Replies

The same argument can be said for adding an amendment to the Constitution regarding how one goes about obtaining citizenship status; it's already in the Constitution re anchor babies. According to the Constitution, those kinds of children shall not be deemed a citizen, but because legislators/judges like to forget about the Constitution, or make false claims that what is said in the Constitution is "ambiguous", some would, and have, claimed that the Constitution calls anchor babies citizens. This same type of thing has occurred with the very First Amendment of the Constitution, wherein it states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Somehow, that's been twisted around into claims that unless God is "outlawed" [in direct contradiction to the First Amendment] from everything in society, "a religion" is being promoted. Isn't it ironic, though, that they're not clear about what "religion" is being promoted? When the word "God" is used, which ONE RELIGION does it "promote" Catholicism? Baptist? Judaism? Deism? Assemblies of God? Those are all DIFFERENT religions. I'd really like to know which ONE religion is being promoted by government by the word "God"? By forbidding the freedom to exercise religious expressions by believers of any of those faiths, the Constitution has been broken....flagrantly. We shouldn't need Constitutional amendments, ad nauseum, to fix case law, civil law, or criminal laws, and bring those laws in line with what the Constitution clearly says. Amusing or otherwise, there's plenty of people who believe that should be done.

I am in the weird position of agreeing entirely with your stuff about religion, agreeing with what SHOULD be the situation re: "anchor babies" but disagreeing with what the Costitution actually says about them. The 14th amendment seems fairly clear that they are citizens. Some freepers have made an interesting argument that the 14th does not confer citizenship because the parents are not "under the jurisdiction" of the US Gov't, as required by the 14th. Either that, or Congress should mandate that the jurisdiction is similar to that of foreign ambassadors, who are subject to their own nation's laws, and not ours.

I am in agreement with the idea (I do not believe that children of illegals should be automatic citizens), but I don't think that idea will pass muster. It is a novel approach, tho.

I think we should do what INS recently did. If a person is busted and being deported, and has a US citizen for a child, that child should be able to return at age 18 as a citizen, or it can stay with another legal resident, but the mom has to go...., if we are going to maintain the current laws on immigration. Of course, you already know my position on whether or not we should allow people in and what we should do to people who are here illegally but "otherwise" would qualify for residency...., but I fear we shall disagree there.