Nathan Deal, Georgia Lawmaker, Wants To End "Birthright Citizenship"

[kristopher]

This sounds like a reasonable measure to me. The current policy has no inherit advantage over inherited citizenship and a controlled process for naturalization. What we are seeing now is, as the article notes, an unintended consequence of the way the 14th Amendment dealt with the issue of citizenship for freed slaves.

"AP -- U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, a Republican candidate for governor of Georgia, has proposed changing the long-standing federal policy that automatically grants citizenship to any baby born on U.S. soil, a move opposed by immigrant rights advocates.

Supporters of Deal's proposal say "birthright citizenship" encourages illegal immigration and makes enforcement of immigration laws more difficult. Opponents say the proposed law wouldn't solve the illegal immigration problem and goes against this country's traditions of welcoming immigrants.

Automatic citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." That provision, ratified in 1868, was drafted with freed slaves in mind.

Deal and his supporters say the 14th Amendment wording was never meant to automatically give citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants.

"This is a sensible, overdue measure that closes a clause that was never meant to be a loophole," said Bob Dane, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which seeks tighter immigration restrictions.

Under Deal's proposal, babies born in the U.S. would automatically have citizenship only if at least one of their parents is a U.S. citizen or national, a legal permanent resident of the U.S., or actively serving in the U.S. military..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/nathan-deal-georgia-lawma_n_207485.html

[MineralMan]

1. Yah, well...good luck with all that. Amending the

Constitution's not a job for wussies. It ain't happening.

[kristopher]

24. Yes and no.

IT is certainly an uphill climb, but public support for action on the issue of undocumented workers and closing the "anchor baby loophole" as they call it, is very high.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5723611&mesg_id=5725002

[MineralMan]

52. You have no idea. Such an amendment would not be possible.

If it would, it would have already been introduced. It would not pass in Congress, and it would never gain the supermajority of state legislatures. If you think otherwise, you are not paying attention.

[kristopher]

58. It is true that I'm not paying attention.

I give this topic only peripheral attention, so while I track sentiment on the topic as it affects elections I haven't counted the votes to see how such a policy might do in the various legislative bodies involved.

I see it more as a case where leadership could get it done IF such leadership decided to try. That gets back to your point.

What I don't agree with is the kind of criticisms that have generally been leveled on this thread. I expect better discourse on DU frankly. (I exempt your comments from that critique)

[Blue_Tires]

101. public support for this issue is "very high" ?? I guess you polled everyone?

[kristopher]

103. Public atitutudes on immigration reform are one of the most highly polled subjects out there

Polling for substantive change is consistently in the high 70 - mid80s.

[Blue_Tires]

107. public support for general immigration reform and support for this specific proposal

aren't the same

[kristopher]

121. It says the climate is favorable.

[jberryhill]

152. The climate for making every delivery a paternity verification issue

is probably pretty damned low, and that's what you are asking for.

The notion that one knows the father, or the father is correctly identified, for each birth, indicates a childlike ignorance of life in the real world.

[kristopher]

158. It seems to work in the rest of the world.

Everywhere else is fantasyland?

[nadinbrzezinski]

182. Here is a reality check

citizenship WORLD WIDE is recognized by both blood.. who your parents are... and place of birth. Those are the two standards

You can be a citizen because your parents are from a certain national origin, or because you were born in a ship, plane, or physical land of a certain nation... as in flagged. So you understand. This also includes MILITARY facilities, which are essentially extensions of the nation.

This is BASIC international law, and guess where the 14th ammednment drew its inspiration from? Go read Metternich... and the origin of the nation state.

[kristopher]

184. Actually I found the list

Only 30 nations of the 180+ have birthright citizenship. I don't know how many of those states also have citizenship by descent for the cases you mention, but I'd presume most of them do. However, in the nations I know of that practice citizenship by descent, they do not grant citizenship by right of being born in their country.
Are you saying that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment was not crafted directly as a response to Dredd Scott?

[nadinbrzezinski]

188. Partly to dredd scott, partly as the standard of the age in international law

I had the misfortune, or fortune to take a class in the subject, and nations recognize it by blood, birth right, or being born in a certain land, or a combo of any of them... naturalization is a special case, and some nations do not allow you to resign citizenship, see France. While others do not recognize double citizenship, see United States.

As is until the late 1800 and early 1900s the US didn't even have a formalized naturalization process... and that came as a response to the Asian and Eastern European waves of "lower developed people." Not my words, the anti immigrants of the time.

And good luck fighting both.. international law, and the US Constitution.

[kristopher]

192. At least one piece of your information isn't correct...

The US does recognize dual citizenship. The Supreme Court ruled that there is no mechanism by which a person may be forced to surrender their US citizenship. My children (now well into their adult years) are beneficiaries of this policy and carry two passports.

[nadinbrzezinski]

193. Not when you pick up the US Citizenship

and if the US cannot force your kids to abandon it, then they are using the French standard... IRONIC, to say the least

[kristopher]

196. It's getting late

And I'm sorry but I can't understand your meaning at all. Nothing says a person can't voluntarily surrender their citizenship (although I'd bet you could get it back if you did), the court ruled that you couldn't be forced to give up your citizenship for any reason, such as for example, being a citizen of a second country.

[rustydog]

55. I say go for it and then ship the Anti-American out!

Friggin' racist

[kristopher]

65. Deal may or may not be a racist

I know nothing of the man. Do you think you could form a somewhat more articulate response to the policy itself?

[Eric J in MN]

2. I prefer the simplicity of: you were born here, you're American.

Over stopping people born here from voting based on how their parents got here.

[kristopher]

25. Why?

If your parents were working in Japan when you were born do you think that should give you the right to vote in Japan's elections? OR Australia? Britain? Ireland? Germany? New Zealand? Austria?

What I'd like, in fact, is a response where you support your odd belief by showing us how many other countries share your perspective.

[Bucky]

60. Because the children of immigrants shouldn't have to prove their Americanism

It's unfairly discriminatory to distinguish the rights and legal statuses between two people born in this country based on who their parents are. If you're born in this country, you're an American. That's our law based on the principles of the Enlightenment--all men are created equal. Two people born in America have the same rights as each other--legal distinctions are only passed down from parent to child in feudal societies--a standard that hopefully the United States has moved beyond.

Your objection seems to be against the inclusion of "anchor babies" as citizens. The problem with this pre-judgment of yours occurs only if you know any actual adult anchor babies. I know of at least four of them--Mexican, Lebanese, and Israeli. They're all very patriotic hard working American citizens. All but one of them has both parents living in the United States and paying taxes and working hard. They make for great contributors to American culture and the American dream.

Prejudice against immigrants is so... so not Democratic.

[kristopher]

63. That is probably the WORST straaw man I've seen today.

But it is undoubtedly the BEST example of circular reasoning I think I've ever encountered outside of deliberately designed examples. THen there is the gross historical inaccuracy you've included. Wow!

Straw man - Children of immigrants shouldn't have to prove they are American.
ANS: Never said they should. What I suggest is that our method of determining citizenship is having unintended consequences.

You may think it unfair to establish legal differences between citizens and noncitizens, but that is not a generally accepted value. I presume you have a goal of working toward a one world government where national distinctions don't exist, because I don't see any other governmental framework that would allow your sense of fairness to be satisfied.

"If you're born in this country then you're American".
Well that settles it, doesn't it. We shouldn't question the status quo because the status quo is how we do it....

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

No, Sec.1 of Amend. 14 isn't an example of Enlightenment values - it was an extremely practical approach to solving the post Civil War problem of a country full of people who were NOT citizens - See the Dredd Scott decision for the problem the law was designed to specifically address.

And you second historical and modern falsity is the claim that only feudal societies have citizenship by descent. That is SO wrong that I'd be very interested to see the list of countries besides the US that DO NOT practice citizenship by descent.

As to your last claim that I'm somehow anti-immigrant - my wife is an immigrant and my children are dual citizens. How does that fit with your foolishly drawn conclusions

[Bucky]

68. Correction: second best

Once you write a sentence like "I presume you have a goal of working toward a one world government where national distinctions don't exist" you lose your credibility in calling "straw man" on other peoples' arguments.

[kristopher]

69. What was written:

"It's unfairly discriminatory to distinguish the rights and legal statuses between two people born in this country based on who their parents are."

The topic is citizenship. The above statement seeks a world where fairness is practiced by not distinguishing between who is a citizen and who is not a citizen. The only practical scenario where citizenship loses its meaning is when the nation-state ceases to exist. In the modern world that would equal a world with one government.

So first it isn't circular logic - which is where you won the "best" award; next it isn't a strawman since it directly responds to the statement you made.

[fishwax]

146. you seem to be ignoring a few important words

"It's unfairly discriminatory to distinguish the rights and legal statuses between two people born in this country based on who their parents are."

