Repeal of the 14th Amendment

EastTexas

I am deeply against the repeal of 14th amendment because I believe if you are born in USA you are a citizen and that should remain untouchable.
I could not care less if your mother crawled through the bushes in the still of night over the border an hr before you where born.
As long it can be verified that you have been born on American soil you are a citizen.

The problem of course arises when your mother is picked as an illegal alien and faces deportation.
I think the child should have the right to remain in the US and or be granted the right of return at any time in his or her life but this should not serve as path for the mother to circumvent the legal immigration process.
By not granting her preference to other illegal aliens or those pursuing the legal path of citizenship and green cards.



This would put the responsibility squarely on the mother’s shoulders where it should be, not the child and also would also prevent the creation of a double standard based on circumstance for anybody born in the USA.

Thoughts and Opinions?

mgmt

The 14th amendment sounds pretty dumb to me. It just blows away any credible immigrant policy. Ireland brought in a very similar ruling by accident under the Good Friday Agreement in 1998.

EastTexas

mgmt wrote: »

The 14th amendment sounds pretty dumb to me. It just blows away any credible immigrant policy. Ireland brought in a very similar ruling by accident under the Good Friday Agreement in 1998.

Fair enough.
But what is it you don’t like about the 14th amendment?
And I am not really familiar with Good Friday Agreement in 1998 you mentioned or any correlation to our laws.

mgmt

EastTexas wrote: »

Fair enough.
But what is it you don’t like about the 14th amendment?
And I am not really familiar with Good Friday Agreement in 1998 you mentioned or any correlation to our laws.

The Good Friday Agreement changed the Irish Constitution to allow anyone born on the island of Ireland to be a citizen of Ireland. The intended purpose was to allow the people of the North to be Irish Citizens if they wished. It subsequently caused massive immigration problems and had to be overturned by a referendum in 2004.

Eliot Rosewater

EastTexas wrote: »

And I am not really familiar with Good Friday Agreement in 1998 you mentioned or any correlation to our laws.

The Irish constitutional amendment associated with the Good Friday Agreement introduced a "loophole" whereby any child born in Ireland was automatically granted citizenship. This system began to be abused - there were stories of foreign women flying into Ireland and giving birth on the day they arrived, thus, I believe, securing residency for themselves. The right to automatic citizenship was rescinded with the passing of the 27th Amendment.

It's a tricky issue. The main problem is preventing abuses, which the Irish did through a blanket removal of the automatic right. Your solution would work too, assuming that the motivations for a person having their child in the US are primarily securing some benefit for themselves.

mgmt

The immigration policy in America is mad. You can go over to America and get educated to a high standard in one of the IVY league school but when you graduate there is no hope of you staying because the immigration policy is based on a lottery.

mgmt

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

EastTexas

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

The Irish constitutional amendment associated with the Good Friday Agreement introduced a "loophole" whereby any child born in Ireland was automatically granted citizenship. This system began to be abused - there were stories of foreign women flying into Ireland and giving birth on the day they arrived, thus, I believe, securing residency for themselves. The right to automatic citizenship was rescinded with the passing of the 27th Amendment.

It's a tricky issue. The main problem is preventing abuses, which the Irish did through a blanket removal of the automatic right. Your solution would work too, assuming that the motivations for a person having their child in the US are primarily securing some benefit for themselves.

Thank you.
And you are correct the problem is abuse.
But once we separate the rights of the child (a natural born citizen) from those of the mother as I suggested in my opening post, this would guard against that.
If picked as an I.A. she will have the choice of taking her child with her when deported or leaving it to the system in the US.
But she will not gain anything for herself by doing this, thereby removing the incentive to engage in this conduct in the first place.
Most mothers would not part with their children.
The child though once of age should have the right of return as a citizen or with dual citizenship.

Though not a perfect solution,and suggested in broad strokes, this would preserve the 14th amendment, guard against an unfair double standard of citizenship for someone born American Soil and remove the incentive for the mother.

