Let's try a new way of discussing immigration..

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

No, IP.  You ducked this.  You said that your your claim to citizenship wasn't a "valid question".  And, you have dodged this question many times.  I don't care how boring this thread gets. I'll keep asking you because it's a fair question.  And it's pertinent.  

You see, I believe that your only claim to citizenship is the circumstances of your birth.  So, I'd like to know how you think someone who is entered this world under exactly the same legal circumstances would deserve lesser treatment.  

I'd like to know why you are different.
I'd like to know how you are different.
I'd like to know why you think it's okay to demean other Americans.  To suggest that they have a lesser claim.  That they might be less deserving than you, or frankly, your foreign buddy.  How do you justify this epithet, i.e., calling them "anchor babies"?  How does your foreign buddy react when you talk like that?

You can't cook up a legal angle, this is all 101 stuff.  So, I'll let you off the hook there.  But, morally speaking, that little brown baby is your countryman, right?  

Respek to Conan for actually providing an answer.  I think it's funny that Conan believes he's some special strain of American because his parents and great-grandparents were Americans, too.  I keep picturing  him dressed like Mr. Howell, sitting on a yacht, plugging away on a laptop. []  

But, you know better, IP.  You know the law and yet you still think it's okay to behave this way. Why?

Let me say it again.  Start on page one and proceed.  All your questions are answered.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Are you ****ting me or are you really that glib.

Same legal circumstances?  What about the parent being an undocumented alien in the commission of a crime against the citizens of the United States?

How you arrive at any sort of correlation between someone who had the good fortune to be born to someone being able to keep their legs together just long enough to deliver a baby at some **** hole hospital in McAllen, Tx. to my grandfather who was born on the family farm in Nebraska is beyond me.

The main reason the anchor baby was born here in the first place was the family used it as an angle for quatro or ocho familias to become de-facto "citizens" of the U.S.

Comparing someone who purposefully broke the law to exploit the generosity of the American Government to my parents or your parents is outrageous.

Thurston Howell?  Something special?  No.  I'm just sick and ****ing tired of the mentality of our Congress and some mindless nitwits who figure a billion $$ here and a billion $$ there doesn't affect their lives because most liberals don't write the check to the gov't at the end of the year, or don't bother to look at how much damn money the government sucks out of their paycheck every week to help support people who exploit the government.

The fact that my parents, grandparents and great-grandparents:

1.  Immigrated legally; and
2.  I was born to legal citizens.

This doesn't really equate to someone who is ILLEGAL and squirts one out as they hop the fence.  Why that is so hard to comprehend is beyond me...

[Chicken Little]

Conan,

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." Dt 24:16

This is, not coincidentally, a fundamental legal principle.  And I think we can agree that we are better off for it.

The child has committed no crime.  When a child is born a) on US soil, b) not the child of someone with diplomatic immunity, then that child is born an American citizen and a citizen of the state in which they reside.  In the eyes of the law, that child's circumstance was no different than your own when you were born.

IP knows this, but he still hasn't admitted it...(yes, going back to page 1)....(sigh).[xx(]  The actions of the parents may not EQUATE to the actions of your parents, but they don't MATTER, either.  What you're saying is not hard to comprehend, it's simply unimportant.  And if you believe in equal opportunity, then it should be unimportant to you, too.

The parents may be guilty of malfeasance, border jumping, and failure to display tailights on a horse at the time of the child's birth.  Heck, the mom could deliver him from death row and it wouldn't matter.  The child is not at fault.  Right, IP?

quote: Conan said
How you arrive at any sort of correlation between someone who had the good fortune to be born to someone being able to keep their legs together just long enough to deliver a baby at some **** hole hospital in McAllen, Tx. to my grandfather who was born on the family farm in Nebraska is beyond me.

The only relevant correlation is that two children were born on US soil, to parents who were not diplomatic employees.  And that's the only correlation that matters to me as an American.  It's very important to me that I continue to strive to treat everyone equally.  It's hard for me and it's hard for everyone.  But, in the end, we are all equal and we shouldn't be looking for excuses to treat others differently...and certainly not from birth.

[RecycleMichael]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw
[The fact that my parents, grandparents and great-grandparents:
1.  Immigrated legally; and
2.  I was born to legal citizens.

But today's rules were not in place when your great-grandparents or their relatives came to America.

We didn't even register immigrants and establish green cards until 1940.

To say that they immigrated legally when there were almost no rules doesn't work.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little
The parents may be guilty of malfeasance, border jumping, and failure to display tailights on a horse at the time of the child's birth.  Heck, the mom could deliver him from death row and it wouldn't matter.  The child is not at fault.  Right, IP?

Let's say I agree.  The child is now a citizen.  Congratulations the parents are STILL ILLEGAL and under the law should be DEPORTED.  You can't have it both ways and argue that the LAW IS THE LAW and we should accept the rightful citizenship of those born here, but at the same time ignore the ILLEGAL STATUS of the parent.  So that sword cuts both ways.

Is this the case or are you also arguing for selective adherance to laws?

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

quote:Originally posted by iplaw
[The fact that my parents, grandparents and great-grandparents:
1.  Immigrated legally; and
2.  I was born to legal citizens.

But today's rules were not in place when your great-grandparents or their relatives came to America.

We didn't even register immigrants and establish green cards until 1940.

To say that they immigrated legally when there were almost no rules doesn't work.

Which still makes them legal...they followed the rules enacted at the time they immigrated.  By that line of thinking there were NO immigration laws when the pilgrims came, so we should have NO laws now...that's just silly.