The topic is citizenship. The above statement seeks a world where fairness is practiced by not distinguishing between who is a citizen and who is not a citizen. The only practical scenario where citizenship loses its meaning is when the nation-state ceases to exist. In the modern world that would equal a world with one government.

[kristopher]

159. I'm ignoring nothing

Every nation-state has rules governing who is and who isn't a citizen. Everywhere else at birth citizenship is determined by the citizenship of the family. The child of a foreign citizen is eligible for and entitled to the citizenship of one or both parents no matter whether they are born in this country or not. They are therefore deprived of nothing, they have the same citizenship as the parent. If the parent wished to go through the naturalization process, then they can apply just like all the others that want to gain US citizenship.

The only discrimination I can see in this set of circumstances is the discrimination against people who play by the rules and have their chances of being accepted into the country diminished as quotas are set taking into account the people who are doing an end run around the legal process.

[fishwax]

167. none of which is relevant to your silly presumption that the Bucky was advocating one-world govt

Bucky said: "It's unfairly discriminatory to distinguish the rights and legal statuses between two people born in this country based on who their parents are."

You claimed that meant he must be working towards a one-world government because "The above statement seeks a world where fairness is practiced by not distinguishing between who is a citizen and who is not a citizen.

As I said, your logical leap clearly ignores the "born in this country" part of Bucky's post. His statement in no way suggests there should be no distinction between who is a citizen and who is not a citizen.
______________________________________________________

Regarding another part of your response:

Every nation-state has rules governing who is and who isn't a citizen. Everywhere else at birth citizenship is determined by the citizenship of the family.

There are, to be sure, some countries that extend citizenship only to children of citizens (the principle of jus sanguinis); however, the United States is not the only country to extend citizenship both through blood and by virtue of being born on national soil (jus soli).

[kristopher]

169. I'd love to hear of the others

that have birthright citizenship - I can't find any. Of course, I probably just don't know where to look.

[fishwax]

171. Canada, for instance

[kristopher]

175. Thank you!!!

I've been looking all night for a comprehensive list and that led me to it:
* Antigua and Barbuda
* Argentina
* Azerbaijan<2>
* Barbados
* Belize
* Bolivia
* Brazil
* Canada
* Chile<3> (children of transient foreigners or of foreign diplomats on assignment in Chile only upon request)
* Colombia
* Dominica
* Dominican Republic
* Ecuador
* El Salvador
* Fiji<4>
* Grenada
* Guatemala
* Guyana
* Honduras
* Jamaica
* Lesotho<5>
* Mexico
* Nicaragua
* Pakistan
* Panama
* Paraguay
* Peru
* Romania
* Saint Christopher and Nevis
* Saint Lucia
* Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
* Trinidad and Tobago
* United States
* Uruguay
* Venezuela
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

about 20% of the nations practice birthright citizenship.

I hate not knowing information like that; I really appreciate the help.

[kristopher]

170. And to your other comment

I ignored nothing, the only logical condition where such discrimination doesn't exist is in a world where the nation-state is obsolete. Whether you accept it or not, there are people born here every day that do not claim US citizenship.

[fishwax]

172. what you continue to ignore is the fact that

nothing Bucky said suggested he didn't believe in distinguishing between citizen and non citizen. That's just something you made up.

[kristopher]

174. your double negative is a bit confusing

But I think you say that bucky believes in distinguishing between citizen and non-citizen?

[fishwax]

176. what makes you think he doesn't?

I didn't claim he does or that he doesn't.

I just pointed out that the quote of his that you claimed "seeks a world where fairness is practiced by not distinguishing between who is a citizen and who is not a citizen" really doesn't suggest what you claim it does (unless, as I said you ignore the words "born in this country").

[kristopher]

177. I think I'm more focused on the word "unfairly"

It's unfairly discriminatory to distinguish the rights and legal statuses between two people born in this country based on who their parents are. If you're born in this country, you're an American. That's our law based on the principles of the Enlightenment--all men are created equal. Two people born in America have the same rights as each other--legal distinctions are only passed down from parent to child in feudal societies--a standard that hopefully the United States has moved beyond.

Your objection seems to be against the inclusion of "anchor babies" as citizens. The problem with this pre-judgment of yours occurs only if you know any actual adult anchor babies. I know of at least four of them--Mexican, Lebanese, and Israeli. They're all very patriotic hard working American citizens. All but one of them has both parents living in the United States and paying taxes and working hard. They make for great contributors to American culture and the American dream.

How is it "unfairly discriminatory" to recognize that other nations and cultures exist outside of ours and to maintain a citizenship system that incorporates that recognition? This distinction is a fact of life everywhere in the world including the US. Birthright citizenship entitles a person to citizenship and no one is arguing that someone receiving citizenship in this manner should be treated differently because of parentage. However when you start saying that is the only "fair" system (which is what I read in his words), you run into the reality I've been speaking of where such unfairness can only be eliminated through the elimination of the nation-state itself.

[fishwax]

178. it's still a huge logical leap to get to the elimination of the nation state itself

simply from the statement that jus soli is fair (or even that jus soli is the only fair system). The one simply doesn't follow from the other.

[kristopher]

179. I read the post (in its totality) differently than you.

Considering the somewhat rambling nature of the entire post, I don't think this is worth debating.

[fishwax]

180. as they say, you're entitled to your own interpretation, but not your own facts

And there simply isn't anything in the post to support your assertion about what Bucky believes. Given how readily you've flung accusations of logical fallacies at others in this thread, it seemed worth pointing out. :)

[kristopher]

183. I'm not "making up facts"

Now you are trying deliberately to be insulting. This thread has spawned more emotion and less reason than anything I've seen since I saw a segment on the teabaggers on CNN. To deride me for pointing out the vast number of overt logical fallacies with nit picking about the interpretation of a post filled with factual and logical errors is nothing but a stunt.

Edited to add: and a particularly unimpressive stunt at that.

[fishwax]

185. that's rather amusing

You've been pointing out what you claim are logical errors by others, but in pointing out *your* logical error I'm "trying deliberately to be insulting." You could have just admitted that you misrepresented Bucky's position when he pointed that out in the first place, but you've stuck to the story that his post is somehow to blame for your obvious mischaracterization.

I'm not sure how pointing out that his post *still* doesn't say what you claim it says is a stunt, unimpressive or otherwise.

[kristopher]

186. If I had, I would

But I didn't and I won't.

The insult comes when you accused me of lying.

[DatManFromNawlins]

67. I'm for changing it three ways...

(1) At least one parent must be a citizen for you to become a citizen at birth, but
(2) If you are a minor and your parents become citizens, then you become one as well, or
(3) If you are a minor and your parents aren't citizens, then you can get fast tracked to become a citizen upon the age of majority (taking the citizenship test) or by graduating from high school (a citizen automatically).

Simple, easy, fair.

Undocumented workers need visas or green cards to protect them from discriminatory business actions as much as communities need to be protected from a drain on revenues due to children who are unaccounted for but still need educations. You can scream and holler all you want about discrimination, but the fact of the matter is that the first step to becoming a citizen is showing you respect the laws of this country.

[closeupready]

70. Well, the law is that if you are born here, you are an American.

What about respect for that law?

[kristopher]

73. The discussion is "Do we want to change that law?"

Surely you can appreciate that isn't the same as breaking a law.

[kristopher]

72. Not sure I understand the logic behind two and three.

It appears to me you are using our current circumstances a little too much as a guide. You are trying to address the issue of undocumented workers' children who know of no home but the US with #3, right? Maybe a better way would be a time criteria - if the child has been here their entire life then there will be school records etc. There is already a time limit for people who want to naturalize, so apply that limit to minors who haven't had a choice about whether to be here or not. They would then be eligible to take the naturalization test with parental or court approval. Of course, this would only be possible as part of a general program (probably amnesty) to deal adults as well as minors.

[jberryhill]

154. You use the word "easy"

How "easy" is it to correctly identify the father whenever a baby is born?

I'll bet there are more unknown fathers than anchor babies.

[kristopher]

160. That's a red herring

Humanity has been dealing with uncertain paternity since we climbed down from the trees. If you are so concerned then advocate for a system of matrilineal descent.

[jberryhill]

206. That's not a rational response to the comment

Perhaps you might opine on the relative number of anchor babies to uncertain paternity births in the US, which is exceptional in the volume thereof.

[zbdent]

3. won't change a thing right now ...

since you can't retroactively criminalize people ...

[rocktivity]

8. DING DING DING! Zbdent, you're our grand prize winner!

You can't retroactively criminalize people...

True--not even the California Supreme Court tried to pull that!

:headbang:
rocktivity

[kristopher]

26. That makes no sense.

Where does the idea of "retroactive criminalization" enter the discussion except as a red herring that you are throwing out.

[zbdent]

50. meaning that it's a cosmetic law ...

and that it will do absolutely nothing to get rid of the perceived problem the Right has ... trying to deport the "illegal immigrant" parents of the "anchor baby" ...

