Birthright Citizenship

[Bumazhka]

Why not rewrite it completely then, while we are at it? The second part of it also mentions due process... I bet, that appeals to lots of aliens too - they don't have very much of it in Cuba. Why shouldn't we deny that to illegal aliens as well? The fourth amendment looks like another bait - "unreasonable searches and seizures" - I am sure there is a lot of that going on in Columbia...
There are other places too... Why should we not rewrite those - using your logic, it looks like we should. Otherwise "Make it across the border having overcome all the hurdles ... and you are safe" (from government robberies, from "cruel and unusual panishment", from many-many different things... from poverty even)... don't even need to have a baby.

If due process, unreasonable searches and seizures, cruel...etc would lead to the immigration as well as other benefits like the ones that come from the 14th amendment then yes let's abolish them all. Though I think you know they have NOTHING in common with the discussion we're having here

[Bumazhka]

What would be inconsistent is if children of illegals lose this right, while some idiot who comes here on a visa can still give birth to a citizen.

No, again according to the new law anybody born to illegals as well as to tourists will not be deemed american citizens. One of the parents would have to be at least a permanent resident just like in Germany now, the law which they've recently adapted.

[Фoма]

The Anchors pull their parents in, who in turn bring other relatives in who in turn become eligible to bring others, etc...

Oh, come on!
The "anchors" must be 21 years old to "pull anyone in".
So, the effect of this law, if any, will be felt 21 years from now...
I still think we should really concentrate on getting something done a little sooner :-)

And how about public welfare? Did you know that kids born as american citizens immediately qualify for cash aid which their parents get for them? not a benefit too? Medical?

Not only I did know that. I also told you several times, that all children are eligible for that regardless of their citizenship.
Why do you keep ignoring my replies, and bringing up this point over and over?

Kindda confused still, are you for it or against it?

I am for changing the law so that only children of american citizens are considered citizens at birth, regardless of where they were born.
This is not the change we are discussing though...

Did you read mine? How can you deport american citizens to a country in which like some wrote they can starve to death?:(

God forbid! Of course not! :-)
I never suggested deporting american citizens to any country.... leave alone those where they can starve to death (what country would that be BTW? :-))
We are talking about deporting illegal aliens to their homecountry. That's it.
If they want to take their child with them, it is their right - they have custody. Nobody's deporting him though...

Because the laws are not enforced, we've been through this already.

Exactly! So, it is the fact that the laws are not being enforced that prevents aliens from being deported, not some constitutional amendment, is it?

If due process, unreasonable searches and seizures, cruel...etc would lead to the immigration as well as other benefits like the ones that come from the 14th amendment then yes let's abolish them all. T

Well, unlike citizenship of a child (that doesn't give you any advantages whatsoever), these ones are real benefits by themselves - I mean, don't you agree, it is benefitial to be sure that some goverment agent won't be able to search your house at will, confiscate your stuff, or kill and torture you?
To me, it looks a lot more beneficial than merely having a child who is a US citizen... way more beneficial.

Though I think you know they have NOTHING in common with the discussion we're having here

Well... no, I don't.
You said, it would be logical to take away all the benefits that appeal to illegal immigrats to cross the border... These are all pretty appealing, aren't they?

The point is the same I tried to make earlier - they are coming here, because this is such a great country to live in. And making it less great in hopes they'll stop coming is definitely not a solution I'd vote for.

No, again according to the new law anybody born to illegals as well as to tourists will not be deemed american citizens.

Oh, is it? I thought, it was only about illegals.... Can you give me a link?
Well.. if that's the case, I might change my mind, if they also took the permanent residents out. I see no reason, why a PR should be an exception.

If the new law says that a child of a US citizen is a citizen, and that's it, I am for it.
But (as I am sure you understand by now) for reasons, totally different from yours. ;-)

[Bumazhka]

Not only I did know that. I also told you several times, that all children are eligible for that regardless of their citizenship.
Why do you keep ignoring my replies, and bringing up this point over and over?

