right?
I want to know what we are going to do with all those darned Indians! They don't own big, job-giving coprortions or create wealth, and all they do is take, take, take. Let's ship 'em all back to.....back to.....Uh......
Drive-by: Maybe we should give the Indians back their land and let them decide what to do with us. Then I bet we would get this immigration issue settled in a quick hurry.
Doggone it, drive-by...
You sound just like patHuntingtonNY...
Although...
I don't think his comments were tongue-in-cheek, as I'm sure yours were...
Since pat has repeatedly pointed out his status as a gay male in America...don't you think pat ought to show a liitle more tolerance, and respect for the diversity of opinion of those who post here at First Read, and really, folks in general?
I could be wrong about this...it wouldn't be the first time.
I'm pretty much a live-and-let-live guy. Until, that is, I run into someone that thinks that's somehow bad, or a sign of weakness, or lack of character (or religion?). Anyway, Here's that High FIve I owe you from earlier....
Thanks, drive-by...
I don't always (usually?) agree with you...
But...you know who you are, and what you think.
That's cool.
Bag Boy ~ When was the other time? ;)
Anna Molly-
I'm guessing you could come up with far more examples than I could...
:)
LoL Bag Boy, you're even MORE clever than I thought.
There's NO good answer for that. But if you've got the time ... ;)
Good for Gonzales. It seems since the 80s the Republicans want to amend the Constitution for every little thing they find objectionable. Abortion, gay marriage, immigration, flag burning, etc. Such a change, thanks to the wisdom of the founders, takes 3/4 of states to ratify and I doubt that is going to happen so why waste time with it?
Because it keeps the HATE base of the republican party all happy and you know they are only happy when they have some thing to rant about.
Would it be too much too ask of our government to just enforce the laws we already have on this issue? I believe that if our government had been adhering to our current laws for the last 40 years, this would'nt even be an issue it is today. Trickle down theories, offshoring jobs, illegal migrants for cheap labor, I know, why should I have expected anything more.
Here's a solution... How about a major government expansion to massively increase the size of the INS?
Charles, very astute advice, but just a little too simple. The government needs something a little more complex, you know , something that takes 40 or so years to address.
No need to expand the government to accomplish this. Just cut out the equivalent amount of services that enable the freeloaders, to, uh freeload.
Look everyone knows the immigration issue is important to Obama and the Democratic party. There are somewhere between 12-20 million voters at stake. And that is exactly why amnesty will never happen again. Like it or not, immigration has become a swing topic in the mid-terms. And it will remain there in 2012.
A political shift is occuring back to conservatism. The courts may liberally interpret the 14th amendment preventing the correction of the birthright citizenship clause but the new Congress will make it harder for illegals to find work, and immigration law will no longer be enforced as an option. Arizona succeeded in effectively eliminating Sancuary Cities and right now 22 additional states are drafting similar legislation.
I would be willing to forgo the debate on birthright citizenship in order to get actual enforcement and immigration deterrants.
How would cutting services result in the deportation of millions of illegal aliens?
I was making the point that when people say "just enforce that laws we already have" it would require a massive expansion of government to accomplish this.
I'm generally pro-immigration, but I'm against the drop-and-leave policy. I live in Turkey as a legal resident. Whenever I go to the U.S. consulate to renew a passport or whatever, I run into at least one Turkish couple that is there doing paperwork to go to the U.S. to have their baby... or whose baby is already a U.S. citizen, and now needs a SS#.
As a former English teacher here, I can vouch for the fact that educated Turks will spend their last penny trying to improve their English, and therefore their job prospects. While the Turks I know love Turkey and want to stay here, they long for the opportunity to travel freely with a U.S. or UK or Canadian passport, and particularly to go to these places to improve their English via study or short-term employment. They are doing drop and leave so their children can someday freely travel to get this education, improve their English, and therefore have improved job prospects in Turkey.