[kristopher]

59. I really don't give a fig about the right's goals and deporting people.

I think it would be a better way for us going forward. The current policy clearly has strong, unintended negative consequences and it would be a good piece of housekeeping to get it right. Just like redoing our judicial system as Webb is proposing - our house just needs some pragmatic attention paid to the root problems that are forever being buried in the left/right bullshit.

[joeybee12]

4. And it's not something a Governor has any say over...

...oh wait, he's trying to rile up his racist base for the primary.

[kristopher]

27. That = 1 red herring, 1 poisoning the well, and 1 shoot the messenger

Good count for 1 sentence. Perhaps you'd like to address the merits and drawbacks of the two systems (citizenship by descent vs citizenship by birth) in a manner that shows you're aware of the arguments.

[WeDidIt]

5. So he needs to repeal that portion of the 14th amendment.

Good luck with that.

A law would be struck down as a violation of the 14th amendment.

[aquart]

10. Yah. This is flagburning, gay marriage, Republican junk legislation.

The stuff they know won't go anywhere but makes them look like they work for a living.

[Xithras]

15. Yep, only another amendment can override it.

He's just trolling for votes at this point.

[kristopher]

28. There is extremely high support for changing this

And yes it is ALWAYS difficult to amend the Constitution.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5723611&mesg_id=5725002

[WeDidIt]

37. Citation please

PResent the poll where a supermajority supports repealing a portion of the 14th amendment.

[kristopher]

51. The issue of anchor babies is part and parcel of the immigration issue.

And the level of public support for major changes to the situation are in the high 70s low 80s.

As can be seen by the lack of reasoned responses on this thread to the proposal by Deal, I would wager that in a national debate over changing this issue, the arguments against making the change would be extremely unpersuasive.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kristopher]

57. Yes

You have made such a conclusive case against me, how could anyone fail to be persuaded. You've obviously discovered the key element of finding truth on the internet - demand a link to anything you disagree with. If I took the trouble to provide you one what would you then do, admit you haven't got a clue? Or would you play some equally silly game?

I don't keep a file of surveys on this topic, but I'm generally aware of the status of opinion on the issue. If you are so convinced I'm "FULL OF BULLSHIT" then don't be content to just shout about it, really rub my nose in it and prove YOUR assertion. I did take a moment to google the topic, and I'm confident you will have a lot of trouble doing that. But please, try.

[WeDidIt]

77. You made the assertion and cannot back it up

That makes you full of bullshit.

[pampango]

79. "Public Opinion Snapshot: Public More Supportive of Immigration Reform"

Not directly related to your discussion of "anchor babies" and constitutional amendments, but this poll shows increasing support for legalization compared to what existed in 2007 which is pretty amazing given the usual anti-immigrant bias that goes along with economic hard times.

"Indeed, we might have expected tough economic times to inflame cultural prejudices, thereby promoting intolerance of immigrants. Instead, the reverse seems to be taking place, as confirmed by new polling from the Pew Research Center."

"Maybe the culture wars really are subsiding. The Pew survey provides more evidence. It shows “moral values” declining precipitously among the public as a voting issue. In November 2004 Pew found a plurality of respondents (27 percent) saying moral values were their most important voting issues. That figure has dropped to 10 percent in the new survey, which is a decline of 17 points. In contrast the economy/jobs is up 29 points as a voting issue, health care is up 8 points, and education is up 6 points."

"Perhaps the decline of moral values voters has allowed the immigration issue to emerge from the shadow of the culture wars and be considered on its own merits. If so, that’s a very good thing for our country and for sound public policy."

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/opinion_0525.html

[WeDidIt]

80. 'Not directly related to your discussion of "anchor babies"'

Again, you made an assertion and cannot back it up.

So I'll tell you what, I'll cite SCOTUS precedent and lay your bullshit to rest:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): A person born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. to
non-citizens who "are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity" is automatically a citizen.

[kristopher]

86. One of two.

Now cite the case regarding native Americans.

Regarding polls, I can see you are unable to find any to support your side so you continue to rant that I should do your work.

No. The polling has been consistent and desire for action is in the high 70s lo-mid 80s. If you think that's wrong, prove it.

[WeDidIt]

90. I made no assertions. You did.

And provided no citation to back it up.

Under the 14th amendment, no law can alter the fact that any child born in this country to non-citizens becomes a U.S. citizen with the only exception being children born to diplomats who are here in service to their coutnries.

[kristopher]

93. Stating the obvious means...

You have nothing to say. Telling us what the law is isn't a discusssion on wht would be the merits or negtive consequences of changing the law. THe constifution CAN be changed. Granted it would be hard, but it can be changed. Instead of using your intelligence (if you have any) you prefer to focus on red herrings like whether you can bully someone into looking up for you readily available polling data.

And people wonder why nothing can get done in this country. Answer: far too many petty minds.

[WeDidIt]

97. Methinks thou dost protest too much

"And people wonder why nothing can get done in this country. Answer: far too many petty minds."

[kristopher]

99. Considering you've made about 8 posts

and not one of them has actually been on the topic of what are the pros and cons of the present system versus changing the system - instead favoring a series of irrelevant challnges and copied, off-target opinions; yes, I'd say that "petty mind" pretty well sums it up.

[WeDidIt]

113. Dude, I'm still waiting for a citation

I call people out on bullshit and you spewed bullshit.

[kristopher]

120. Dude you still have the google. I don't respond to attempts to bully.

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WeDidIt]

117. There is no case involving native Americans n/t

[kristopher]

122. yes there is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[gratuitous]

6. A reasonable measure

And tell me, what tribe does Nathan Deal belong to? Who decided he was a U.S. citizen? But since he's inside the door, he turns around to slam it in everyone else's face.

Dimbulb moosetwit.

[rocktivity]

7. "Babies born in the U.S. would automatically have citizenship only if

at least one of their parents is a U.S. citizen or national, a legal permanent resident of the U.S., or actively serving in the U.S. military..."

But would those parents have to be married? Would they have to be the biological parents? And is marriage of a U.S. citizen to someone not in the country legally, um, legal?

:crazy:
rocktivity

[kristopher]

30. Are you sober?

Your statements make no sense. If I want to marry a person here without a visa there is probably going to be the requirement that the person leave, the re-enter the country, although that can and probably would be waived. Since the proposition explicitly recognizes that only one (1) parent need by from the US, I don't think it actually matters if there is a marriage or not.

[rocktivity]

48. But SHOULD it be waived on the grounds of a child existing?

If someone in America ILLEGALLY got the waiver due to impending parenthood but your spouse-to-be had to leave the country because there wasn't a child coming, wouldn't that be unequal protection under the law?

I'm not against the idea per se, but it needs more fine tuning.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[kristopher]

49. What waiver due to impending parenthood?

I wrote of a waiver on leaving the country for marrying a person here without the proper visa.

What system (current or proposed) are you positing for the pregnancy scenario? How do the two situations compare in either system? Try a paragraph long statement instead of a single sentence.

[rocktivity]

56. The problem is that there WOULD be pregancy scenarios

Instead of people sneaking into the U.S. to either have their babies or paying U.S. citizens to marry them, they'll sneak into to the U.S. to get knocked up or pay U.S. citizens to make them a parent! The law will just create a LOT more problems than it would solve.

:headbang:
rocktivity

[kristopher]

61. Well, that's an opinion

I don't agree with it but at least I understand your point. My question would be that given the legal obligations that go along with acknowledging paternity (whether maried or not), just what do you think the going rate would be for a man to father a child he will then be responsible for over the next 18 years?

[WeDidIt]

116. The law would be unconstitutional on its face. n/t

[kristopher]

123. Maybe, but the author of the clause didn't think so.

"During the original debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the citizenship clause—described the clause as excluding not only "Indians", but also “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”<3> Howard also stated the word "jurisdiction" meant the United States possessed a “full and complete jurisdiction” over the person described in the amendment.<4> Such meaning precluded citizenship to any person who was beholden, in even the slightest respect, to any sovereignty other than a U.S. state or the federal government.<4><5>

Finally, this section was in response to violence against African Americans within the southern states. A Joint Committee on Reconstruction found that only a Constitutional amendment could protect the rights and safety of African Americans within those states.<6>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

And again, this is a red herring. The question is SHOULD it be changed; we know that it CAN be changed.

[WeDidIt]

138. SCOTUS already set the precedent, so his views don't mean shit.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898): A person born within the jurisdiction of the U.S. to non-citizens who "are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity" is automatically a citizen.

[kristopher]

141. Brick, meet thick....

For the umpteenth time, yes they SC made a decision re children of non-US citizens. That doesn't mean the law can't be changed nor does it mean that a future decision by the SC wouldn't necessarily overturn the Wong decision. That is why people are so nervous about Roe, even strong precedent cases can be overturned. In this case there is obviously an alternative view that has validity.

[WeDidIt]

204. Wrong again

Overturning Wong would invalidate the citizenship of literally MILLIONS of people who have lived in the US since Wong.

