Should Children of Illegal Aliens Born in the US be Automatic Citizens?
Posted by richrobinson 9 years, 10 months ago to Politics
"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."
This blogger makes a pretty simple and straight forward argument that the 14th Amendment does not apply to illegal immigrants. Trump has been laughed at for making this argument but at least people are talking about it.
This blogger makes a pretty simple and straight forward argument that the 14th Amendment does not apply to illegal immigrants. Trump has been laughed at for making this argument but at least people are talking about it.
the government can control voting and perpetuate its corruption
and .......
this brings about the question of the write-in referendum.
where do the voters get a say in voting? . and oops again --
democracies fail when the voters give themselves a
free ride. . somewhere in here there must be a statesman, a
leader, an Ayn Rand. . Representative Democracy with
wise leaders. . OOOoooooohhhhh, I wish!!! -- j
.
Under the old Constitution the rule was anyone born within the country was eligible for citizenship. Under the new one it depends on the time of day on which date with no need for any explanation.
and then, what is required to gain that permission? . mere citizenship?
or should there be more? . as for my view, I believe that voters
should have taken an oath of loyalty to the u.s.constitution. -- j
.
the "11 or 12 million" illegal residents in the u.s. are invaders,
not immigrants, and the "anchor baby" argument is a bad one. -- j
.
http://www.nationalreview.com/birthri...
+1
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/per...
Citizenship is a permission.
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," is pretty
clear and straightforward. The toddler, born in the
USA, of an illegal immigrant couple, still cannot
legally toddle on to the next-door neighbor's lawn, pull down his diaper, and pee on that lawn
without his parents' being liable for it. He is "sub-
ject to the jurisdiction thereof". As I understand
the law, such a toddler born to a visiting diplo-
mat would not thereby get his parents prosecut-
ed, because of diplomatic immunity; if too much
rambunctious stuff goes on, the remedy is to
get the diplomat recalled.
Does this provide a sort of incentive for
people to "jump the fence" and get their offspring
born in the United States to benefit by this tech-
nicality? Well, yes. Is it unfortunate? Yes. Does
it justify tearing up the Constitution and throw-
ing out the 14th Amendment? No, it does not.
Better guarding of the border; less tenderness
in allowing the American-born children's illegal
parents to stay in the U.S; barring immigrants
(at least those who are too new) from getting
payments from the welfare state; these are
proper remedies. (Also, dismantling the wel-
fare state itself). But the Constitution means
what it says, and says what it means.
As you correctly state, rights are derived from the nature of man. However, a) the right to citizenship varies upon where someone is born, b) appears to depend on the government in that country, and c) can be taken away in the case of felonies ("right" to vote, "right" to keep and bear arms, etc.). I am not saying that taking away these rights are a proper role for government. What I am asking is "Can those truly be considered rights in the Objectivist sense?" Perhaps they should be in an Objectivist universe, but unfortunately we do not live in such a universe ... yet.
Moreover, term2 wrote that citizenship should be earned. From an Objectivist standpoint, should citizenship be granted to a newborn incapable of a) making its own moral decisions, or b) generating enough self-sustaining actions on its own to sustain its own life?
"""
Child born out of wedlock to a U.S. Citizen father: A child born outside of the United States to an U.S. Citizen father where there is no marriage to the non-American mother is entitled to U.S. Citizenship providing the American citizen father had been physically present in the United States for the period of time as specified in previous paragraphs for children born in wedlock to one U.S. Citizen and one non-U.S. Citizen parent, either before or after November 14, 1986; and
- the alien mother completes an "Affidavit to establish paternity of child" at this office before a consular officer;
- and the father signs a sworn statement agreeing to provide financial support for the child until s/he reaches the age of 18 years;
- and the father provides a written statement acknowledging paternity.
""" -- Taken from the Ireland U.S. Embassy site.
BTW, the "period of time" requirement it references is:
"A child born outside of the United States to one U.S. citizen parent and one non-U.S. citizen parent may be entitled to citizenship providing the U.S. citizen parent had been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for five years, at least two years of which were after s/he reached the age of fourteen. This period of physical presence must have taken place prior to the birth of the child."
So right now, legally and unequivocally,you could indeed sell yourself in this fashion. You (or your client) would have to either:
arrange for the temporary stay of the would-be mother in the U.S. for insemination
or
arrange for artificial insemination of the mother in her own country.
(... and agree to be on the hook for child support.)
And for soliders, they don't even have to do that as time spent abroad in the service of the federal government (or even the U.N.) counts as physical presence in the U.S.
The trouble is "as its written" has been twisted into what we have today. Their lack of necessity anymore based on the reason for their existence could easily remove the problem entirely - no interpretation required ever again.
Load more comments...