Because you're wrong.;) To receive public welfare for instance a person should be either a permanent resident or a citizen.

God forbid! Of course not! :-)
We are talking about deporting illegal aliens to their homecountry. That's it.
If they want to take their child with them, it is their right - they have custody. Nobody's deporting him though... ?

That's why they don't touch their illegal parents here.Because they need to bring those kids up...

Exactly! So, it is the fact that the laws are not being enforced that prevents aliens from being deported, not some constitutional amendment, is it?

We've already established that.The amendment only makes it difficult to enforce.

Well... no, I don't.
You said, it would be logical to take away all the benefits that appeal to illegal immigrats to cross the border... These are all pretty appealing, aren't they?

They don't lead to immigration and other benefits and don't promise a legal status to those who enjoy them even if here illegally.

The point is the same I tried to make earlier - they are coming here, because this is such a great country to live in. And making it less great in hopes they'll stop coming is definitely not a solution I'd vote for.

Nobody said it was a solution, I certainly didn't! I said it only compicates the enforcement of deportation proceedings.;)

Oh, is it? I thought, it was only about illegals.... Can you give me a link?
Well.. if that's the case, I might change my mind, if they also took the permanent residents out. I see no reason, why a PR should be an exception.
If the new law says that a child of a US citizen is a citizen, and that's it, I am for it.
But (as I am sure you understand by now) for reasons, totally different from yours. ;-)

You can write your strong-worded letter of disagreement to them in this case.;)

[Фoма]

To receive public welfare for instance a person should be either a permanent resident or a citizen.

... or have minor children.
Trust me on this one.

That's why they don't touch their illegal parents here.Because they need to bring those kids up...

Oh, Really? And why don't they touch those who don't have kids?
I thought...

We've already established that.

:-)
They are not deporting (almost) anyone at all, not because they are afraid, that somebody will abandon their kids, and they would have to raise them (they'd have to anyway, even if the kid wasn't a citizen BTW), but because... well, we DID already establish why, didn't we? :-)

The amendment only makes it difficult to enforce.

No. It doesn't. If it did, the only illegal aliens remaning in the country would be parents of the US citizens. And that is far from being the case.

They don't lead to immigration and other benefits

What are you saying? You don't believe that feeling secure in your house, not being tortured and killed is a benefit?

and don't promise a legal status to those who enjoy them even if here illegally.

We have had amnestys pretty regularly lately, so... yes, they do.

Nobody said it was a solution, I certainly didn't! I said it only compicates the enforcement of deportation proceedings.;)

Right. And I am saying, that it doesn't :-)
You can't possibly complicate something that doesn't exist :-)

You can write your strong-worded letter of disagreement to them in this case.;)

I know I can :-)

[Bumazhka]

Really? And why don't they touch those who don't have kids?
I thought...
:-) They are not deporting (almost) anyone at all, not because they are afraid, that somebody will abandon their kids, and they would have to raise them (they'd have to anyway, even if the kid wasn't a citizen BTW), but because... well, we DID already establish why, didn't we? :-)If it did, the only illegal aliens remaning in the country would be parents of the US citizens. And that is far from being the case.

IF...

What are you saying? You don't believe that feeling secure in your house, not being tortured and killed is a benefit?
We have had amnestys pretty regularly lately, so... yes, they do.

Well, like I said feeling secure and all that jazz don't lead to REAL immigration benefits. While the effects of having a child here will be felt 21 years from now like you wrote, based simply on the fact that they're americans you can't remove them with ease, just like that...they stay here indefenetely untill that time. The effects from this are felt TODAY. It's a good asset in the arsenal of those for illegal immigration.Why not deprive them of it? In the meantime illegals can wait for an amnesty, and if the amnesty is not coming any time soon...well it's good I've got my babies here with me, right? Again if you talked to a mexican family you will hear them say that having a baby here is a good weapon against getting deported. It's a well known fact amongst them. Idiotic judges have made numerous decisions in the past to allow even some criminal elements to stay because their kids are americans just like some judges long ago interpreted the 14th amendment as applied to EVERYBODY, including illegals when in fact there is good evidence that it was intended for the descendents of SLAVES only.Just because the laws are not enforced timely doesn't mean that the amendment is right.If it's not right it's never too soon to correct the wrong
But I guess we will have to agree to disagree then...;)

[Фoма]

IF...