No way does that happen.

So your only choice is a constitutional amendment.

You appear to be stiring shit when it's too think to be stirred.

[jberryhill]

155. They don't have to pay US citizens for that...

News flash - a "father" is a person named on a birth certificate. That person did not have to get anyone pregnant.

[jberryhill]

145. Uh-huh....

So the citizenship of a child born in this country to a non-citizen is going to be subject to a correct identification of the father.

Is that what you are proposing?

How do you propose to confirm the paternal identification made by a non-citizen mother?

What a can of worms. How many anchor babies are born each year that merits this?

I'll give you a hypothetical.

Conchita (non-citizen) shows up with Bob (citizen) at the hospital and delivers the baby. Conchita says Bob is the father. Bob agrees. Baby is citizen.

A year later, Bob finds out that Conchita was messing around with Diego (non-citizen), and demands a paternity test. The paternity test indicates that Diego is really the father. Does baby now lose its citizenship as a result of the paternity test?

[kristopher]

161. I don't know

But I don't think that is an insurmountable obstacle since the rest of the world somehow manages to work such problems out. Considering the obligation that is associated with paternity, do you think the incidence of such events (false paternity claims later proved wrong) would be any higher than the rest of the population? What is the current incidence in the general population?

[aquart]

9. Deal can go to hell. And take Dane with him.

[Hugabear]

11. Sounds reasonable to you, does it?

Yes, I'm sure it's perfectly reasonable to deny citizenship to children born in this country, whose only crime is that their parents didn't follow some artificially prescribed "path to citizenship", who were born in the wrong place at the wrong time, to the wrong people.

Let's deny these most helpless of what might be the only thing they have going for them. Then, once they're no longer automatically US citizens, we can start denying them basic health services, education, food, etc.

Sounds reasonable to me.

:sarcasm:

[kristopher]

23. There are several ways nations determine citizenship,

and having it established by the location of birth isn't some special sanctified method. Your criticisms have built into them the presumptions that 1) a nation has no right to control its borders 2) all the many nations that use parental descent as a means of establishing citizenship are somehow practicing, well, "hatred" would be the tone in your words.
To have a system of parental descent "denies the helpless" nothing. My children are bicultural and binational - US/Japan. There was nothing less automatic in their route to Japanese citizenship than there was in their route to US citizenship.

I'm not a bigot that hates persons of other cultures, I'm not zenophobic and fearful of anything outside the US. In fact I've spent a significant portion of my life outside the US. It is precisely the perspective gained from those experiences that cause me to say the best way to eliminate the wedge issue as it now exists is to make changes such at the Rep from GA is calling for. He's a puke, yes. He's doing it to stoke a bigoted base, yes. Those are not criticisms of the idea, however, those are logical fallacies designed to avoid a substantive discussion based on reason.

[Lance_Boyle]

12. Sounds perfectly reasonable.

If my wife and I are vacationing in Holland and she gives birth there, our baby would not automagically enjoy Dutch citizenship. Why should it work differently in the US? Requiring one parent to be a US citizen would certainly deter a good number of "anchor dropping" immigration violations.

[Blue Meany]

14. My wife gave birth In China

and they didn't give my daughter the right of citizenship.

[Hugabear]

22. See Post #11

Once you deny these children their citizenship, then you can deny them all sorts of basic human rights. That's what the right-wing wants. If you're not "one of us", then forget about getting medical attention, education, basic welfare, etc. In other words, go back to your country or die.

[kristopher]

29. That is a false claim.

Unless you favor the continuation where large numbers of low wage laborers are exploited by keeping them in the vulnerable status of criminal.

[closeupready]

71. Why should the Dutch be able to disregard our drug laws?

Because that's just the way it is.

[jberryhill]

156. Can we give you the "reasonable" job of Official Identifier Of Fathers then /nt

[kristopher]

162. Perhaps you and your wife have something you should talk about...

Considering you have repeated the same comment about 5 times, it seems that it weighs heavily on your mind for the degree of significance it has to the way the rest of the world operates...

[jberryhill]

210. Most countries have a national health care system

...which meshes with their vital records system.

We don't.

The US has a remarkably high rate of unwed births, and your leap to marital infidelity is revealing of other views of yours.

However, there is quite a premium on US citizenship. There is not a great crush of French attempting to obtain Belgian citizenship by gaming the system, for example.

Some people think "anchor babies" are used to game the US immigration system. The only step you are adding to the process is that mother claim the father is a US citizen. The enforcement overhead, presuming you want to verify those claims, is not something you have rationally addressed.

[napi21]

13. That dimwit is MY Rep! He's a do nothing AH! You know he used to be

a Dem and switched back in the Johnson days. Every time I write to him with a request on how to vote of a complaint about how he DID vote, I get NOTHING...NADA...no response at all! I've been watching cspan for years and have NEVBER seen that AH speaking before the house!

I've lived in Ga. for 10 years and I will tell you he doesn't stand much of a chance of ever being Governor here! I HOPE the Dems find a GREAT candidate to run this time. The last one was a wuss and still came close to beating Perdue!

[ecstatic]

16. What would that change? The baby would still be in this country,

except now, s/he is not a citizen. That would cause more problems than it would solve.

[kristopher]

31. How so?

Are you denying the existence of "anchor babies" as a strong motivator for undocumented workers?

[ecstatic]

43. Yes. Notice the amount of undocumented workers has declined sharply

in this economic recession. No jobs available = no illegal workers.

[kristopher]

45. I don't see a connection between the points you're listing

Nothing will change, you said; and then undocumented workers are going home for economic reasons. Please tie that together for me.

[ecstatic]

74. Sorry for the confusion. I'm saying that people

are not coming to the US to have anchor babies---they are coming for work. As long as jobs are available, undocumented workers will continue to come---regardless of whether their babies get citizenship or not.

[kristopher]

75. Thank you.

I understand your perspective and frankly, it is difficult to *prove* people's intent in such things either way. However I think we can judge by the lengths some people will go through to get here and by the number of people who come (not just illegals). I also think we can safely assume a strong motivation to BE here continues to exist for most undocumented workers, including those leaving because of lack of work.

Economics certainly are a large part of the attraction to come here, but so is the idea of America. The fact that some people go home as a result of the economic downturn doesn't really speak to those who might be determined to stay here or to arrange it so that their children can stay here and "have a better life."

So, two points that are difficult to argue away are that 1) many, many people here without proper visas DO want to stay having a relative (even a child) that is a citizen has traditionally made it easier to remain here if one wants to; and 2) as the public pressure to diminish the number of illegal workers increases (it shows no signs of diminishing) the issue of anchor babies will gain increasing significance.

Of course, we would probably see something out of the courts before we'd see a movement to actually amend the constitution.

[Hello_Kitty]

17. So if a baby is born here and we don't recognize her citizenship because of her parents' status

Then what country is she a citizen of? What if her parents are from 2 different countries? What if neither country her parents are from recognizes her as a citizen because she wasn't born there? This would be punishing a child for the "sins" of her parents.

[kristopher]

32. The vast majority of coutries

have citizenship by descent so the child would be a citizen of the nation where the parents are citizens. If the parents are from two different countries, then it would have to be worked out by the laws of those two nations at their embassies. MOst times the child would end up with citizenship in the countries of both parents.

[Hello_Kitty]

36. Except for the ones that don't. eom

[kristopher]

39. What "ones that don't"?

I couldn't find any...

[jberryhill]

147. YOU DON'T ALWAYS KNOW THE FATHER OF A BABY

In case this simple fact is not bleedingly obvious, the fact that babies are born of mothers, and not fathers, means that the father of a given baby is not always known - and may not even be known to the mother.

What a stupid can of worms for a barely existing problem.

[kristopher]

164. What a stupid criticism based on a problem

the entire world deals with routinely. Your obsession with the point sounds like something personal to me...

[jberryhill]

208. Obsession?

Look, you've made the same point multiple times in this thread, and have demonstrated a remarkable inability to make a legal argument or cite precedent to which you vaguely refer.

You have provided zero indication of the magnitude of the alleged problem sought to be solved here, relative to the problem the proposal would create.

[Zorra]

18. If this were part of an effective, comprehensive legislation aimed at

ending the tidal wave of immigrants constantly entering into our country illegally, this seems reasonable.

Eliminating incentives for people to come here illegally and take American jobs is also reasonable, IMO.

[EFerrari]

19. It's neither. It's about 2010. He's got an election to win.

[kristopher]

33. What do you mean"It's neither."

Are you of the mind that "poisoning the well" and attacking the messenger" actually constitute a rational reply?

Try addressing the issue on its merits instead of with your kneejerk biases.

[EFerrari]

34. What part of electioneering is unclear to you?

That is the issue here. Deal needed to yank the strings. This issue does it.

Maybe you could try to get your glia to pulse rather than lapsing into insults, although I imagine that might be easier for you.

