View Full Version : 8% of Child Births in US are anchor babies born to illegals
No, we don't need border and immigration control!
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/08/11/illegal-immigrants-bear-8-children-born-us
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-12-2010, 08:10
If I rob a bank and then just deposit the money, do I get to keep it?
If I break into a Kinkos and make copies, do I get to keep those?
u
You can't get a legal outcome from an illegal act.
[Bang]
When people talk about amending the 14th Amendment, what has been suggested so far? A full repeal would be stupid. America isn't a special club that gets to chose its members. However, an amendment to specify that only children born to people who are already citizens are automatically citizens would be smart. I assume that's what people are suggesting, but wouldn't be surprised if it was more stupid.
steveopia
08-12-2010, 09:46
"Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I thought the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" portion of the first sentence implied that citizenship only be given to persons born to people who are subject to US jurisdiction (i.e. American citizens).
I Googled "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Wow. Apparently there's an insane amount of interpretations pertaining to that portion of that first sentence. I've thoroughly confused myself now. I've got some reading to do.
children born to those who have at least 1 parent that is a legal US citizen should become citizens themselves.
if their parents were not US citizens, they are citizens of their parents respective country(ies) as they deem appropriate.
Just because a child is born here doesn't mean they get to enjoy the benefits our country has to offer...
"Section 1. 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....
Good for you, I was about to post that. The way I read it is:
Everyone born (no coma) AND is subject to respective state jurisdiction (under the rule of law ALREADY - i.e. 1 parent is ALREADY a citizen) are citizens.
children born to those who have at least 1 parent that is a legal US citizen should become citizens themselves.
if their parents were not US citizens, they are citizens of their parents respective country(ies) as they deem appropriate.
Just because a child is born here doesn't mean they get to enjoy the benefits our country has to offer...
+1 to Sniper.
DeusExMachina
08-12-2010, 11:39
I'm getting a little peeved at all these non-firearm related political threads popping up.
SA Friday
08-12-2010, 13:56
"Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I thought the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" portion of the first sentence implied that citizenship only be given to persons born to people who are subject to US jurisdiction (i.e. American citizens).
I Googled "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Wow. Apparently there's an insane amount of interpretations pertaining to that portion of that first sentence. I've thoroughly confused myself now. I've got some reading to do.
Yes, the citizenship clause of the 14th ammendment has had a lot of activity after it was ammended. There are a lot of SC rulings on it's meanings. Keep in mind while reading the 14th that it's primary goal was to force the defeated southern states into recognizing the citizenship of the slaves after the civil war ended. The question as to the citizenship of a child from two non-citizens within the US's jurisdiction has always been ruled in favor of granting the citizenship to the child. The clarifying SC ruling that applies in this area was US v WONG in 1898. The SC essentially ruled the child had citizenship even though the parents were not US citizens. This ruling also established the basis for legal vs illegal immigrants, a concept that didn't exist before the ruling (pretty important concept for some who opposed my viewpoint in a previous thread where I discussed the immigration wave of the 1840s and 50s).
There are a few other rulings setting precidence in this area too that you should look at also, but the main one is the Wong ruling.
I'm getting a little peeved at all these non-firearm related political threads popping up.
Sorry about that, let me make it site specific:
I want to shoot the bastards with my Armalite AR15 that come across the border to have children that then become US Citizens.
Sorry, I thought this was a COMMUNITY, not just a place where the only thing you talk about was firearms. My bad, I'll work on that in the future. Oh and those moose heads for sale, the survival equipment going up, all that stuff probably needs to come down too. Oops, or is it just the POLITICAL stuff that peeves you? We should probably put in our version of the fairness doctrine to help ease your frustration...
I'm just breaking your balls a bit, but seriously, if you don't want to read it then don't.
"Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I thought the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" portion of the first sentence implied that citizenship only be given to persons born to people who are subject to US jurisdiction (i.e. American citizens).
