Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

Thread: U.S. Citizenship, A Question

  1. #1
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,062

    U.S. Citizenship, A Question

    Do you believe that someone born on U.S. Soil, but is the child of two illegal immigrants with no legal right to be in the United States, should still be granted citizenship by default?

    Yes, no and why? (the logical basis behind teh argument, not simply citing a law making it legal. We all know it's currently the law here).

    Does the act of illegally crossing the border, and then having the child, have a meaningful difference worthy of citizenship from one who say, tries to cross teh border, but has the child 5 feet away from the line?

    Does mere location at the time of birth mean we are obligated to provide citizenship? Should, for example, all foreign diplomat or vacationing or travel visa children born here be offered citizenship as well, if they want it, on the same locational basis? All are here legally, and have the child here on our soil, same as an illegal set of parents. If not, why the difference?

    In your view, how should (or should not) citizenship be granted?
    Last edited by Warfish; 02-15-2011 at 01:13 PM.

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    742 Evergreen Terrace
    Posts
    11,540
    IMO if you're here illegally and you have a kid, that kid should not be given citizenship. If anyone is here legally and has a kid, the parent should be given the option for citizenship for their child. This automatically born here = free citizenship is nonsense and is THE reason we have such an illegal "immigration" problem.

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    19,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Jets Things View Post
    IMO if you're here illegally and you have a kid, that kid should not be given citizenship. If anyone is here legally and has a kid, the parent should be given the option for citizenship for their child. This automatically born here = free citizenship is nonsense and is THE reason we have such an illegal "immigration" problem.
    +1. I am curious as to how many of them vote. I know they are not supposed to but in some states, they get voting rights WTF?

    No worries..I am sure they vote strictly conservative.

  4. #4
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,562
    We are by far the largest of the less than 20% of the worlds countries that observe Jus Soli. It's silly. Here are the others...3rd world countries and Canada:

    Antigua and Barbuda
    Argentina
    Barbados
    Belize
    Bolivia
    Brazil
    Cambodia
    Canada
    Chile (children of transient foreigners or of foreign diplomats on assignment in Chile only upon request)
    Colombia
    Dominica
    Dominican Republic
    Ecuador
    El Salvador
    Fiji
    Grenada
    Guatemala
    Guyana
    Honduras
    Jamaica
    Lesotho
    Mexico
    Nicaragua
    Pakistan
    Panama
    Paraguay
    Peru
    Saint Christopher and Nevis
    Saint Lucia
    Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
    Trinidad and Tobago
    United States
    Uruguay
    Venezuela

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    31,171
    Yes. Do not punish a child for illegal acts of their parents. Maybe it's because I'm not originally from here, but to me birth right citizenship is a fundemental American idea, that should not be touched. My 2 cents.

  6. #6
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyler Durden View Post
    Do not punish a child for illegal acts of their parents.
    Can you explain how it is a punishment exactly? Teh child has no knowledge of where he/she should be a citizen, and has no inherant right to profit from the illegal acts of a parent, so they? Would it not be appropriate that the child of two illegal immigrants is most rightfully a citizen of whatever nation the two came from?

    How is the child being punished by not getting something they would have no reasonable right to expect (the reward of citizenship for having engaged in an illegal act to obtain it).

    And worse, wouldn;t it be better to allow a child who (along with their parents) followed the law, and applied for immigration the right way? Isn't it more of a punishment that they have to wait, while illegals just walk in and are granted instant citizenship?

    Maybe it's because I'm not originally from here, but to me birth right citizenship is a fundemental American idea, that should not be touched.
    Like you, I too am not from here. I too am from the Isles (albeit a different Isle). I too had to pass teh test, and obtain my citizenship after being here a while.

    I want to understand the logic behind birthright citizenship. Why the logical answer is to reward the parents with citizenship for their child and a legal anchor for them to remain here, when they were engaged in an illegal act to be here in the first place.

    For example, it is similar to rewarding the child of a thief with whatever item their parent stole, instead of arresting and prosecuting the parents for theft. Giving something not just good, but invaluble (American Citizenship) to a child who, apart fromt he location on the planet he popped out, has no other reasonable or rational right to expect, and in fact whose parents were engaged in an active illegal act whilst the birth occured.

    In what other circumstance would we grant a huge invaluble benefit as the default result of engaging in illegal activity?
    Last edited by Warfish; 02-15-2011 at 02:51 PM.

  7. #7
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    if the US didn't have this influx of immigrants, legal or otherwise, it would be in far worse economic shape. we (like most 1st world nations) have a declining birth rate and that's bad for growth prospects.

  8. #8
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,062
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti View Post
    if the US didn't have this influx of immigrants, legal or otherwise, it would be in far worse economic shape. we (like most 1st world nations) have a declining birth rate and that's bad for growth prospects.
    Which isn't the question asked, and you know it.

    Frankly Bit, if you want to discuss your ideas that the U.S. should (in it's own interests) change immigration Law to allows millions MORE to come in, thats an entirely different topic, and warrants it's own thread.

    Please do not derail MY thread with it, please. I'm not interested in "how many immigrants do we need per year" debate (a debate where we might agree more than you think).

    This thread is specificly about birthright citizenship for illegals, and I would appreciate it if you stay OT.

  9. #9
    Board Moderator
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,751
    Makes no logical sense. Parent should have to be living here legally to have a child that's a US citizen.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    All children born here regardless of whether your parents were both citizens, one a citizen or none a citizen legal or illegal are citizens by default.

    You could just as easily ask the question why should a person born of two parents here legally get citizenship?

    Do we have a test for citizenship for those born to parents here legally? It's a birth right in the Constitution by default just like it is for those of two parents here illegally. The child isn't penalized or favored based on his parents status in the country.