Ergo no Anchor Babies.
It’s just an idea to solve it in the most bipartisan way without violating the rights of a natural born citizen.

I see the need to address the problem, but don’t like the idea of cherry picking the constitution.

InTheTrees

EastTexas wrote: »

If picked as an I.A. she will have the choice of taking her child with her when deported or leaving it to the system in the US.

Except on one hand you're granting the baby US citizenship and then completely ignoring the welfare of that US citizenship by deporting its parent and condemning it to a life of foster care?

Doesnt the US citizen have some right now to have parents? This is the problem. Under your scenario you'll be tearing children from their parents arms and sending them to some institution while packing the parents out of the country.

Not an easy program to sell.

EastTexas

InTheTrees wrote: »

Except on one hand you're granting the baby US citizenship and then completely ignoring the welfare of that US citizenship by deporting its parent and condemning it to a life of foster care?

Doesnt the US citizen have some right now to have parents? This is the problem. Under your scenario you'll be tearing children from their parents arms and sending them to some institution while packing the parents out of the country.

Not an easy program to sell.

I am not “condemning” the child to the system and neither would be framing the law in such a way.
If anything the mother would “condemn” (I don’t entirely like you phrasing as it carries negative undertones) if she did not take her child with her when deported.
I advocated choice and thereby place the responsibility for the child squarely on the mother’s shoulder where it should be.

In practice it’s a far more likely scenario that she would choose to take the child with her.
But ultimately with such a law in place many who would contemplate such a path to circumvent the system would no longer have an incentive to travel to the US for the sole purpose of giving birth and with that solve the root of the problem.
But should this happen due to unforeseen circumstance, the child’s privilege and rights as a natural born citizen are preserved and protected and our constitution is not infringed upon.

Sometimes in a democracy we let problems languish and escalate against our interest for fear of lack of perfection when solving them.

DADT was such a law, incredibly imperfect, yet a very effective stepping stone toward equal rights for gays in the military and elsewhere.

RichieC

I think economic environment will sort out the immigration situation. waste of time fecking around with constitutional amendments, not to mention a waste of money.

GuanYin

I'm a bit torn on this issue.

While I actually disagree in many ways with abuse of the systems my immigrants, I also realize that as a 1st generation American, I'm reaping the rewards of immigration (albeit legal immigration).

Likewise, I disagree with the 14th amendment too.

I'm not sure that policing will ever fix the issue, but taxation might.

I think that making it easier to get legal work status but imposing a higher taxation rate on these workers is the way to go. Likewise, crucify those employing illegally with fines and even criminal convictions. The federal government (under both republicans and democrats) have a long and sad history of not going to the root of the issue. Here, it is the employers.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

EastTexas

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Of hand, no, because to file such a petition for sponsorship this is also the right a citizen.
But subject to being granted anyway based on several criteria.

Anytime you change one law, this will also affect other laws. Considering this and tying up those loose ends is also part of the process.

Some of the Right suggest the repeal of the 14th amendment to address the so called “ anchor baby” issue.
I personally do not want any of the amendments changed as this opens the door to also change others which IMHO is path to the erosion of the constitution.
And with my post and suggestion (painted in broad strokes) offered an alternative solution to address the issues but leaving the 14th and that all others untouched.

amacachi

mgmt wrote: »

The Good Friday Agreement changed the Irish Constitution to allow anyone born on the island of Ireland to be a citizen of Ireland. The intended purpose was to allow the people of the North to be Irish Citizens if they wished. It subsequently caused massive immigration problems and had to be overturned by a referendum in 2004.

Have you got some numbers to back up how big an issue that's been?

GuanYin wrote: »

I'm a bit torn on this issue.

While I actually disagree in many ways with abuse of the systems my immigrants, I also realize that as a 1st generation American, I'm reaping the rewards of immigration (albeit legal immigration).

Likewise, I disagree with the 14th amendment too.

I'm not sure that policing will ever fix the issue, but taxation might.

