- Status
S
Soliloquy
Invading armies often take their spouses with them, eh?
E
Element 117
awesome. And, on a more serious not, horrifically sad for this country. But still.
We're becoming Japan!
No, but they do tend to rape everything in sight.
C
Chibibar
So how far back do we go?? back to original illegal immigrant? (May Flower technically are illegal, they never ask the Indians if they could stay)
To be fair, Japan did open it's borders to people of Japanese descent a few years back in order to work factory jobs that weren't popular with today's workers. They even offered cash incentives to people to move to Japan from those groups. The problem arose, however, when the economy slid back and suddenly people were clamoring for those jobs just to make ends meet. Japan's solution? Offer them money to move back home, and then start firing them.
No, but they do tend to rape everything in sight.[/QUOTE]
Except if they are raping someone then that would probably mean the mother(In the case of Male solider raping female native) would be a citizen of besieged country in that extreme example.
Honestly, I'm not sure I mind this so much. I would have a problem with them taking away citizenship from children who are presently US citizens, that's not okay in the slightest. But changing the law so future children born aren't citizens, I think I can live with. In many countries, you don't get to be a citizen just because your mom decided to hop a border while pregnant. That country will consider you a citizen of your parent's country. Why should we be different? How does where your illegal parents were when you were born make you special?
For the record, I largely support allowing immigration, on the grounds that we're ALL descended from immigrants, what right do we have to tell everyone else no more? But if we're stopping immigration anyway, what makes a uterus magically more important than somebody already out of the womb? How is the child born geographically in the US to Mexican parents any different than the 2-month-old infant carried by it's parents into the country?
For the record, I largely support allowing immigration, on the grounds that we're ALL descended from immigrants, what right do we have to tell everyone else no more? But if we're stopping immigration anyway, what makes a uterus magically more important than somebody already out of the womb? How is the child born geographically in the US to Mexican parents any different than the 2-month-old infant carried by it's parents into the country?
J
JONJONAUG
The proposed law is blatantly unconstitutional. Similar measures have been struck down in the Supreme Court for the past 112 years and it's a waste of taxpayer money because some idiot legislators want to have a dick waving contest.
Just because other countries don't do it doesn't make it bad. I think one of the strongest points of this country has always been the idea that if you are born here, you are a citizen. It really creates a sense of unity in a country that would otherwise splinter with all the different cultural groups within the border. Taking that basic premise away, a basic right since the formation of the country, is completely against the spirit of America, in my opinion.
And like JonJon said, it'll get struck down anyway.
Just because other countries DO do it doesn't make it good. It IS used to subvert the immigration process an awful lot and that is a legitimate problem. However, I DO think a much simpler and more legal way of solving that would be to simply to remove the Family Re-unification clause in our immigration Process or simply add a stipulation that it only applies to people who were ether legally in the US at the time of your birth or outside it. That seems like a reasonable concession to the "Illegals ain't real AMURICANS!" crowd, as it still allows most families to reconnect on US soil, but it also prevents abuse.
It'd still likely fail to get passed (I'm not exactly sure how'd you propose changing the policy of a government organization. Can Congress pass a motion for it?) but it'd also be unlikely to be struck down by the Supreme Court.
J
JONJONAUG
I don't know if these folks are trying to really enact this as law. Hopefully, it's more to bring attention to the matter, and to show that something needs to be done about securing the border. To me, that's the biggest issue. We need troops on the border. Bring them home from Iraq/Afghan and put them there. That would solve a ton of problems.
Also, JonJon, if you think that OK/AZ are the only state's to try to enact b.s. legislature, you're wrong. It happens all the time from every state. That's how they play the game. It sucks, but that's what they do.
Also, JonJon, if you think that OK/AZ are the only state's to try to enact b.s. legislature, you're wrong. It happens all the time from every state. That's how they play the game. It sucks, but that's what they do.
How about making a thread about it when you find it instead of using it as an excuse? "Everyone else is doing it" isn't even acceptable for teenagers, let alone states.
How about making a thread about it when you find it instead of using it as an excuse? "Everyone else is doing it" isn't even acceptable for teenagers, let alone states.[/QUOTE]
I didn't say that I thought that it was acceptable. I think that is how things work, just like earmarking and lobbyists. I don't like any of those things. I was just stating that I don't think (and hope) that the Rep. in Oklahoma was being sincere with this measure. It's obvious that it won't go anywhere. It's just an attempt to bring attention to the matter. We got 8 yrs of Bush not doing anything about the border, and I hope we don't get much of the same from Obama.
C
Chibibar
I know that the legislation are targeted toward NEW babies, but it will be interesting on if the Law retroactive upto 3 generation back 
how many people will be left/deported?
how many people will be left/deported?You can vote if your grandfather could vote.
C
Chibibar
hehe . I'm out. I'm first gen natural born citizen (my parents were immigrant, got U.S. citizen, then I was born)
S
Soliloquy
The problem is, if that's their goal, these actions are kind of counter-productive. They make supporters of enforcing immigration laws look like nutjobs by association.
Because it makes stupid people think their dumbass representatives are doing something.
C
Chibibar
it is part of the law that if you are born in the U.S. you are a citizen 
I don't think any state can change that unless it is on the Federal level.
I don't think any state can change that unless it is on the Federal level.Perhaps, but what could the federal government really do if these states stopped recording the births of these children (I.E. don't issue birth certificates) aside from retracting state funding? Some states DO refuse to follow federal guidelines on some issues and tough it out on their own, especially when it comes to public education. It's not like the federal government is going to cut them out of the Union over this.
C
Chibibar
More than likely the state lose funding. It is a lot if you think about it. Roads, social services and such. It is a symbiot relationship between state and federal level so more than likely the state will change. Yea I don't think the state could be "kick out" of the union. (at least that was never mention in history class)
yep, fourteenth amendment,
I believe they could pass it, but it would be meaningless.Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution said:
- Status