    We could amend the Constitution but do we really want to discriminate against children for the crimes of their parents when it comes to citizenship which for all of us born here is by default regardless of the sins of our parents?

  11. #11
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    38,062
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    All children born here regardless of whether your parents were both citizens, one a citizen or none a citizen legal or illegal are citizens by default.
    As specificly qsked in the OP Winston, we ALL know what the current Law is. Thats not what I asked for, and simply regurgitating it does nothing for the discussion at hand.

    You could just as easily ask the question why should a person born of two parents here legally get citizenship?
    If the parents are not citizens, yes, you could.

    We could amend the Constitution but do we really want to discriminate against children for the crimes of their parents when it comes to citizenship which for all of us born here is by default regardless of the sins of our parents?
    As I asked Tyler, how is it "descrimination" or punishment to not give a child a reward (and yes, citizenship is a valuble reward for both child and parents) for an unquestionably illegal act by the parents?

    We're not talking about "sin", so save the colorful rhetoric, and actually try and answer the question being posed. Why are we rewarding an illegal act with the greatest gift we, as a Nation, can offer? What logical reason entitles a foreign child born here illegally to our citizenship simply for being born six inches onto our soil, rather than six inches away from it? Why isn't the legal right to be here taken into consideration at all? Why SHOULDN'T it be taken into consideration? Children of Diplomats, for example, are not citizens here, and they are here 100% legally.

    You managed to not answer anything Winston, just tell su what the law is, a law we all already know. How about you actually address the ISSUE here, a clear cut case where we as a nation reward an illegal act, hence encouraging that illegal act?

    I assure you, if we "didn't punish the children" of theives, and simply gave the stolen items to the kids and then not prosecuted the theif (we can't, that would descriminat against the child for the sins of the parants) we'd have a hell of alot more theft in our country.

    So explain why the stark difference? Citizenship can be stolen and inherantly protect the thief from prosecution, but steal a TV and the child be damned, parents go to jail ad th kid can go to hell? whats worth more, citizenship or a TV?

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In Morris Co., N.J. at the right end of a Browning 12 gauge, with Nick to my left n Rex to my right.
    Posts
    17,366
    Plain and simple, illegal + illegal = illegal. Get the phuck out.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    =Warfish;3959905]As specificly qsked in the OP Winston, we ALL know what the current Law is. Thats not what I asked for, and simply regurgitating it does nothing for the discussion at hand.
    Had you specifically asked without throwing the word default in I wouldn't have regurgitated but since you did I thought it worth pointing out that all children born here are default citizens there is nothing extra special being granted to either the illegal or legal child by default at all it's by design written specifically into the Constitution after the civil war.

    The reward for a child who's parents are citizens is exactly the same as the reward for a child who's parents are here illegally. Both children have done nothing to deserve the reward other then being born here, the children are being treated the same.

    The parent isn't rewarded at all they are still subjet to deportation, fine, imprisonment, etc.

  14. #14
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    19,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post

    The parent isn't rewarded at all they are still subjet to deportation, fine, imprisonment, etc.
    You mean other than free healthcare, free schooling for their non-citizen children as well, ability to work without paying taxes...what am I missing????

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,165
    I see a pattern here:


  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Now that I have done some research I think Congress really should debate and act on this one way or another.

    Prior to the Civil war Citizenship was granted by the States and recognized by the Federal government. It was only after the Civil War that birth right citizenship came into being. At the time there was no immigration law so their were no illegal immigrants. Clearly Congress should debate and act based on the reality of the world we are living in today since it's hard to argue that their is a solid foundation of birth right citizenship in our history or in our Constitution.

    While I still feel that the children of both illegals and legals are being treated the same, that doesn't mean we don't have the right to amend or that Congress shouldn't debate these issues especially since it's clear their is no intent at all since their were no illegals at the time of this amendment.
    Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 02-15-2011 at 04:38 PM.

  17. #17
    Board Moderator
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,751
    Quote Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs View Post
    Clearly Congress should debate and act based on the reality of the world we are living in today
    amen to that, for this and other issues.

  18. #18
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Quote Originally Posted by Warfish View Post
    This thread is specificly about birthright citizenship for illegals, and I would appreciate it if you stay OT.
    I was going to respond with maybe it should be like Heinlein sci-fi dystopia where military service is the only gateway to citizenship. Everyone else is a civilian. But I thought my original comment was more OT.

    we could be a country like Japan full of xenophobes are economically stagnant. with an aging population.

    Here's a question can someone explain to me why Illegals are such a bad thing? objectively with facts and figures? Corporations seem to love em, and corporations practically run the nation.

    on a broader level it seems to me it's practically what this nation was founded upon. who is legal in America?

    every group has this terrible outlook of the group that came before but eventually most the new people help the country not hurt it. and to paraphrase George Lopez if your job is taken by an illegal, you had a really screwed up job.

  19. #19
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    13,179
    Quote Originally Posted by bitonti View Post
    Here's a question can someone explain to me why Illegals are such a bad thing? objectively with facts and figures? Corporations seem to love em, and corporations practically run the nation.
    Simple Bit we are a society of laws and if we don't respect the law or change it, we are doomed to choas or a tyrant.

    on a broader level it seems to me it's practically what this nation was founded upon. who is legal in America?
    Clearly we didn't have illegals before the end of the last century because we had open borders. Since we are a Republic that follows the rule of law and that has changed, until we change it again, it's very clear who is legal and who isn't.

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,763
    Hell No

    You are under the jurisdiction of your home country until the moment you become a citizen via the process , not when the water dries off your back

    Children born to diplomats and other recognized government officials from foreign countries do not receive U.S. citizenship if born on American soil. Check out Title 8 of the U.S. Code.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us