J.

How? Employment means you are choosing to grant something to someone who is not guaranteed it. The Constitution guarantees things. They’re called “rights.” You people are amazing.

So do you think that right now in Europe, where most of the countries there require at least one parent to be a legal resident (as Jay is suggesting), that the children of illegal immigrants are having their citizenship ripped away every single day?

Which countries in Europe have a Constitution or equivalent that in their contemporary form previously declared the inherent right of all people born there citizenship that was then later removed? Did other European countries continue the practice of slavery well into the late 19th century, and then try to legally instill the argument that the prior citizenship of a person’s parents and/or nation of origin disqualified them from equal citizenship as a means of preventing minorities from becoming citizens? If that applies to anywhere, then yes, I’m against it, but I’m guessing you weren’t really asking for an answer but just wanted to dodge the question again.

You guys seem obsessed with insane analogies here. Europe, abortions, job applications… I’m still waiting for an answer to the original issue, that being the racial animosity toward immigration. Why, without these stupid analogies of yours, are you so upset by the right of citizenship not using nationality factors as an arbiter? WHY do you think the inherent right of citizenship to people born in this country should be determined by nationality? It’s becoming clearer and clearer why you don’t want to give a straight answer.

or this…

Please, it’s a completely disingenuous crock of sh*t to say that most cons are worried for the legal immigrants when they talk about the “illegals.”

here’s more…

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids put the lie to the notion that concern over illegal immigration is anything but a racist, xenophobic wedge issue and an excuse to piss on the Constitution.

No, citizenship. What does “personhood” have to do with this issue? Does the 14th amendment say that citizenship is granted at conception or at some point during the gestation period? No. It says a person born here.

What’s your point?

So you’re arguing that personhood begins at birth? Very interesting.

That’s like saying that if a company decides to change its hiring policies so that I am ineligible to ever apply for a job there, I have been punished by having my employee status “ripped away” from me.

Please explain how can you strip away something that a person has never had in the first place? It’s really not that difficult to comprehend. I’m not sure why you’re having such trouble.

If the constitution is changed as Jay is suggesting, then a child born here will never have had citizenship. Not for a single second. At best, you could argue that he’s had his chance or opportunity for citizenship stripped from him. But not the citizenship itself.

So do you think that right now in Europe, where most of the countries there require at least one parent to be a legal resident (as Jay is suggesting), that the children of illegal immigrants are having their citizenship ripped away every single day? Where is your outrage over that? Where are your calls for European countries to change their racist immigration policies?

You’re the one playing word games here, August. And yes indeed, pathetic.

Yep, you want furious, spittle-flecked and profanity-laced comments… CS is definitely your man.

Wrong. That’s actually the argument used in the Dredd Scott case, not Roe v. Wade. The 14th Amendment was largely written to counter the then-winning argument that slaves were not classified as persons. But way to re-argue the case again in favor of slaveholders- and of course suggest that living, breathing people who happen to have foreign parents are equal to unborn zygotes. Cutesy games indeed. You’re pathetic.

But enough of the cutesy games. What is the rationale for preserving “birthright citizenship” for the children of illegal aliens? I have given you a rationale for stopping it — it removes one of the most powerful incentives for illegal aliens to come here.

I repeat: remember Elvira Arellano? Entered the US illegally in 1997, was arrested and deported, returned to the US within days. Stole a Social Security number and worked as a cleaner in very sensitive areas of O’Hare Airport. Was caught up in a post-9/11 sweep, convicted of illegal entry (again) and Social Security fraud. Blew off her sentencing hearing, sought “sanctuary” in a church, refused to be deported.

Her biggest weapon? Her son, Saul, born in the US. It would be “unfair” to separate the two, and “unfair” to punish the boy by sending him to Mexico. So this thrice-convicted and utterly unrepentant criminal argued that she DESERVES to stay in the US despite her crimes.

After she was deported, she demanded the “right” to return to the US. And not just as any old immigrant, she demanded to be appointed and recognized as an “ambassador of peace and justice.” She also blamed the US, saying it had broken the law before she did by allowing her to sneak across the border and work illegally with that stolen Social Security number.

Yes, it’s not the best practice to argue by anecdote. But the Arellano case has so many elements that are so common in the argument — illegal border crossing, identity theft, and a child whose birthright citizenship is being used to excuse all the mother’s offenses. She is trying to use him as an “anchor baby,” hiding behind him and his citizenship.

No, I would not strip Saul Arellano of his citizenship. The law is the law, and what is done can not and should not be undone (see the US Constitution, Article I, Section 9 — “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”) But I would change that law to deny it to future Saul Arellanos, to strip one more incentive for aliens to come here illegally and keep them from being used and exploited by their parents.

And again, this would only affect ILLEGAL immigrants. It would draw a sharp distinction between them and LEGAL ones, who far too often are lumped in with the illegal ones, which is a gross insult to them and just what Oliver did in the first place. We need to encourage more LEGAL immigration and discourage ILLEGAL ones, and limiting birthright citizenship to just the children of citizens and legal aliens will go a long way towards that.

Oh,and I see Strowbridge opened his mouth and took another massive shit on the thread. Anyone got some air freshener?

J.

Fuck you, you lying sub-human piece of shit. We’ve answered the questions.

Attacks against the Spanish language, freaking out that white people will no longer be the majority, and using white supremest organizations as recruiting grounds has zero to do with illegal immigration. It has everything to do with racism. The fact that you can’t see that, well, that implies you are racist.

If you think these people will be happy stopping illegal immigration, you are fucking naive.

Section I:

The 14th Amendment, Section I, is hereby amended to read as follows:

All persons born to at least one American citizen or legal alien, 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section II:
This amendment shall become effective on the first day of the first January after ratification.

(Italics indicate the added language)

Nine simple words. They will not affect a single living person (especially if one goes by the “living person” definition of Roe V. Wade). Not one person will lose their citizenship over it. Instead, illegal aliens will have one less incentive to come to this country; their children will not gain citizenship as a benefit of their parents’ crimes.

Nor will the children be penalized; they will simply be returned to their nation of origin, along with their parents.

Simple, direct, uncomplicated, and fair.

J.

Ummm…. all persons born in the United States are citizens. You want to remove that right. See, the Constitution is a list of rights… in fact, that’s even sort of what they first called it. What is so hard here?

Tell it to CS. He’s the one saying that this issue “has everything to do with race” and helpfully pointed out several examples of “white” opponents to ILLEGAL immigration.

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. It’s been granted to the people of the United States as an inherent right for 140 years now. Where’ve you been?

Thanks for the history lesson. And the portion of the 14th amendment under debate is in section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”.

How does citing this address Jay’s question?

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. It’s been granted to the people of the United States as an inherent right for 140 years now. Where’ve you been?

How can something be removed if it already hasn’t been granted? From what I understand, the legislation wouldn’t apply to anybody that is already a citizen. In other words, it would not be retroactive. So your claim that “American citizens born in America” would be “stripped of their citizenship” is bogus.

It’s not. It’s just unconstitutional. I’m not a big supporter of amending the Constitution to remove inherent rights from people born in this country just because a few of you are really scared to death of what percentage of the U.S. population speaks Spanish.