[kristopher]

41. There were no insults in my post.

Unless you call having your false arguments identified correctly to be insulting.

I have no doubt Deal is a rethuglican jerk and that he's trying to curry favor with his base (said so upstream too) SO WHAT? how is that relevant to the validity of his suggestion? Or are you suggesting that the Dems should mimic the Republican strategy of "Just say No to any proposition by a Republican"?

[EFerrari]

118. What false argument? Today, Republicans are raising money

by calling Sotomayor a racist.

This is their favorite pot to bang.

How is that a false argument?

That is the only reason this guy is making this case. Do you seriously believe that this man, whose only two concerns are his golf score and his bank balance, gives a sh!t about who is or is not an American citizen?

Something to consider before you call me or anyone else who points out the obvious "knee jerk".

[kristopher]

124. You are still off topic.

The question I'm trying to discuss has nothing to do with the messenger. You are playing "shoot the messenger". That is a kneejerk thoughtless reaction. Defending a red herring doesn't change that it is unrelated to the merits of the suggestion.

[EFerrari]

125. Not at all. I'm not off topic. Your premise is false.

It flies in the face of our history to say that people born here of alien parents who get automatic citizenship are a consequence of the 14th Amendment which wasn't passed until 1868.

And more than that, this idea is only ever brought up by Republicans looking to raise money.

I raise you two red herrings. :)

[kristopher]

128. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaase read a history book. nt

[EFerrari]

130. I have my history straight, thanks.

[varelse]

104. ...

:spray:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. It wasn't meant to automatically give citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants?

1. There were no illegal immigrants in 1868, they hadn't instituted racist immigration policies yet.

2. I'd expect the 14th amendment had in mind citizenship for the babies of people who were kidnapped and forced into America against their will, which is even worse than voluntarily walking across the border.

[kristopher]

38. Hmmm

1) True. And the test cases ( for one, UN Native Americans and two illegal Chinese immigrants) have delivered conflicting rulings. I don't think it has ever been completely and finally settled.

2) The construction of your sentence is a bit confusing. "Worse" in what way?

[county worker]

40. The 14th amendment was for the protection of the children born not the parents.

Whether the parents were slaves or illegal immigrants, the children had no say in where they were born and how their parents got here. To protect the rights of the children the amendment was written and is as valid today as it was in the 1800's.

[kristopher]

42. That isn't true.

IT is a well documented historical fact that Arts. 13,14 and 15 are "Reconstruction Bills" that dealt with the legal issues arising from the end of a policy of legal human ownership and the reintegration of the rebel states.

By your logic most of the nations of the earth are victimizing all those unborn children who are forced to accept the nationality of their parents.

[county worker]

82. How so?

2/29/2008 Testimony by James C. Ho during the joint committee hearing to examine the issue of birthright citizenship and House Bill 281 by Representative Berman. (H.R. 28, 80th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Tex. 2007).)

The U.S. Constitution speaks directly to the issue of birthright citizenship.7 It makes clear that birthright citizenship is a matter of constitutional right, no less for the U.S.-born children of unlawful aliens and undocumented persons than for the descendants of passengers of the Mayflower. I reach this conclusion based on the text of the Constitution, common law history, legislative history, and U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

We begin—as we always should—with the text of the Constitition. The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .”8 The motivating purpose of this amendment was to overturn the notorious U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott.9 But the amendment was drafted broadly to guarantee citizenship to virtually everyone born in the United States.10 The critical language of the Fourteenth Amendment is the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”11 Proponents of repealing birthright citizenship argue that this language excludes all non-citizens—both lawful and unlawful—because “subject to jurisdiction” means allegiance.12 They point out that non-citizens don’t swear allegiance to the United States; they swear allegiance to their home country.13


Respectfully, I don’t think that that is a reasonable reading of the text. I would submit that the plain meaning of “subject to jurisdiction” is rather straightforward. It simply means that one must have a duty to obey U.S. law. When a person is “subject to the jurisdiction” of a court of law, that person is required to obey the orders of that court. When a company is “subject to the jurisdiction” of a government agency, that company is required to obey the regulations promulgated by that agency. The meaning of the phrase is simple: One is “subject to the jurisdiction” of another whenever one is obliged to obey the laws of another.14 Simply put, the test is obedience, not allegiance.

It is also worth observing that if the drafters had intended to require allegiance, rather than obedience, they could have said so. How easy it would have been for them to state explicitly that only

Of course, the phrase “subject to jurisdiction” must mean something. Otherwise, it would serve no purpose.15 Under the interpretation I put forth, it does serve a purpose. The “jurisdiction”requirement excludes only those individuals who are not required to obey U.S. law. This concept—like much of early U.S. law—derives from English common law. Under the common law, neither foreign diplomats nor enemy soldiers are legally required to obey our law. They enjoy diplomatic immunity or combatant immunity from our laws.16 As a result, their U.S.-born offspring are not entitled to birthright citizenship.

This understanding is also confirmed by the Congressional debates surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment. Members of the 39th Congress debated the wisdom of guaranteeing birthright citizenship, but no one disputed the amendment’s meaning.17 In fact, opponents of the amendment conceded—indeed, they warned—that the language of the Citizenship Clause would guarantee citizenship to the children of those who owe the U.S. no allegiance. And supporters of the amendment agreed that only members of Indian tribes, ambassadors, foreign ministers, and others who are not “subject to our laws” would fall outside the guarantee of birthright citizenship.

This interpretation is further confirmed by U.S. Supreme Court precedent.18 In 1898, the Court held in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that a U.S.-born child of Chinese immigrants was constitutionally entitled to citizenship.19 The Court noted that “he Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory . . . including all children here born of resident aliens.”20 The Court has since reiterated this view in subsequent decisions, applying this principle specifically to the children of undocumented persons. In Plyler v. Doe, a majority of justices concluded—and all four dissenting justices agreed—that birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment “extends to anyone. . . who is subject to the laws of a State,” including the U.S.-born children of “illegal aliens.”21 And in INS v. Rios-Pineda, the Court unanimously observed that a child born to an undocumented immigrant was in fact a citizen of the United States.22

Footnotes

7. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1.
8. Id.
9. See The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 73 (1873) (citing Scott v. Sandford (Dred Scott), 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857)) (stating that the Fourteenth Amendment “overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States”).
10. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 676 (1898); see also The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) at 73.
11. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1.
12. See, e.g., John C. Eastman, Born in the U.S.A.? Rethinking Birthright Citizenship in the Wake of 9/11, 42 U. RICH. L. REV. 955, 957–58 (2008).
13. See id. at 115–17.
14. See Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 545 U.S. 119, 160–61 (2005) (Scalia, J.,dissenting).
15. Cf. Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 574 (1995) (“he Court will avoid areading which renders some words altogether redundant.”) (citing United States v. Menasche, 348 U.S. 528, 538–39 (1955)).
16. See Abdulaziz v. Metro. Dade County, 741 F.2d 1328, 1329–30 (11th Cir. 1984) (diplomatic immunity); United States v. Lindh, 212 F. Supp. 2d 541, 553 (E.D. Va. 2002) (combatant immunity).
17. See CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2892–97 (1866) (debating ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment).
18. This interpretation has also been affirmed by the Executive Branch under Presidents of both parties, including Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. See, e.g., Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Appellees, Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) (No. 80-1538), 1981 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2363 (President Reagan); 19 Op. Off.
Legal Counsel 340, 341–42 (1995) (President Clinton).
19. See 169 U.S. 649, 705 (1898).
20. Id. at 693.
21. 457 U.S. 202, 215 (1982); id. at 243 (Burger, J., dissenting).
22. 471 U.S. 444, 445, 446 (1985).

[kristopher]

88. The question what was the original intent of Sec. 1 Ammendment 14

Read the Dredd Scott decision (and perhaps some history surrounding it) and you will see the legal challenge it was specifically designed to address.

[county worker]

108. No it wasn't. The question is, can a law passed now change the

fact that illegal immigrants' children born in the USA are citizens.

[Thothmes]

46. The first sentence of the XIV amendment was there for a

very specific reason. The Dred Scott Decision by the Supreme court specificially stated that there was no constitutionally legal method for a slave or an ex slave to become a Citizen of the United States. The verbage of the XIVth was written to legally get around the Dred Scott ruling. It had nothing to do with protection of the children. In the Mid 18th century, all you had to do become a citizen of this country was to get here. Unless of course you were a ex slave, then you could never be a citizen until the XIV was ratified.

[county worker]

83. read on

2/29/2008 Testimony by James C. Ho during the joint committee hearing to examine the issue of birthright citizenship and House Bill 281 by Representative Berman. (H.R. 28, 80th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Tex. 2007).)