[iplaw]

The bottome line in this discussion is that the term "subject to the jurisdiction" has undergone increasing debate over the years.  SCOTUS has never ruled on the legality of "anchor babies" so it is still up to Congress to decide what that phrase means, and if they decided to exclude "anchor babies" then SCOTUS will have its say.  Right now it's just your opinion versus mine.  There is no ruling on this issue and there is no consensus of opinion...but I can assure you that soon there will be.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little
The parents may be guilty of malfeasance, border jumping, and failure to display tailights on a horse at the time of the child's birth.  Heck, the mom could deliver him from death row and it wouldn't matter.  The child is not at fault.  Right, IP?

Let's say I agree.  The child is now a citizen.  Congratulations the parents are STILL ILLEGAL and under the law should be DEPORTED.  You can't have it both ways and argue that the LAW IS THE LAW and we should accept the rightful citizenship of those born here, but at the same time ignore the ILLEGAL STATUS of the parent.  So that sword cuts both ways.

Is this the case or are you also arguing for selective adherance to laws?

Now we're getting somewhere.  Finally.  (Whew!)[]  Yes, I believe that the parents and those who hire them should face justice.

I also believe that this land was settled by immigrants...some of mine came here 20,000 years ago.  I don't fear this dynamic.  In fact, I love this great melting pot.  

And so, I deeply resent the actions of those who have screwed this dynamic up.  I want our lawmakers to be accountable; I want nationwide solutions that work.  But I also want regular people to recognize their role.  Effed up immigration policies are not an excuse to let loose our personal predjudices.  In fact, if we want change, we should probably try extra hard to fight those tendancies...which are natural, but not American.  

A good start, in my mind, would be to try and resist the temptation to villify young Americans over the circumstances of their birth.  They are Americans.  And they deserve more than an epithet.  This homogenous society that we have created is what made us great to begin with and it's still important to our future.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

The bottome line in this discussion is that the term "subject to the jurisdiction" has undergone increasing debate over the years.

No, the bottom line is that they are Americans in the eyes of the law.  Even if the law changed (it won't), these children would likely retain their status.  Don't demean them.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken LittleNow we're getting somewhere.  Finally.  (Whew!)[]

A good start, in my mind, would be to try and resist the temptation to villify young Americans over the circumstances of their birth.  They are Americans.  And they deserve more than an epithet.  This homogenous society that we have created is what made us great to begin with and it's still important to our future.

Back up the cumbya train just a bit.  The question of whether they really are legal or not has NOT been answered yet.  It really lies in the land of "unchallenged" activities by illegal aliens.  We simply haven't legally reviewed the practice yet.  Should SCOTUS rule on the issue and find the practice to be legal (which will not happen) I will agree with you in principle that the law should be obeyed.  That has not happened yet and to say that "anchor babies" are 100% legal because the constitution says so ignores the fact that we often have to interpret the constitution to divine meaning, and that has not been done.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

The bottome line in this discussion is that the term "subject to the jurisdiction" has undergone increasing debate over the years.

No, the bottom line is that they are Americans in the eyes of the law.  Even if the law changed (it won't), these children would likely retain their status.  Don't demean them.

Can you point me to the law that has interpreted the 14th amendment to include children born to illegal aliens?  If not, Congress can still deny them legal status by passing a law which can be reviewed by SCOTUS.  If it can be taken away, it aint settled law.

[Chicken Little]

First, don't make me go find a third grader to explain to you which branch creates the law and which branch interprets it.  There is no question about whether they "really are legal".  Why would you even say this?

quote: IPLAW said:
Can you point me to the law that has interpreted the 14th amendment to include children born to illegal aliens? If not, Congress can still deny them legal status by passing a law which can be reviewed by SCOTUS. If it can be taken away, it aint settled law.

Sins of the father...

As for the son:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

quote: Since Wong (according to the majority opinion) was a U.S. citizen from birth, the restrictions of the Chinese Exclusion Act did not apply to him. An act of Congress, the majority held, does not trump the Constitution; such a law "cannot control [the Constitution's] meaning, or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in subordination to its provisions."

[rwarn17588]

Chiming in here ...

To say that a person born into U.S. citizenship isn't settled law is a biiiiiiiig stretch. It's practically contortionist. Especially given the ample legal precedents.

The Constitution is specific. You're born in this country, you're a citizen.

In the unlikely event the Congress passes a law changing this, it will be quickly challenged and overturned on appeal well before it's enacted. And with America's demographics rapidly going Hispanics' way, don't bet on a such a constitutional amendment, either. It's just too hard to do.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

Chiming in here ...

To say that a person born into U.S. citizenship isn't settled law is a biiiiiiiig stretch. It's practically contortionist. Especially given the ample legal precedents.

The Constitution is specific. You're born in this country, you're a citizen.

In the unlikely event the Congress passes a law changing this, it will be quickly challenged and overturned on appeal well before it's enacted. And with America's demographics rapidly going Hispanics' way, don't bet on a such a constitutional amendment, either. It's just too hard to do.

Would you care to provide me some examples since there is "ample legal precedent?"

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

First, don't make me go find a third grader to explain to you which branch creates the law and which branch interprets it.  

Didn't think there was a dispute over this...

quote:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

quote: Since Wong (according to the majority opinion) was a U.S. citizen from birth, the restrictions of the Chinese Exclusion Act did not apply to him. An act of Congress, the majority held, does not trump the Constitution; such a law "cannot control [the Constitution's] meaning, or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in subordination to its provisions."

Wong's parents were legal non-citizen residents.  This case does not address the facts at hand.  Care to mischaraterize any other caselaw?