I Googled "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Wow. Apparently there's an insane amount of interpretations pertaining to that portion of that first sentence. I've thoroughly confused myself now. I've got some reading to do.
Negative -- the folks not subject to the jurisdiction thereof are diplomats. Anyone else IS subject to US law. You needn't be a citizen. You only need to be present. Most of that other stuff is people conjecturing on the subject without any of the other information that makes it make actual sense, as opposed to how someone not familiar with the subject might interpret to the best of their ability.
I'm getting a little peeved at all these non-firearm related political threads popping up.
It seems like they are mostly conservative posts, are you a democrat or something and are offended at the material?
How about this?
Not an illegal-immigrant, but person with proper non-immigrant visa having a baby here.
There use to be an epidemic of pregnent lady from certain country trying to have baby in foreign country. They basically wanted their baby to avoid the military requirement by having a different nationality.
US, Canada, Australia , and New Zeland were most popular.
That specific country now have a new enforcement/regulations.
DeusExMachina
08-12-2010, 15:25
Sorry about that, let me make it site specific:
I want to shoot the bastards with my Armalite AR15 that come across the border to have children that then become US Citizens.
Sorry, I thought this was a COMMUNITY, not just a place where the only thing you talk about was firearms. My bad, I'll work on that in the future. Oh and those moose heads for sale, the survival equipment going up, all that stuff probably needs to come down too. Oops, or is it just the POLITICAL stuff that peeves you? We should probably put in our version of the fairness doctrine to help ease your frustration...
I'm just breaking your balls a bit, but seriously, if you don't want to read it then don't.
Don't get your panties in a bunch. This is all recent, every day it seems like a new post whining about immigration, gay marriage, or other crap. I get enough of it on the news and other places, I'd rather not see it on CO-AR15.com. Yes, it is a firearms forum, its in the damn name.
I'd like to remind you that an interest in firearms does not go hand in hand with all policies of the far right, and in the interest of community, that this stuff stay off the site.
Its turning into YARTFHB. (Yet Another Republican Tin Foil Hat Blog)
DeusExMachina
08-12-2010, 15:27
It seems like they are mostly conservative posts, are you a democrat or something and are offended at the material?
Hello Mister Newbie with 3 Posts, no, I am not a Democrat. Democrats are anti-gun and anti-bill of rights. Thats not to say Republicans are pro-bill of rights, so I guess that puts me nicely in the middle.
StagLefty
08-12-2010, 15:50
I'm getting a little peeved at all these non-firearm related political threads popping up.
I feel your pain but it is a public forum [Beer]
DeusExMachina
08-12-2010, 16:09
I feel your pain but it is a public forum [Beer]
You're right, it is, and I should just stay out of the threads. But when I hit "New Posts" and the majority of the threads are about this junk, its just annoying.
Hello Mister Newbie with 3 Posts, no, I am not a Democrat.
Sorry, if I knew you were running low on Midol I wound't have asked, Mr. King of Forum Posting, sounds like everyone is pissy today.
[Wow2]
:rolleyes:
StagLefty
08-12-2010, 16:50
You're right, it is, and I should just stay out of the threads. But when I hit "New Posts" and the majority of the threads are about this junk, its just annoying.
No what would be annoying would be if there was a Spanish button to click on [ROFL3]
GoldFinger
08-12-2010, 16:58
Sorry, if I knew you were running low on Midol I wound't have asked, Mr. King of Forum Posting, sounds like everyone is pissy today.
[Wow2]
:rolleyes:
No, you just caught some "friendly" fire there. We'll all be better once the work day is over and we crack a beer... or go shooting.
[Beer]
DeusExMachina
08-12-2010, 17:02
Sorry, if I knew you were running low on Midol I wound't have asked, Mr. King of Forum Posting, sounds like everyone is pissy today.
[Wow2]
:rolleyes:
If you're going to crown me king, I expect you to kneel.