The U.S. Constitution speaks directly to the issue of birthright citizenship.7 It makes clear that birthright citizenship is a matter of constitutional right, no less for the U.S.-born children of unlawful aliens and undocumented persons than for the descendants of passengers of the Mayflower. I reach this conclusion based on the text of the Constitution, common law history, legislative history, and U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

We begin—as we always should—with the text of the Constitition. The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . .”8 The motivating purpose of this amendment was to overturn the notorious U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott.9 But the amendment was drafted broadly to guarantee citizenship to virtually everyone born in the United States.10 The critical language of the Fourteenth Amendment is the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”11 Proponents of repealing birthright citizenship argue that this language excludes all non-citizens—both lawful and unlawful—because “subject to jurisdiction” means allegiance.12 They point out that non-citizens don’t swear allegiance to the United States; they swear allegiance to their home country.13


Respectfully, I don’t think that that is a reasonable reading of the text. I would submit that the plain meaning of “subject to jurisdiction” is rather straightforward. It simply means that one must have a duty to obey U.S. law. When a person is “subject to the jurisdiction” of a court of law, that person is required to obey the orders of that court. When a company is “subject to the jurisdiction” of a government agency, that company is required to obey the regulations promulgated by that agency. The meaning of the phrase is simple: One is “subject to the jurisdiction” of another whenever one is obliged to obey the laws of another.14 Simply put, the test is obedience, not allegiance.

It is also worth observing that if the drafters had intended to require allegiance, rather than obedience, they could have said so. How easy it would have been for them to state explicitly that only

Of course, the phrase “subject to jurisdiction” must mean something. Otherwise, it would serve no purpose.15 Under the interpretation I put forth, it does serve a purpose. The “jurisdiction”requirement excludes only those individuals who are not required to obey U.S. law. This concept—like much of early U.S. law—derives from English common law. Under the common law, neither foreign diplomats nor enemy soldiers are legally required to obey our law. They enjoy diplomatic immunity or combatant immunity from our laws.16 As a result, their U.S.-born offspring are not entitled to birthright citizenship.

This understanding is also confirmed by the Congressional debates surrounding the Fourteenth Amendment. Members of the 39th Congress debated the wisdom of guaranteeing birthright citizenship, but no one disputed the amendment’s meaning.17 In fact, opponents of the amendment conceded—indeed, they warned—that the language of the Citizenship Clause would guarantee citizenship to the children of those who owe the U.S. no allegiance. And supporters of the amendment agreed that only members of Indian tribes, ambassadors, foreign ministers, and others who are not “subject to our laws” would fall outside the guarantee of birthright citizenship.

This interpretation is further confirmed by U.S. Supreme Court precedent.18 In 1898, the Court held in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that a U.S.-born child of Chinese immigrants was constitutionally entitled to citizenship.19 The Court noted that “he Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory . . . including all children here born of resident aliens.”20 The Court has since reiterated this view in subsequent decisions, applying this principle specifically to the children of undocumented persons. In Plyler v. Doe, a majority of justices concluded—and all four dissenting justices agreed—that birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment “extends to anyone. . . who is subject to the laws of a State,” including the U.S.-born children of “illegal aliens.”21 And in INS v. Rios-Pineda, the Court unanimously observed that a child born to an undocumented immigrant was in fact a citizen of the United States.22

Footnotes

7. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1.
8. Id.
9. See The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 73 (1873) (citing Scott v. Sandford (Dred Scott), 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857)) (stating that the Fourteenth Amendment “overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States”).
10. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 676 (1898); see also The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) at 73.
11. U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1.
12. See, e.g., John C. Eastman, Born in the U.S.A.? Rethinking Birthright Citizenship in the Wake of 9/11, 42 U. RICH. L. REV. 955, 957–58 (2008).
13. See id. at 115–17.
14. See Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 545 U.S. 119, 160–61 (2005) (Scalia, J.,dissenting).
15. Cf. Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 574 (1995) (“he Court will avoid areading which renders some words altogether redundant.”) (citing United States v. Menasche, 348 U.S. 528, 538–39 (1955)).
16. See Abdulaziz v. Metro. Dade County, 741 F.2d 1328, 1329–30 (11th Cir. 1984) (diplomatic immunity); United States v. Lindh, 212 F. Supp. 2d 541, 553 (E.D. Va. 2002) (combatant immunity).
17. See CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2892–97 (1866) (debating ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment).
18. This interpretation has also been affirmed by the Executive Branch under Presidents of both parties, including Presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. See, e.g., Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Appellees, Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) (No. 80-1538), 1981 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 2363 (President Reagan); 19 Op. Off.
Legal Counsel 340, 341–42 (1995) (President Clinton).
19. See 169 U.S. 649, 705 (1898).
20. Id. at 693.
21. 457 U.S. 202, 215 (1982); id. at 243 (Burger, J., dissenting).
22. 471 U.S. 444, 445, 446 (1985).

[kristopher]

89. You are arguing a red herring

The issue is not whether the Constitution as written endows citizenship on children of persons here regardless of their legal status. The issue is do we want to change that? We are, as far as I know, the ONLY nation that uses this policy. ALL other nations that I've found (maybe 40 so far) have citizenship by descent.

While there is a very small chance sect. 1 Amend 14 might be changed in court (the precedent as it applies to Native Americans might somehow be construed to be the more relevant reading, but I doubt it.

No one has denied therefore that it would require a Constitutional Amendment. Is that the argument you are trying to make by citing these opinions, that it needs constitutional action to change? If so you are absolutely correct.

[county worker]

111. I've shown you that you can't change that with a law.

It doesn't matter one piece of shit what other countries do.

[kristopher]

126. You still don't get it.

You can change ANY law in this country. duh....

[WeDidIt]

137. You apparently don't understand contsitutional law vs. codified law. n/t

[kristopher]

142. You are the one making uninformed broad generalizations.

[WeDidIt]

203. You've made claims that infer a constitutional provision

might be overturned with a simple codified law.

I've also noticed many of your posts here have been deleted by the mods.

[Libertyfirst]

21. I would rather let my 3 year old granddaughter take out my

appendix with a dull knife than change a word of the l4th Amendment. I want the Constitution protected and enforced,not butchered for some nitwit's political aspirations.

[kristopher]

44. WOW!!!

That is an amazingly ignorant argument. Using the same logic the 14th Amendment wouldn't even exist.

As to your relationship with your granddaughter, I suppose she might enjoy going for a long walk in the park with you more than having to face all that blood and screaming...

[colinmom71]

35. I just love when conservatives adopt a "strict constructionist" view...

ONLY when it suits their agenda. Dude, it explicitly states all persons born in the US are citizens! Even Hugo Black would have seen that!

To quote Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon!".

[kristopher]

47. There have been two lawsuits that went to the Supreme Court.

One ruled it didn't apply to the children of non US citizens, the other ruled it did apply to the children of non US citizens.

I don't know the strategy the OP guy is pursuing, either a court fight or an attempt to change Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment.

[WeDidIt]

54. Now you're citing BIRTHER BULLSHIT

I'll keep an eye on you.

[kristopher]

66. What "birther bullshit"?

I'd suggest you put that eye to better use and read a damned book or two.

[WeDidIt]

76. No citations and spouting off Birther bullshit as your evidence

I'd suggest YOU read a book or two.

come back when you ahve a link, which will be never.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WeDidIt]

114. Again, citation

You cannot pro=ivde a citation. You claim tehre were two cases regarding native birth, one denying citizenship and one upholding citizenship, which is bullshit the Birthers spout to support their garbage about Barack Obama not being born in this country. There is a single case relevent to teh discussion and I cited it earlier.

so give me your citation or I will continue to call you on your bullshit.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jberryhill]

150. By "birther bullshit", he refers to the Obama Birth Conspiracy Folks

Who regularly mis-apply Wong Kim Ark and other tidbits of misinterpreted rulings in order to argue that because Barack Obama had a non-citizen father, then he is not a natural born citizen.

These are people who ADMIT that Obama was born in the US, but who posit that a "natural born citizen" must, by misreading of Wong Kim Ark, have two citizen parents.

[kristopher]

165. Thank you

I knew what "birthers" referred to but I couldn't for the life of me see a connection.

[snooper2]

84. "I'll keep an eye on you."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[kristopher]

98. ...

[jberryhill]

149. You knew it was going to come up in this thread, though dincha?

I mean, it was inevitable.

I was betting on whether it would be de Vattel or Wong Kim Ark.

Looks like Wong Kim Ark won!

[jberryhill]

148. Larf - Go read the real law at Obamaconspiracy.org, Birther /nt

[kristopher]

166. This has nothing to do with Obama nor the claims regarding his birth

My children are dual citizens, my wife is an immigrant and I lived overseas for more than a decade; experiencing firsthand the need to conform to an alien registration system. With my children I've seen both sides of this matter and think that there is nothing we would lose and much we would gain by changing our system.

So while you may have a personal problem related to the issue of marital fidelity and extraordinary doubts about the validity of paternity claims, perhaps that is an issue best dealt with without calling me inappropriate names.

[jberryhill]

207. Your failure to cite the precedent to which you refer

...is remarkable similar to birther claims.