I think that making it easier to get legal work status but imposing a higher taxation rate on these workers is the way to go. Likewise, crucify those employing illegally with fines and even criminal convictions. The federal government (under both republicans and democrats) have a long and sad history of not going to the root of the issue. Here, it is the employers.

What kind of taxation exactly? Non-citizens being taxed more?

GuanYin

amacachi wrote: »

What kind of taxation exactly? Non-citizens being taxed more?

Yes, specifically on social security, but also federal taxes.

amacachi

Aw, so it'll only be fake English accents in Hollywood films from now on? Damn and blast.
What about foreign students for example?

GuanYin

amacachi wrote: »

Aw, so it'll only be fake English accents in Hollywood films from now on? Damn and blast.
What about foreign students for example?

Actually, I was inattentive to your post and answered incorrectly.

So I retract, not higher taxation for "non-citizens", higher taxation for certain immigrant visas.

I see the problem thusly. We have lots of illegal aliens in the US. Frankly, we need them here. On the other hand, ignoring the situation leads to an influx of more illegal aliens and an increase in illegal employment actions. Also, these aliens are not paying taxes, while at the same time enjoying many of the utilities and services that taxes provide.

So regulate the problem. Make it easier to get a visa for workers while simultaneously being harsher on those who employ illegal aliens. Make the recipients of those visas and their employers pay a higher social security and federal tax and crucify those who abuse of minimum wage laws.

Make immigration to the US accessible, but not exploitative.

amacachi

GuanYin wrote: »

Actually, I was inattentive to your post and answered incorrectly.

So I retract, not higher taxation for "non-citizens", higher taxation for certain immigrant visas.

I see the problem thusly. We have lots of illegal aliens in the US. Frankly, we need them here. On the other hand, ignoring the situation leads to an influx of more illegal aliens and an increase in illegal employment actions. Also, these aliens are not paying taxes, while at the same time enjoying many of the utilities and services that taxes provide.

So regulate the problem. Make it easier to get a visa for workers while simultaneously being harsher on those who employ illegal aliens. Make the recipients of those visas and their employers pay a higher social security and federal tax and crucify those who abuse of minimum wage laws.

Make immigration to the US accessible, but not exploitative.

While targetting employers is the only decent way I can see of tackling the problem I'd still like to know the finer details of what you're proposing. If, having found that a company is hiring illegals would the illegals just be completely ignored?
Surely having a visa means you're not an illegal alien, so where's the differentiation exactly?

GuanYin

amacachi wrote: »

While targetting employers is the only decent way I can see of tackling the problem I'd still like to know the finer details of what you're proposing. If, having found that a company is hiring illegals would the illegals just be completely ignored?
Surely having a visa means you're not an illegal alien, so where's the differentiation exactly?

I think immigrants need to be protected. For the most part they're being exploited by employers while obviously knowing they are here illegally.

My proposal would be to make the process for these immigrants to gain legal status simple and open.

The issue is, you don't want to open your borders, so you make more visas available, preferentially through amnesty for those already here and then continued visas for those attempting to come through.

However, to offset the increased burden on state, taxation on holders of these visas should be higher... it will still be less than most, because at the end of the day, these workers will be making minimum wage and the employers will probably have to absorb some of the costs. The balance is to make the visa process open enough while not making it an open floodgate.

That said, many employers are making excess money from the exploitation of foreign workers so I have little sympathy for them.

EastTexas

GuanYin wrote: »

I think immigrants need to be protected. For the most part they're being exploited by employers while obviously knowing they are here illegally.

My proposal would be to make the process for these immigrants to gain legal status simple and open.

The issue is, you don't want to open your borders, so you make more visas available, preferentially through amnesty for those already here and then continued visas for those attempting to come through.

However, to offset the increased burden on state, taxation on holders of these visas should be higher... it will still be less than most, because at the end of the day, these workers will be making minimum wage and the employers will probably have to absorb some of the costs. The balance is to make the visa process open enough while not making it an open floodgate.