Byte Stryke
08-12-2010, 17:34
I Like Pie!
In other news, This country needs to close the loopholes that allow persons from OUTSIDE of this country to infiltrate it and abuse its systems and resources while disregarding its laws.
as far as the content of the discussions and debates, I prefer diversity.
claimbuster
08-12-2010, 17:39
Sorry about that, let me make it site specific:
I want to shoot the bastards with my Armalite AR15 that come across the border to have children that then become US Citizens.
You failed to ask what bullet weight and recommended load!
[ROFL2]
steveopia
08-12-2010, 21:04
You're right, it is, and I should just stay out of the threads. But when I hit "New Posts" and the majority of the threads are about this junk, its just annoying.
Junk? Really?
The fact is that the off topic section and posts are what makes this (and every other) board have the amount of traffic that it does. When I first started posting here, this site seemed near dead. As the traffic increases in flow, you get a LOT more off topic junk floating around, but it also brings in a broader range of people and higher membership numbers.
Silver lining.
*Not to mention the fact that many people are hurting financially right now, so they're not out buying guns and shooting them like they would like to be doing.
I'm getting a little peeved at all these non-firearm related political threads popping up.
lol man....you do see that this is in "general discussion"
maybe it should be in the political stuff...but this can also be considered general and doesn't have to be gun related[Stooge]
Hello Mister Newbie with 3 Posts, no, I am not a Democrat. Democrats are anti-gun and anti-bill of rights. Thats not to say Republicans are pro-bill of rights, so I guess that puts me nicely in the middle.
not all democrats...there are several out there that I know and work with who are pro gun, but maybe pro abortion as well or pro immigration or side with the democrats on their view of education and vote that way.
now socialist liberals on the other hand are pretty easy to categorize as anti bill or rights and anti-gun.
just like they generalize all republicans as pro gun shoot em up cowboys who don't knows how to speaks cause we aint too edumacated.
[Tooth]
Sorry, if I knew you were running low on Midol I wound't have asked, Mr. King of Forum Posting, sounds like everyone is pissy today.
[Wow2]
:rolleyes:
wow, that is probably the best 4th post I have ever seen on this site
congrats[Beer]
SA Friday
08-12-2010, 22:41
I Like Pie!
In other news, This country needs to close the loopholes that allow persons from OUTSIDE of this country to infiltrate it and abuse its systems and resources while disregarding its laws.
as far as the content of the discussions and debates, I prefer diversity.
Be careful what you ask for as the only way to 'close the loophole' per se MUST affect the 14th ammendment as it currently stands. The 14th is a very important part of the constitution, and has more than once saved the bacon of many of the Bill of Rights ammendments. Do you really want the current administration poking their fingers into Constitutional matters?
Dear baby Jesus in Heaven, I don't.
2 Cents!
14th isn't the problem, its the illegal immigration that's the problem. If the .gov would do its job, it would be damned hard to have a baby in the US as an illegal alien, meaning amending the bill of rites would not need to be done.
the disease is clear, anchor babys are just a symptom.
Mr President
08-12-2010, 22:54
I'm not going to quote 'cause it would take to long, but, I agree with EVERY, SINGLE, THING, DeusExMachina has said on this thread thus far. I'm just sayin'.
SA Friday
08-12-2010, 23:10
If you're going to crown me king, I expect you to kneel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaeZpkPYTiw[Coffee]
Byte Stryke
08-13-2010, 00:10
Be careful what you ask for as the only way to 'close the loophole' per se MUST affect the 14th ammendment as it currently stands. The 14th is a very important part of the constitution, and has more than once saved the bacon of many of the Bill of Rights ammendments. Do you really want the current administration poking their fingers into Constitutional matters?
Dear baby Jesus in Heaven, I don't.
See Below, He just beat me to it is all.
Cant have an anchor baby here if your cant get here.