I do not have an issue with "marital fidelity". What's remarkable is that you believe marriage and childbirth have a necessary relationship.

[walldude]

62. I believe this is called picking nits. Has this asshole ever read the

base at the Statue Of Liberty?

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

I'm getting tired of these "Americans".

[kristopher]

64. Do you really consider that a rebuttal?

That quote has absolutely nothing to do with the way citizenship is passed from parent to child. The process that applies to "tired, your poor,... huddled masses yearning to breathe free" is called naturalization. The concept of citizenship by place of birth was STRICTLY conceived to address generations of slaves that existed under law as defined by the Dredd Scott descision:

The Dred Scott Decision

Dred Scott was the name of an African-American slave. He was taken by his master, an officer in the U.S. Army, from the slave state of Missouri to the free state of Illinois and then to the free territory of Wisconsin. He lived on free soil for a long period of time.

When the Army ordered his master to go back to Missouri, he took Scott with him back to that slave state, where his master died. In 1846, Scott was helped by Abolitionist (anti-slavery) lawyers to sue for his freedom in court, claiming he should be free since he had lived on free soil for a long time. The case went all the way to the United States Supreme Court. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney, was a former slave owner from Maryland.

In March of 1857, Scott lost the decision as seven out of nine Justices on the Supreme Court declared no slave or descendant of a slave could be a U.S. citizen, or ever had been a U.S. citizen. As a non-citizen, the court stated, Scott had no rights and could not sue in a Federal Court and must remain a slave.

At that time there were nearly 4 million slaves in America. The court's ruling affected the status of every enslaved and free African-American in the United States. The ruling served to turn back the clock concerning the rights of African-Americans, ignoring the fact that black men in five of the original States had been full voting citizens dating back to the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

The Supreme Court also ruled that Congress could not stop slavery in the newly emerging territories and declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820 to be unconstitutional. The Missouri Compromise prohibited slavery north of the parallel 36°30´ in the Louisiana Purchase. The Court declared it violated the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution which prohibits Congress from depriving persons of their property without due process of law.

Anti-slavery leaders in the North cited the controversial Supreme Court decision as evidence that Southerners wanted to extend slavery throughout the nation and ultimately rule the nation itself. Southerners approved the Dred Scott decision believing Congress had no right to prohibit slavery in the territories. Abraham Lincoln reacted with disgust to the ruling and was spurred into political action, publicly speaking out against it.

Overall, the Dred Scott decision had the effect of widening the political and social gap between North and South and took the nation closer to the brink of Civil War.

Ignorance is a powerful force for evil, my friend.

[Vickers]

78. And once again a Repuke reveals his utter unfamiliarity with the Constitution.

:rofl:

What a dumbass!

[kristopher]

92. How so?

The discussion here is should we change the law regarding how citizenship is determined - to: by descent from parent; from: location of birth.

We are about the only nation on earth that uses location of birth, all the others use parental nationality to determine citizenship. sec.1 Amend. 14 ws written specifically to deal with released slaves that were stateless because of the Dredd Scott decision. Since that is no longer a factor in our nation, and since Sec 1 is now having unintended consequences, it is reasonable to discuss changing it. What do you think are the pros and cons. We can accept for the sake of moving on that it would require a constitutional amendment and that this would be difficult. So what would be the pros and cons of keeping the status quo or changing to a system of citizenship by descent or naturalization?

[dendrobium]

81. Great! An underclass that can be exploited permanently!

This is a big problem in European countries. You have a huge class of people born in a country but having little or no hope of ever being citizens of that said country. These citizens of nowhere have no true stake in the country. They are angry and dispossessed. They live in ghettoes where they can be exploited for cheap labour and blamed for all social ills. They can never have a good education and there is no chance for a good job. They never assimilate into society. This is a ticking time bomb for any society.

[old mark]

87. We used to use Puerto Ricans for that purpose in this country

until the late 1970's.

The US has treated those people like shit.

mark

[kristopher]

96. How is that related to how citizenship is passed on?

If you immigrate to (pick ANY country), your children are born there and you want them to become citizens, how does that happen? Any country besides the US, please provide us some insight.

Then explain why our system is "better".

[old mark]

109. People born in Puerto Rico ARE US citizens - I don't know why you are fighting when people

seem to be agreeing with you...

mark

[kristopher]

131. Sorry

I've just been faced with such an deluge of pure garbage that I'm getting a bit thin skinned. I never expcted near universal inability to directly and objectively discuss a policy suggestion on its merits. Instead I've seen a steady stream of irrelevancies, kneejerk atttacks on the messenger, total ignorance of history and frankly pure stupidity.

Your remark was none of those, but I guess I was off responding to the framing where it was tangential to the issue of what should we do about the law. The current system definitely contributes to perpetuating an underclass, and that is one argument for change. I'd love to hear you flesh it out.

Again, I apologize for not being more responsive to your ideas.

[kristopher]

94. That has to do with immmigration policy.

Are you saying ours is better?

[suffragette]

190. dendrobium made an apt point about "citizens of nowhere"

and how such a policy creates this.

That is entirely pertinent to the topic you started.

[kristopher]

194. I didn't say it wasn't.

What I said was that was an immigration policy problem (meaning much broader than the more narrow issue at hand) and I had hoped to prompt further dialog by asking if our current system was producing better results. Do you have an opinion on that?

[suffragette]

198. That is a problem that would be a direct result of what you advocate

What you call a narrow issue would have a broad impact and that is a likely outcome.
Trying to shift the discussion doesn't alter that.

[kristopher]

201. It is a narrow issue in the scheme of the immigration problem

There now exists a population variously cited as between 6-11 million people that exerts a large effect on this nation and the effectiveness of its policies. The way citizenship is bestowed is not the most significant factor in that diorama of causes. I don't think I tried to "shift the discussion" so much as I gave an opinion and thought I encouraged the poster to elaborate on their opinion - just as I know I did with you. In the first case I got silence, in the second I got an unsupported assertion and an accusation that I'm trying to avoid discussion.

[suffragette]

202. It is a potential negative effect of a policy you advocate

And it would have a detrimental societal impact.
Not so narrow at all.

As for the silence, it's late and it's possible that poster went to bed.
I know that's where I'm heading now.

Bye.

[Ganja Ninja]

91. Another distraction designed to fire up the racist redneck base.

They can't do anything useful because it offends the morons they call their base so they keep coming up with lame thinly disguised racist crap like this.

[kristopher]

95. How is it "racist crap"?

Almost every nation in the world uses the system the congressman is proposing. IS the entire world racist?

[WeDidIt]

115. 14th amendment n/t

[Blue_Tires]

100. what a masturbatory crock....good luck getting THAT amendment past the dream stage

much less getting it ratified...

but hey, it's bloody red meat for a starving base, and it will keep Deal's name on the lips of hate radio flamethrowers for awhile...

[kristopher]

102. Why respond with name calling?

Every other nation in the world that I know of uses a system where citizenship is awarded by descent, not birth location. Our was put in place specifically to address an abhorrent belief system regarding perptual slavery and statelessness after the civil war (see Dredd Scott decision). Given our law has such a unique origin associated with such a unique problem, and given that all other nations that have looked at this issue have elected to use a different system; isn't it conceivable that our system has flaws producing unintended consequences in the modern world?

[Blue_Tires]

106. i understand what you are trying to say

and high-minded constitutional debates are fun, but let's look at this straight:

1. The 'neck GA congresscritter is just trying to whip up some fury in his white-sheet base and hopefully make a name for himself while doing so...and the racial overtones in his proposal are easy to see...

2. His bill will never get discussed, much less make it out of committee, which is the way he wants it so he can cry to the base the 'evil libruls' are stonewalling his vision for a better america...

3. Personally, I'm not convinced that if this amendment were ratified, undocumented/illegal/whatever immigration would stop or even slow down...As long as there are labor-intensive industries looking for subservient half-price workers no-questions-asked, the workers will come even if said companies have to bring the workers over themselves...Of course whenever I mention correcting this angle to the local "build a fence!/deport them all!" mouth-breathers they usually clam up...

4. and hypothetically how would you practically apply it? is it retroactive? is a baby born in limbo until it is old enough to apply for citizenship or is it deported straight off?

[kristopher]

132. Of course it wouldn't be retroactive.

You can't make laws that are. I would see it as part of a comprehensive strategy to address the undocumented worker problem. I have no desire to run all those without proper visas out of the country, and I think an amnesty program is the best ultimate solution. However, it MUST be accompanies by meaningful reform such as you suggest - harsher legislation and stronger enforcement against employers. That, in turn, requires a use of real national registry system so citizenship can be easily verified.

I see the anchor baby syndrome as a small but significant part of the discussion. No other country uses birthright citizenship, and if changing it were the price of getting through a strong bill that brought the undocumented workers (and their families) into the mainstream I think it would be well worth it.


