Posted on 09/29/2005 12:16:11 AM PDT by Hushpuppie
Yes, 1924, not 1917. However, the law did not prove what you say. Per the 14th Amendment, Congress was not required to grant citizenship to Indians, but could choose whether or not to do so, and did so in 1924.
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Since illegal aliens are foreigners their offspring should not be granted automatic citizenship either unless Congress, like in 1924 grants it to them.
Cool. I can stay.
I hear ya, my ancestors were here in Virgina by then as well, but I think "length of time in the country tests" are just silly. There's only one issue I know of on which when your ancestors came to the US is a likely predictor (though not certain) of your views: gun control. Those whose forbears were here before the civil war (and more so those who were here before the revolution) are far more likely to oppose gun control than those whose ancestors arrived after the civli war. And, those whose forbears fought in those conflicts (American side for the revolution, either side for the Late Unpleasantness) are even more likely to oppose gun control.
Actually I got that after I responded.
Thanks.
I am in favor of the Fourteenth Amendment being redefined to clarify that any citizen of the United States must have been born of or adopted by a citizen or legal resident of the United States and that at least one parent or legal guardian prove citizenship or legal status before a birth certificate is issued by any agency. Any child born in the US not of a citizen or legal resident should be issued a certificate of birth with non-citizen status clearly marked so that birth may not be used to complicate deportations of illegal aliens.
Many states now define the Second Amendment with regards to concealed or open carry weapons, with federal and state restrictions placed on the sales and aquisitions of handguns. There is no logical reasoning state and federal governments can't better define and restrict the continued adulteration of the Fourteenth in the same manner.
Why the child of foreign tourists should get the citizenship? Or child of a foreign mother who just wanted to use American hospital?
Why the children of Americans traveling abroad should not get the US citizenship?
Certainly children born to people illegally staying in US should not be more privileged than children foreign diplomats who are legally.
That's very true, there's so many examples of where the Constitution is treated as a living document. The 14th Amendment could easily under those rules be redefined to better work for what is needed today. But they don't really need to do that if the courts and Congress just read what the authors of the Amendment intended instead of playing pc games.
This issue was settled a long time ago.
It does not have to be "cold hearted and calculating". When the child of illegal aliens grows up, the fact of being born in US and growing up in US might be a good argument in APPLYING for citizenship or green card. But it should not be automatic.
It has not been settled, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the citizenship status regarding children of illegals to my knowledge. The only case involved that of a Chinese legal immigrant, big difference.
Some wealthy people from other countries use leading American hospitals because of their quality. After their child is born they go back home. Why should they be receiving this extra gift?
My position is that this should never have been necessary, since I am sure that the Founding Fathers never envisioned an America of such poverty of Common-sense as to apply it to casual travelers, illegal criminals, indeed enemy spy moles hiding within a family.
If there are any rational arguments against this clarification, I have never seen any, nor heard of them.
I do believe that using sarcasm was intended as an argument in opposition to clarifying the law.
Yeah. Lame and mindless.
You know what, that is an extremely good point. Since this is a "Nation of Laws not of Men" perhaps that should be the qualifier in determining citizenship.
Should everybody be subject to the same citizen test LEGAL immigrants are required to take and pass before citizenship is bestowed upon them?
Should people born here would have to take the test upon reaching the age of 18 and take the oath of allegiance?
It is an interesting concept.
Well then.. I'm covered. Great, great, great, great ,great (whatever) grandfather John ... knew a good thing when he saw it, and moved the family here in 1765.
I know the AJC means for these pieces to tug at the heart strings but they never fail to provide the best laugh of the day in their absurdity.
Vicente Fox WAS regime change in Mexico. Hard as it may be to believe for people who have only begun paying attention recently, Fox is a huge improvement over what came before. I can tell you don't remember Lopez Portillo and Luis Echeverria very well, not to mention Salinas or Zedillo and the PRI. Or how even more terribly dysfunctional Mexico's economy was as recently as the 80s. Only decent president in recent history was de la Madrid. In Mexico there are a million people entering the workforce each year. They simply can't gen up the jobs that fast. If we are going to have to wait until Mexicans enjoy the same standard of living as we do to solve our illegal immigration problem, we will never solve it. You have described and justified a policy of wait until we are over-run. Or perhaps you don't believe it is a problem. It is Fox's job to look out for the interests of Mexicans, it is our job to look out for our country's interests. I don't hold it against Fox because he's doing his job, and we aren't.
When I was in high school back in the dark ages of the 1960s, you had to pass Civics (also known as American Institutions) in order to graduate. In order to pass Civics, you had to pass a test on our institutions (federal and California) that was very similar to the test then given to candidates for citizenship.
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.