Posted on 05/19/2007 2:12:52 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
If you are present in the U.S. without authorization, you are breaking the law.
If they try to return to the U.S., they'll have to go illegally through the dangerous desert.
Nobody is forcing you to travel to the United States.
If you want to come, we will welcome you IF you follow the law. Crossing the border via the desert is not only illegal but highly dangerous to your health and safety, and first impressions are very hard to overcome.
lofl
The author isn't crystal clear, but I belive the kids in this story were born in America. They're U.S. citizens, though their parents are not.
I think the kids mentioned in this story were born in the U.S., making them U.S. citizens, even though their parents are not.
The more I learn about the rest of the world, the more I'm thankful to live in the U.S.
It acutally depends upon one’s reading of the 14th ammendment. Of course, I think the Supremes believed it confirs citizenship on the children of illegal aliens.
susie
I have read the Fourteenth Amendment. My government teacher in high school was especially adamant about all of us students reading and understanding the Constitution and its Amendments.
What about those born to citizens of a foreign power...who have legally immigrated to the United States, on a permanent basis?
Your statement is overly broad. I sincerely hope that its intended meaning was that children born to persons present in the United States either on a temporary or illegal basis, or otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of another power, i.e., diplomats, should not be granted automatic U.S. citizenship.
The question is: are illegally present persons subject to the jurisdiction of the government of the United States or the governments of their countries of origin? Diplomats are not, and thus their children are not automatically granted U.S. citizenship.
Correct me I'm wrong in any part of this.
I don’t get the problem.
“I feel betrayed,” by the U.S. government, Pedro Jr. said.”
Well, we have something in common, I too feel betrayed by the US government.....a government that will not protect its own borders, its heritage or its future.
Get the hell out and stay out.
Now the worm has turned. In 1975, a trickle of legal immigration: bad; in 2007 a tidal wave of illegal immigration: good.
There is no choice, the children should stay in Mexico with their parents!
“All persons born 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...”
14th Amendment
Note the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause. Some have interpreted the intent of that to mean if you are ILLEGAL, you are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US or any state. Maybe it is time for that to go before the SCOTUS.
Illegal immigrants are not foreign diplomats, and we exercise jurisdiction over Palo Alto. The children of illegal immigrants derive their citizenship from the Fourteenth Amendment. If a diplomat commits a crime, then our courts cannot punish that diplomat because we lack jurisdiction over diplomats under international law. The Fourteenth Amendment language regarding birthright citizenship itself derives from English common law that makes all persons born in Britain subjects of the King. It exempts only three classes of persons—foreign diplomats with their obvious loyalty to the potentate that sent them; persons born to enemy foreign invaders; and American Indians not taxed and not subject to our jurisdiction because we then negotiated treaties with their tribes and nations.
Although the situation in certain cities and border towns might suggest severely otherwise, the United States presently exercises jurisdiction over its entire territory and has done so continuously since World War II. The illegal immigrants who constantly overwhelm our Southwestern border establish themselves in our country because we traditionally voluntarily choose not to exercise our jurisdiction over them with respect to immigration law, not because some treaty or other provision of international law prevents us from doing so. Mexico does not sponsor, arm, and equip the border-jumpers although its government condones and encourages intense emigration. The hordes streaming across the southwestern border therefore do not constitute an invading army within the strictures of international law.
The children therefore are Americans, and the article makes clear that none desires to remain in Mexico. They ironically even might not possess Mexican citizenship. Notwithstanding their obvious preference to return to America, I hereby suggest that they migrate within Mexico in search of some opportunity. Mexico actually does have some prosperous regions that embraced conservative economics and consequently recovered more fully from decades of communistic deprivations.
This is the only rational explanation that I can think of for the President's actions. By allowing this safety valve we potentially keep mexico out of the hands of chavez/castro wannabes.
On the other hand we keep a narco/kleptocracy afloat that is a direct threat to our country and abet one of the largest illegal migrations in history. We condemn those left in mexico to a serf like existence ruled over by criminals. We bankrupt SS, Medicare and Medicaid.
We rob the American taxpayer of trillions of dollars and virtually surrender the American values that have made this country great.
That is exactly how I see it. To me, of all the issues out there, this is the easiest one to understand. Stopping the flow of illegal aliens (not all Mexican) is good for the U.S., good for Mexico (in the long run) and just plain right. A limited guest worker program, legal migration, and investment in the resources of Mexico and it’s infrastructure would serve to alleviate most of the problem I believe. Provding of course the corruption in power is lessened. The chaos that exists now is not right and giving into to it with amnesty will only exasperate the problem. I don’t believe for a second that our government hs the heart to secure the border, or that any illegals will go back to their country or will pay a $5,000 fine. That will all be swept away and the problem will persist.
Idiots they could have lived like kings in Mexico on that.
Choice 1) Make your own country less corrupt.
Choice 2) Deal with it.
The Supreme Court already decided much the same issues in US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and the exclusion of the children of illegal aliens from citizenship violates the Fourteenth Amendment and contravenes the English common law that influenced its language.
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.