2 Cents!
14th isn't the problem, its the illegal immigration that's the problem. If the .gov would do its job, it would be damned hard to have a baby in the US as an illegal alien, meaning amending the bill of rites would not need to be done.
the disease is clear, anchor babys are just a symptom.
theGinsue
08-13-2010, 09:18
children born to those who have at least 1 parent that is a legal US citizen should become citizens themselves.
if their parents were not US citizens, they are citizens of their parents respective country(ies) as they deem appropriate.
Just because a child is born here doesn't mean they get to enjoy the benefits our country has to offer...
+1 to Sniper.
Agreed 100%!
I Like Pie!
as far as the content of the discussions and debates, I prefer diversity.
Mmm. Pie!
Oh, I like diversity here too.
Do you really want the current administration poking their fingers into Constitutional matters?
Dear baby Jesus in Heaven, I don't.
Amen & AMEN!
Hey guise I disagree with you so I'd rather you just not post at all. Lets just talk about guns ok thnx. [Stooge]
StagLefty
08-13-2010, 09:40
Hey guise I disagree with you so I'd rather you just not post at all. Lets just talk about guns ok thnx. [Stooge]
While I may agree with you it's a public forum and open to all subject matter. Like others have said recently don't read or respond if you don't like the thread. JMHO [Beer]
Byte Stryke
08-13-2010, 10:21
I would like to think that we will all disagree on one point of topic or another.
Imagine if everyone agreed on everything all of the time *Shudder*
I believe the point of a forum is to exchange ideas and offer perspectives that someone else might not have had in a healthy debate/discussion atmosphere. I Do dislike it when people start using profanity and vulgarity in lieu of argument.
Not saying I am innocent of this,just that it does degrade the exchange of ideas.
I would like to think that we will all disagree on one point of topic or another.
Imagine if everyone agreed on everything all of the time *Shudder*
I believe the point of a forum is to exchange ideas and offer perspectives that someone else might not have had in a healthy debate/discussion atmosphere. I Do dislike it when people start using profanity and vulgarity in lieu of argument.
Not saying I am innocent of this,just that it does degrade the exchange of ideas.
I agree. I was being sarcastic but I hadn't had a full cup of coffee yet so maybe it wasn't clear enough.
I believe the point of a forum is to exchange ideas and offer perspectives that someone else might not have had in a healthy debate/discussion atmosphere. I Do dislike it when people start using profanity and vulgarity in lieu of argument.
Response:... *scratches head*.... FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!
lol, [Beer]
I agree. I was being sarcastic but I hadn't had a full cup of coffee yet so maybe it wasn't clear enough.
I was with you. And my daughter pointed at your avatar and asked what that monkey was doing.
I was with you. And my daughter pointed at your avatar and asked what that monkey was doing.
lol, what'd you tell her? Because clearly he was just getting ants out of an anthill on a stick. A white stick. Which happened to be on fire.
She asked what it was and I just told her it was a monkey that was smoking. I wasn't really paying attention, so I didn't try to be funny.
She asked what it was and I just told her it was a monkey that was smoking. I wasn't really paying attention, so I didn't try to be funny.
Pfft. Now she's going to think its okay to smoke because monkeys do it. You're a terrible parent. You're supposed to lie to children, its good for them.
Should've said: "That's Antons' Grandma. She's been smoking since she was a kid. Smoking is bad....mmmmkay?"
haha
theGinsue
08-14-2010, 01:52
Hey guise I disagree with you so I'd rather you just not post at all. Lets just talk about guns ok thnx. [Stooge]
I see what you did there. I got the humor.
I agree. I was being sarcastic but I hadn't had a full cup of coffee yet so maybe it wasn't clear enough.
Naw, you were clear enough. Very funny.
Should've said: "That's Antons' Grandma. She's been smoking since she was a kid. Smoking is bad....mmmmkay?"
haha
BigBear, you never cease to crack me up. That's some funny stuff right there. I think the creme a la creme was the "mmmmkay" part.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.