Edited to add: I meant to address the "limbo" question. There would be no state of limbo. All that happens (even now as the parents seek dual citizenship) is that the parents either report the the birth to their embassy or they report it to the proper agency when they return to their home country. The preschool child are generally assumed to have the citizenship of the mother when nothing else is evident.

[varelse]

105. Children born and raised here, knowing no other home

would be classified as lawbreakers in their own native land. This would add a new layer to the underclass we already have - "native-born illegal aliens" not qualified for Social Security but paying into it, not qualified to produce native born citizens but still having generations of "undocumented" non-citizen children, afraid to stand up for their rights, unable to join labor unions, paying taxes but denied representation, and quite possibly banned from the nations of their parents' origin.

I can't see that working out too well. Why can't we just make better effort toward enforcing existing immigration law?

[kristopher]

133. See post #132

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5723611&mesg_id=5731385

[varelse]

140. Ummm it wouldn't need to be retroactive to have this effect

People here illegally will continue to give birth here. Their kids will not be citizens *either*. And so on... it's not like the second you take away the "anchor" the ship will sail away. Not at all. This would have generations of repercussions and generate decades of political feuds and controversy. It'd give political parties and candidates with nothing more substantial to offer than the "right" position on "wedge" issues leverage we don't need to give them.

I see your point - that rewarding illegal and undesirable behaviour (illegally entering our country to give birth to a citizen here) is a bad idea. I just don't think this is a good solution.

[kristopher]

143. Did you read post 132?

If so, why ignore the comments about this being part of a total revamping of the immigration system that would be designed to eliminate "illegal" workers. It can, by and large, be done with the proper policies. A national citizen's registry makes holding employers to a very harsh legal framework possible. I see the child issue as one loophole among many that need to be closed in order to bring the exploitation of undocumented workers and their negative pressure on labor wages to an end.

We have pretty liberal legal immigration policies, and tightening up rules allowing that law abiding population to not get squeezed out by people doing an end run around the system only seems fair to me. I've known a lot of people from a lot of countries besides South America that would love to immigrate here but they have little chance. If our labor market wasn't flooded with undocumented workers, those trying to follow rules of the system would have am improved chance at entry.

But most of all, I would like to see the matter of undocumented workers solved. When you have millions of people outside they legal system, it is inevitably going to skew the planning and results of your domestic policies. More than any other reason I see this as a bargaining point with the right. They give in on amnesty, a national registry (national ID) and stronger sanctions against employers, and we give in on anchor babies.

I don't see your point about hereditary foreigner status. To be here you need a visa. If you have a long term visa there is a path to citizenship through naturalization. You seem to totally dismiss the way most people legally immigrate to this nation. Do you have something against doing it the way the law intended?

[Vickers]

110. Is this the one that wants to fuck a mule, or the other one?

:shrug:

I get 'em mixed up.

[varelse]

139. I know whose campaign fund will be getting *my* money :P

[hunter]

112. What a bunch of crap.

Maybe we shouldn't automatically grant citizenship to any baby born in the U.S..

Instead we could make parents pay for their children's U.S. citizenship at a public auction. The children of parents who couldn't pay for citizenship would be illegal aliens. They wouldn't be allowed to go to school, collect welfare, or get medical care, and we could put them all to work doing the crappy jobs American citizens won't do, until they died or fled the country.






:sarcasm:

[konnichi wa]

119. I agree with him. n/t

...

[LanternWaste]

129. Pandering to the lowest common denominator...

Pandering to the lowest common denominator via proposed legislation and constitutional amendment- an unworkable struggle against national tradition; of which, I have little doubt the right honorable Mr. Deal is already aware of.

He throws his xenophobic base a bone, does little leg work himself, and nothing changes-- the perfect recipe for Republican politicians.

[Joe the Liberal]

134. Ain't gonna happen....

and Deal knows it, my guess is that he can use this to rally their base to bring in more money/votes and just use it a wedge issue for years to come.

[libodem]

135. i've thought about that myself

and wondered if it wouldn't be helpful especially in states like California. I haven't thought it through completely and since I usually weigh in on the human rights side of an argument, I may be out of my mind.

[jberryhill]

157. Food for Thought

"Who is the father of that baby?"

Imagine citizenship turning on the answer to that question.

[kristopher]

168. It happens all the time everywhere in the world.

Seriously - talk to your wife.

[jberryhill]

205. Not At The Rate It Happens Here

How many "anchor babies" are there per year?

[McCamy Taylor]

144. What the hell? Is this an April Fools joke that got lost? Someone at DU thinks

creating a permanent serf class of folks who grew up American (so they can never go back to any other country) who have no rights so they can be denied education, health care and equal pay is good idea?

For Tyson Chicken, maybe. Not for the American worker.

This is corporate propaganda of the worst type.

[kristopher]

173. That's an ignorant assessment of the discussion

The goal is to eliminate undocumented workers, that is the root of the "underclass" you are describing. As one part of a larger package to accomplish that goal why shouldn't we change to citizenship by descent? That in no way inherently involves the creation of second-class citizens - we already have that with the current system of birthright citizenship.
An amnesty program isn't going to happen easily, but it must be done. ANd if it is done it must be accompanies by meaningful reform of the major elements that incentivise illegal residence by foreign persons. When we look at the competition to gain entry through the legal system it is simply not tenable to maintain that the idea of "anchor babies" as an incentive doesn't exist. Along with revamping our citizen registry system (national ID) and harsher penalties/much tighter enforcement of employer violations of labor laws, these reforms would help ensure that the results of a new amnesty don't duplicate what happened last time.
Finally the best measure of all would be more emphasis on economic equity within Central and South America. Personally I think that mainstreaming renewable energy and bringing its price down is the secret to that part of the problem.

But creating an underclass? No, not at all. I'd ask what you propose to do to eliminate the one that exists.

[jberryhill]

151. Nathan Deal, Georgia Asshat, Thinks Fathers Are Known At Birth

Yeah.... good luck with that.

Does he intend to dispute the paternity claimed by the mother at birth, if known, or are we going to run a paternity test on every kid?

Non-citizen woman gives birth to child of rapist whom she does not know. What is the citizenship of that child?

What if the rapist is identified five years later as a citizen?

What a crock.

[fishwax]

153. I'd prefer to keep jus soli

I see no compelling reason to do away with it, and I think Deal's proposal has no chance.

[Uzybone]

163. This is "reasonable"? I've heard it all on DU

wow.

[nadinbrzezinski]

181. 14th amendment and international law

yep, I can see that being changed :sarcasm: really, good luck on that crusade.

[kristopher]

187. What does international law have to do with it? nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

189. We are signatories to plenty of treaties that deal with this

including the UN Conventions on Human Rights. They become US Law when ratified by Congress.

[kristopher]

191. The UN Conventions on Human Rights

Do any of them deal with whether or not a nation practices citizenship by descent vs birthright?
Considering the preponderance of countries with citizenship by descent, that just seems too unlikely to believe; so if you have a reference handy, I'd sure like to see it. I googled the last thing you threw out (Metternich) and got nothing related to the 14th amendment. If you have something more specific on that, it too would be appreciated.

BTW, what is YOUR answer for the perpetual underclass formed by the immigration and citizenship status quo?

[nadinbrzezinski]

195. Metternich and the origin of the nation state.

also insofar as the UN Convention on human rights they deal with issues like people who might loose all citizenship and become a-national, with no state protection, That happened after WW II... and some folks are still alive that have no nation to claim them. That places special problems on them.

More on Metternich

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Age_of_Metternich

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolff_Metternich

He is the origin of the modern nation state

As to the underclass, US history is quite amazing, every underclass has moved on to the main stream, EVERY ONE of them. This is a nation of immigrants, has been and will remain such.

Read a little history... but they do. So my answer, we will see reform, but birth right, will remain. Changing the US Constitution is not for the faint of heart,

By the way US Dual citizenship is VERY NEW. When I became a US Citizen in 1998 that wasn't possible.

[kristopher]

197. Thanks, I'll look that stuff over.

I don't think you can make a direct correlation between narrow topic of the means of handing down citizenship and the problems of statelessness you describe. Those are a product of a grabbag of circumstances and policies that could occur under any system. The totality of a nation's policies on bringing in labor and whether or not that is an exercise in exploitation are things to be evaluated broadly. To point at any individual component of the system and attach too much weight to it will almost always fail to yield a valid analysis.

Congratulations. You're right, it is relatively new.

[nadinbrzezinski]

200. While you are at it look up NAFTA and side agreements

It will blow you away, some of the stuff in there, regarding citizenship and rights to move from one place to the next

[jberryhill]

209. Indirectly, Yes...

One of the conventions to which we are signatory is specifically designed to reduce the incidence of stateless persons.

[TheKentuckian]

199. I'm dead against this.

By what right but this one did his ancestors become citizens? I deem this anti-American as a concept, but then I'm not a Lou Dobbs type and I take the words on Lady Liberty as important to our national spirit and ideals.