That said, many employers are making excess money from the exploitation of foreign workers so I have little sympathy for them.

Excuse me, do you mean Immigrants or illegal immigrants?

If you suggest to make the process easier for immigrants or illegal immigrants or both..... why, for which purpose?

PeakOutput

mgmt wrote: »

when you graduate there is no hope of you staying because the immigration policy is based on a lottery.

thats not true, there are other ways to get a greencard then through the lottery system

KerranJast

IMO a newborn should be entitled to citizenship if:
- one of the parents is a US citizen
or
- one of the parents is on the path to citizenship (has visa)

You cannot allow illegal immigrants to automatically get citizenship just because they manage to have a child born while they're illegally in the country.

scallioneater

There is very little chance that the US Constitution will be amended on such a polarizing issue. It appears to me that this is being bounced out by political consultants to Increase turnout of conservative voters. Much like the "Marriage is for Heteros" amendments to state constitutions, this proposal is really just a red herring that will get more Republican candidates elected.

KerranJast wrote: »

IMO a newborn should be entitled to citizenship if:
- one of the parents is a US citizen
or
- one of the parents is on the path to citizenship (has visa)

You cannot allow illegal immigrants to automatically get citizenship just because they manage to have a child born while they're illegally in the country.

Undocumented Immigrants get neither citizenship nor residency by having children in the United States. My understanding of current ICE practice is that if a deportable person has a child that is a U.S. citizen, then that person will still be deported. If the person is not deported, it is because they were not deportable based on other factors, such as refugee status, marriage, or many other reasons.

I do believe that many immigrants, along with many Americans, game the welfare system to gain social welfare benefits by having children. Having children to gain welfare benefit has no connection to immigration status, just the need to survive in an increasingly polarized economy.

The 14th Amendment was originally enacted to prevent African Americans from being denied citizenship and the right to vote, after the U.S. Civil War. If the 14th Amendment is repealed, then we are back to a theory of nationality based on jus sanguinis. It's a bad idea. Keep the 14th and instead bring in a rational immigration policy that allows in young, intelligent, responsible people that will make America stronger, smarter, and wealthier.

EastTexas

scallioneater wrote: »

There is very little chance that the US Constitution will be amended on such a polarizing issue. It appears to me that this is being bounced out by political consultants to Increase turnout of conservative voters. Much like the "Marriage is for Heteros" amendments to state constitutions, this proposal is really just a red herring that will get more Republican candidates elected.




Undocumented Immigrants get neither citizenship nor residency by having children in the United States. My understanding of current ICE practice is that if a deportable person has a child that is a U.S. citizen, then that person will still be deported. If the person is not deported, it is because they were not deportable based on other factors, such as refugee status, marriage, or many other reasons.

I do believe that many immigrants, along with many Americans, game the welfare system to gain social welfare benefits by having children. Having children to gain welfare benefit has no connection to immigration status, just the need to survive in an increasingly polarized economy.

The 14th Amendment was originally enacted to prevent African Americans from being denied citizenship and the right to vote, after the U.S. Civil War. If the 14th Amendment is repealed, then we are back to a theory of nationality based on jus sanguinis. It's a bad idea. Keep the 14th and instead bring in a rational immigration policy that allows in young, intelligent, responsible people that will make America stronger, smarter, and wealthier.

Good points all around.
In addition the more difficult it is to get welfare in the first place; the less incentive there is to abuse it.
Indefinite “free” money out of the working taxpayer’s pocket is incredibly corrosive to the human spirit and society as a whole.

Another culprit is the fiscal burden.
California for example with a very liberal immigration policy is edging the state closer to bankruptcy
The welfare tab for children of illegal immigrants is estimated at $600M last year alone in L.A. County, that’s just one county of that state.

We pride ourselves in being a nation of immigrants.
Come as you are and be who you want to be, but there is a responsibility attached, to at least earn your own livelihood, make your life happen and don’t have children on your new home’s pocket.
Then you came for the wrong reasons.