Also, with a mandatory military service for all single-citizen male Turks, parents may want to "protect" their baby boys from having to serve by getting them a second citizenship in the USA.
I'm totally against this, but thought I'd explain a bit why even educated people who do NOT wish to emigrate to the USA are doing drop and leave.
Thanks for your thoughts, that is realy interesting. I wonder what Ataturk would say about that behavior.
Charles, pretty funny, but the government needs something more complex. You know, something that takes 40 or so years to address. Your astute advice is just to simple.
It is high time the 14th Amendment be repealed. It is being abused and was designed specifically for the newly freed slaves. By supporting this movement we will in all liklihood be saving our country.
Practice Random Acts of Kindness ------It does a psyche good!
It is a matter of time, sooner or later, that open, virtually unguarded border will allow a terrorist to cross the border carrying a suitcase nuke, or a couple of hundred pounds of biological warfare toxins, that will be reponsible for killing several hundred thousand american citizens.
After that the border will slam shut anyone attenpting to crosss the border illegally, will get blown away.
There will be illegals hanging from lamp poles all over the country and you folks defending the criminal aliens will be hiding in the basement, hoping no one remembers your defense of the criminal aliens.
Take it to the bank, they will remember.
Me, soon as it happens, I'm going to out of the country for a couple of years, ugly doesn't even begin to describe what is going to happen.
I don't agree with the tone of Rory's post...but, I think he's about right on substance.
If the United States should suffer a major terrorist attack emanating from its southern border (nuclear, biological, whatever), with significant civilian casualties...it's a brand new world.
As Rory says...the implications would be severe, to say the least.
All the more reason for civil libertarians to get behind the idea of border security.
We can no longer afford to have any uncertainty about who is crossing our borders, and why...without a doubt, the overwhelming majority are simply poor people looking for a better life for themselves, and their children.
But one mistake...one lack of diligence, and the notion of the United States as the world's melting pot could end in an instant.
Forever.
I've never seen a "nuclear suite case bomb" what government or manufacturer makes those things anyway?.
"Baby-Birthing packages" sounds like "hard evidence" to me! What more "evidence" do they need? An illegal in the middle of child labor signing an affidavit denying the fact that she's here just to have a baby? Perhaps, we should get good ole Eric Holder of the Department of Justice to investigate this matter (and then drop the charges and show up with a free baby basket to go along with that free health care and free public education its entitled to).
Did the author really just write that- deny the existence of hard evidence and then admitting the hard evidence?
Melanie - as a Republican, anda Christian to boot, get back to us when you have talked about your feelings about this with FELLOW REPUBLICAN Bobby Jindal.
It seems that his parents did EXACTLY what you are posting against.
Will you care to let us know what Gov. Jindal thinks after you talk with him?
Well Pietro.....it seems you do not know it all.....
I'm glad you don't mind paying for all the illegal babies.... and Christian yes, but Republican I am not- I am an independent-I like to make up my own mind.
Melanie, I do NOT know it all, and I never pretended that I did.
However, you did deflect my question quite nicely.
liberal media making it seem that it isnt even happening.well here are some facts go to the store first week of every month look at who is using food stamps people who dont speak english.who get welfare because of anchor babies one store lots of illegals
One can be a non-citizen and still be here legally. If someone who is here illegally gives birth in this country, the citizenship should be null and void unless the other parent is a legal resident and is given custody. Period. Someone who cannot follow our laws should not be privy to the benefits of those laws.
nice very simple and nice.if illegal then illegal.
what happens in the case that the immigrants are here legally, have their baby, and then their Visa expires, and they fail to renew?
I'm not sure if anyone has asked this question, so I will.
Why would we bother to go through amending the constitution for something that would have so little overall effect?
The only reason this is even being discussed is because politicians are driving the argument to garner favor in elections.
Wise up people. Your being led by the nose to take a stand on issue that has no impact on the country.
Sensible woman, I totally agree with you.