Posted on 09/29/2005 12:16:11 AM PDT by Hushpuppie
Are you a direct descendant of your Great Grandmother?
If so, that would make you a direct descendant of a Revolutionary War Hero also. :0)
That being the case, no need for the goats!
..
"It will cost you 2 goats and a copper pot"
You can have 2 of my relatives, no problem. All I need now is a copper pot.
Solving the problem means improving the way of life in Mexico so that people don't think they have to come here in order to improve their lives and make a better life for their children. That's why most of us are in this country now - somebody back in the family tree made that decision.
So, if Mexico refuses to take care of their own people, maybe it's time for regime change in Mexico. Vincente Fox is not the answer, regardless of the question.
She was my Dad's Dad's Mom, so I guess so.
Cool. I'm a hero descendant. Let the babes come flocking!
I have never even thought about it.
I would still say no. American citizenship is such a special and privileged thing that it should not be bestowed upon someone due to an accident of timing or the result of illegal actions.
"it should not be bestowed upon someone due to an accident of timing or the result of illegal actions."
Say it's nothing illegal, just a nice couple from Switzerland, come to visit the Hoover Dam. Their child Fjork can't necessarily afford housing over here, and he can use "I'm an American citizen" to impress chicks.
One day, when he's grown up, Fjork happens upon a real hottie with blonde braids and freckles...wow. So he goes up to her to turn on some of that Swiss charm.
Fjork: Hey, babe. What say we go parachute off the Alps?
Babe: Ew, get away, you creep!
Fjork: Oh, did I forget to mention that...I'M AN AMERICAN CITIZEN!!!
Babe: Yes you did! Come here and sloppily stick your tongue into my throat, you gorgeous hunk of man meat!
However can anyone explain to me where it says in the Constitution that their criminal parents are entitled to anything just because they gave birth to a citizen?
Every day, U.S. citizens who commit certain crimes lose their parental rights and their children. So why is it any different for illegals?
Regardles of their children, they themselves are still illegal. They are still criminals. That crime should qualify for them to have their parental rights revoked and their children taken from them and adopted by people who are citizens or here legally. Surely if the illegal immigrant parents truly wanted what is best for their children, they would not disagree. Illegal immigrant parents who simply want to use their children as surrogate green cards for their own selfish benefit are a different matter.
That would put an end to the whole "anchor baby" issue, and wouldn't require any changes to the Constitution or terms of citizenship.
Reread my whole previous remark, I included "accident of timing."
Poor Fjork. Now she's just going to beat him with her broom, and maybe step on him with her wooden shoes, or whatever it is those people do over there.
Oh, for crying out loud, the legislation being discussed does not apply to your situation.
The issue is the deliberate breaking of the law to bring a child into the world upon U.S. soil.
The anchor baby problem is very real and an outrage to legal immigrants and U.S. citizens.
What makes this issue so difficult to discuss is people like you who deliberately mix legal and illegal immigration in the discussion as if the two were the same thing.
Sounds like Boxer, run for the Senate dear. Of course we should stop the citizenship scam.
I like your idea, but I think I could settle for:
a - every adult register in some way or lose access to gov benefits.
b - agree to take so many hours of classes in English / citizenship over the next _ years or leave.
c - serious border enforcement.
"There will be a lot of illegals here if they don't let the children be citizens"
Oh, there aren't already?
most Mexican have indian ancestry and were in the "New World" in 1776 BC
LOL. You just included Mexico, South America and all the anscestors of natives who were already living on the two continents before the Europeans showed up.
Also, there were loads of other immigrants (Italian, Irish, German etc) who showed up in the 19th and 20th centuries.
And why pick 1776? The United States Government didn't become a viable entity until 1789. Why not 1621? Why not 1491? (a year before Colombus ever showed up)
That what? That any ignorant redneck can get it simply by being born on American soil and having a parent who was an American citizen? Michael Moore is an American by accident for Heaven's sake! If we're to just round up 'them ones there that I don't like and ship 'em out!' I'd much prefer to round up adults like him who have proven themselves to be anti-American and ship them away than people who become citizens the same way most Americans do (by birth-rite).
I am an American because I was born in the US. Not because my parents were good Americans or because they were descendants of people who came from an acceptable list of countries. I think two American parents can produce really unacceptable offspring but that offspring would be totally legit in your book simply because their pedigree is right.
Why not say nobody (and I mean nobody- even people who are born of two Americans on American soil) gets full citizenship until they're 18 at which time they're sat down and given an interview and it is determined one way or the other whether they are 'Good Americans' or not? This method would actually address many problems Americans perceive with immigration and foreigners living in our country and it would also (likely) deny citizenship status to many people like Michael Moore.
I don't mind honest brown skinned Mexicans who believe in the American dream coming to the US and trying to enjoy the same freedoms that God gave to every single human. I'd much prefer to live with them than to place myself in the same category as a white red-blooded American like Michael Moore.
Does this plan of yours require you to know my specific genealogy?
I don't get your plan. Central and South America are part of the "New World" so how would that effect illegal immigration? I am going to assume you are joking.
I don't think we could amend the Constitution to change the status of born on soil citizenship. But, could it be argued that it is wrong to interpret that portion of the Constitution to include people in this country illegally? Is it not a benefit of an illegal act to receive citizenship for your child born in the US?
I always think of it as a bank robber being arrested but still having the right to the free toaster for opening an account. Poor analogy but just the way my silly mind works.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the states wherein they reside." -- 14th Amendment of the U.C. Constitution, 1868
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the states wherein they reside." -- 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 1868
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.