Posted on 01/03/2011 1:38:47 PM PST by Lmo56
Arizona state politicians will introduce model legislation this week to encourage states to prevent children of illegal immigrants from being granted citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
You just contradicted yourself. The entire basis of our law is based on the principle that citizenship is conferred by your parents. Naturalization is an exception to that but is quite precise in its requirements of application for citizenship and formal acceptance by our government.
“Is that the position you want to take? That the children of illegal aliens are dumber than fence posts? Regardless of that the law is the law. As they say; ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
I was unaware that infants were expected to understand the vagarities of immigration law. Yes, I’m sure that eventually they would come to understand that their parents came over illegally, provided that their parents actually tell them the truth. Remember that a child has no experience as to how anything is other than the life that they know. If your parents taught you, raised you as an American, you could go your entire life without knowing that your father or mother or both of them were in fact illegal immigrants without status.
If your father came to you and told you when you asked that he had a visa, what are you going to say? Are you going to deny that, or accept that as the truth?
Nor would infants know or care what country they are in or what their citizenship would be. Infants belong with their parents more than they do to any government or "society."
BTW there is no such word as “vagarities.” Maybe you meant vagaries?
“You just contradicted yourself. The entire basis of our law is based on the principle that citizenship is conferred by your parents.”
The law as it currently stands argues that citizenship is not conferred by your parents, and has absolutely nothing to do with your parents, but everything to do with where you are born. Irrespective of status, if you are born in an American jurisdiction, be it a military base or embassy overseas, or in America itself, you are a citizen, with the same rights and obligations as any other.
This is, I admit a radical principle. But it is not a new one, it is one that has served America well when coupled with a functioning state.
The problem with American immigration is not immigration, but welfare. The whole entitlement bloat. Get rid of welfare and the immigration problem will sort itself out as only productive immigrants will seek to make their home in America.
This is the key problem. Why are people not assimilating? The welfare check in the mail gives them no incentive to do so. Eliminate the check, and immigrants will have to assimilate in order to survive.
If eliminating welfare makes me a liberal, than so be it I am the happiest liberal alive. I would rather sacrifice the principle of the cradle to grave statist support in exchange for true liberty.
“Naturalization is an exception to that but is quite precise in its requirements of application for citizenship and formal acceptance by our government.”
Indeed, but those who are born in America are not required to proceed through the process of naturalization in order to become citizens. Why is this so? The first reason is to assist assimilation. It does not help America if the children of legal immigrants must go through naturalization in order to become citizens. It’s a hurdle that only hurts the people who are trying to do the right thing, not the folks who are trying to scam the system.
So you are suggesting that no one should be considered a citizen until they are old enough to, say, vote?
Interesting position. I suppose then child slavery would then be ok because they aren’t citizens and lack the same legal protections.
Yes, my bad. Vagaries of immigration law.
Where the heck did you get that nonsense? You're the one who brought up the age of the child. Which is irrelevant. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for child or adult.
I’m not going to answer a long-winded post that is nothing but a deflection about welfare. Don’t change the subject with straw man arguments.
“Where the heck did you get that nonsense? You’re the one who brought up the age of the child. Which is irrelevant. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for child or adult.”
Nonsense? When Heinlein advocated the very thing? A limited model of citizenship isn’t something new, it goes back to the Roman Empire.
One of the problems that arises is slavery. If you set something like this up, there is a market for non-citizen labour as there are fewer legal restrictions. Which is why the 14th explicitly says that it applies to everyone born in the United States.
Heinlein? Are you drinking or do you actually think that straw man is a credible way to argue whatever it is you’re attempting to argue.
How is it changing the subject?
I’m arguing the real reason you are attracting unproductive immigrants is because you have the fricking feeder stuck out there.
Take away the feeder and they will go elsewhere. Far more effective than the proposed law.
The subject was whether the children of illegal aliens born on U.S. soil are American citizens not what motivates foreigners to sneak in as illegal aliens. Honestly, if you can’t even see that those are two different subjects then I can’t discuss this with you.
That Heinlein argued citizenship should go to those willing to fight for their country?
How is that a strawman?
It’s a thoughtful alternative. One you seem not to have much value.
Because it's not about what our law actually is or where our law came from. Besides foreigners can earn citizenship by serving in the armed forces so it's also a non-sequitur.
You're making less and less sense with each post.
Because to keep the child here would punish the taxpayers.
Fine, I argue they are because there is nothing different between a child born of two American communists raised in Massachusetts, and between a child born of refugees from Communism. One hates what he knows and so does the other. But one loves what he does not know, America, and the other loves what he does not know, Russia.
Would you argue that the child born of the Americans is deserving of the status simply because his parents were Americans? Or is the child worthy for his love of the Republic?
Arguing that a child should be judged because of the status of their parents and not on their own merits is contrary to the American belief in self-sufficiency and independence. To freedom in the core.
Well sure.
Nobody of any value ever was born in America of immigrants to America.
Only except everybody at one point or another. ;)
Legal or illegal?
How is someone an illegal immigrant if they are born in America. They never crossed the border in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.