What?

Well, like I said feeling secure and all that jazz don't lead to REAL immigration benefits.

Not immigration benefits. Just benfits. It by itself is a benefit, that is not available in the third world countries and thus attracting illegal immigrants from there.

While the effects of having a child here will be felt 21 years from now like you wrote, based simply on the fact that they're americans you can't remove them with ease,

Yes, you can.

they stay here indefenetely untill that time.

Not just them. Everybody does. Because, as we established the laws are not being enforced, and not because of citizen babies.
Citizen babies are not the reason illegals stay here. Unenforced laws are.

The effects from this are felt TODAY.

Right, the effects of not enforcing the law are.
And to change that, we need to start enforcing it. Now. It is that simple. And has nothing to do with the babies, who will sponsor their parents in 21 years.

It's a good asset in the arsenal of those for illegal immigration.Why not deprive them of it?

For the same reason as due process, and unreasonable searches, and cruel punishments, etc.... Those are al lgreat assets...
This is part of the definition of our country, of who we are.
the fact that our country is great is a good asset, and attracts illegal immigrants, but making the country worth to stop attracting them is not a solution.

In the meantime illegals can wait for an amnesty, and if the amnesty is not coming any time soon...

it is.

Again if you talked to a mexican family you will hear them say that having a baby here is a good weapon against getting deported.

It doesn't matter what a mexican family thinks. If they told you that living near Wal Mart is a good weapon, would you then start pushing to outlaw Wal Marts? :-)
I am telling you, the INS is telling you, the courts are telling you, the law is telling you, that it does not matter, but you choose to ignore all that and listen to a "mexican family"?

It's a well known fact amongst them.

A well known myth

Just because the laws are not enforced timely doesn't mean that the amendment is right.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't mean it's wrong either. Maybe it is right, maybe it is not, but that's not the point.
The point it that it is not the reason why illegals are coming and staying. They are coming and staying because the laws are not enforced. If they were enforced, they would not be coming and staying, regardless of the amendment.
And we both agree that the laws should be enforced. And, once they are, the illegals will not be here. Thus, the amendment doesn't matter.

[Bumazhka]

Not immigration benefits. Just benfits. It by itself is a benefit, that is not available in the third world countries and thus attracting illegal immigrants from there..

I edited my post a bit. Please read how the 14th amendment is applied by the airhead judges. All other "benefits" like unreasonable searches and the like are never cited in the decisions FOR allowing immigrants to stay.Thus they're simply irrelevant.

[Фoма]

I edited my post a bit. Please read how the 14th amendment is applied by the airhead judges. All other "benefits" like unreasonable searches and the like are never cited in the decisions FOR allowing immigrants to stay.Thus they're simply irrelevant.

Are you saying, you know of a precedent, when a judge canceled a removal order based on a mere fact that the alien's child was a citizen?
Could I have a reference to the case please?

[Bumazhka]

Are you saying, you know of a precedent, when a judge canceled a removal order based on a mere fact that the alien's child was a citizen? Could I have a reference to the case please?

But these decisions are not rare at all when somehow some illegals are caught. In fact it's one of the reasons why they want to amend it. That's what I am trying to show you. This fact was featured in the news when all this stink about the amendment came up. That's why while other so called benefits are attractive NO immigrant can cling to them as an excuse to stay.
Here is one decision by O'Connor about whether or not to allow a terrorist the rights of a citizen of the USA. Read this link plese...this terrorist conviniently remembered his birth in America to claim "the rights". See how the 14th again was interpreted...It's so ridiculous it's not even funny!
http://www.mnforsustain.org/immg_cas...ship_hamdi.htm