Birthright citizenship

I'm curious, where should the line be drawn?

Is being a legal resident enough?

What if a parent or parents are here on student, tourist, or work visas?

Check this out:

Chinese are hiring surrogate moms in America

http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/23/news/china-us-surrogacy/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom

The added advantage is that the kids are born on U.S. soil, so are citizens. And when they turn 21, they can sponsor their parents in the U.S. for green cards.

California is one of the most loose states when it comes to surrogacy laws, so the Chinese are heading there.

nadalfan wrote:I'm curious, where should the line be drawn?

Is being a legal resident enough?

What if a parent or parents are here on student, tourist, or work visas?  

In my view at least one parent should have to be a US Citizen .... or alien Lawfully Admitted for Permanent Residence (LAPR) with a post-birth continuous residency requirement for the child of at least five years.

Students, tourists, work visas, illegal aliens .... no. (these children qualify for citizenship in their parents' countries anyway ... just as US Citizens born abroad do.)


But perhaps we should look for answers to some of our progressive brethren in Western Europe and other developed countries in the world that have restricted jus soli (aka: birthright) citizenship to some degree or other.  

Such as:

Australia
Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hong Kong
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Singapore
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
United Kingdom

(there are more ... but in the interest of brevity I tried to limit the list to major countries or ones people are most familiar with.)

I guess they're all just a bunch of racists?

If you are born in America, you are a citizen. The constitution will not be amended, and any statute in direct contradiction with the 14th will be stricken as unconstitutional. This is an exercise in political propaganda to appeal to xenophobes.....nothing more or less. Dead on arrival.

2seaoat wrote:If you are born in America, you are a citizen.  The constitution will not be amended, and any statute in direct contradiction with the 14th will be stricken as unconstitutional.   This is an exercise in political propaganda to appeal to xenophobes.....nothing more or less.   Dead on arrival.

Well bust my buttons!   'seaoat' posing as a strict constructionist.  
Imagine that!  Anybody else on here buying it?   Anybody know how to spell: "dogmatic ideologue"?   

But as to 'seaoat's' comment above .... well, no doubt people made similar arguments slavery, women's suffrage, segregation, gay marriage, etc.   And just 'cause it might be hard .... we're not supposed to even consider or talk about it?   Well, now .... isn't that progressive  

In any case, for the board's consideration I offer:

link:   The Progressive Case Against Birthright Citizenship

...  America is a great country that is failing a lot of its citizens. Nearly 50 million Americans are living in poverty. Many of those are people of color who are American citizens. If one of those impoverished Americans were ordered to adopt several children, most of us would think the person requiring this was crazy. After all, how could someone struggling to take care of himself be expected to take responsibility for others? Yet that is precisely what President Obama and more specifically the immigration lobby is asking Americans to do. Take responsibility for an endless stream of people, even as our own suffer, and struggle to get policy relief from Washington. I simply don’t see how it is possible to identify as a progressive who claims to care about American poverty, but not care equally about decreasing the number of people without means coming into America. ...

2seaoat wrote:If you are born in America, you are a citizen.  The constitution will not be amended, and any statute in direct contradiction with the 14th will be stricken as unconstitutional.   This is an exercise in political propaganda to appeal to xenophobes.....nothing more or less.   Dead on arrival.

Well if we're xenophobes, then the Mexicans themselves must be the worst xenophobes of all.
In Mexico, illegal immigration is a felony which carries up to a two year prison sentence.
If an immigrant is deported and he attempts to re-enter, he can receive a 10 year sentence. Up to six years in prison for a Visa violation. And it's also a criminal offense for a Mexican to give aid to an illegal immigrant.

Bob wrote:....
Well if we're xenophobes,  then the Mexicans themselves must be the worst xenophobes of all.  
In Mexico,  illegal immigration is a felony which carries up to a two year prison sentence.
If an immigrant is deported and he attempts to re-enter,  he can receive a 10 year sentence.  Up to six years in prison for a Visa violation.  And it's also a criminal offense for a Mexican to give aid to an illegal immigrant.

We have similar laws  (see 8 USC 1326 & 8 USC 1324) ... we just don't enforce them as a criminal matter except in aggravated circumstances because we've been pretty much overrun with illegal immigrants and it would overwhelm our immigration enforcement & judicial resources to try & make a Federal criminal case on every violator.

 ("deportation", btw ... is an administrative action, not criminal, just thought I'd throw that out there as a lot of people are unaware of the legal distinction)

The current system is being gamed. Who here denies that?

I also disagree that it would overwhelm our system to enforce our immigration laws.

Eisenhower did much more with much less.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

Again for the slow witted......the 14th amendment will not be repealed. If you are born in America, you are an American citizen. Could not get any more simple. The funny part is that the courts gave native born children American citizenship before the 14th amendment......boogie man is going to get the scardy cats......boo.

PkrBum wrote:I also disagree that it would overwhelm our system to enforce our immigration laws.

Eisenhower did much more with much less.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

You misread what I said.  I said it would overwhelm our system to make a Federal criminal case of every immigration violator.

Deportation & voluntary removal are administrative remedies to immigration violations.  The immigration courts (EOIR) exist separately from the Federal judiciary.   Immigration Judges are Administrative Law Judges; there is no right to a government paid-for attorney; no probable cause standard; no "beyond a reasonable doubt"; etc as in a criminal prosecution. It's more like a civil tax or social security case.  Of course all deportations and certain actions that occur in an administrative deportation case are appealable to the Federal judiciary on certain grounds (Due Process, Habeas Corpus, etc) .... but those grounds rarely exist & most appeals to the judiciary from the administrative side of things are dismissed out of hand

To make a criminal case on a person for re-entry after deportation, visa fraud, aiding & abetting, smuggling, hiring illegal aliens, etc  requires going outside of the administrative law process & into the much more involved, time consuming, (and expensive) Federal criminal judicial process which is a whole different ball of wax involving not just the immigration enforcement authorities.   To prosecute a Federal criminal case involves the Federal Ruled of Criminal Procedure .....  US Magistrates, Federal District Judges, the US Attorney Office, Public Defenders, US Probation, US Marshal's Service, Federal Bureau of Prisons, etc.   Criminal cases for immigration violations are generally only made where aggravated, unconscionable, or serial recidivist circumstances exist.   The US Attorney Offices pick & choose which ones they will accept to go forward with for criminal prosecution based upon manpower/resource factors and on DOJ priorities handed down to them from above.

This is the problem with discussions about illegal immigration ... so many people opine who have no legal training or experience in the matter how we ought to do this or ought to do that, or that we can do this or can't do that legally ... when they really don't understand the law or immigration enforcement in general.  (but everybody seems to think they do)

'Seaoat' is right in one respect about ending birthright citizenship .... it would be very difficult, take a long time, & face a lot of legal & popularity  challenges.  Not saying it can't be done or shouldn't be discussed .... but it's a distraction from what we should be trying to do right now ... enforcement of our borders & removal of illegal aliens already residing in the United States.

We should rather focus on further border enforcement & establishing a permanent, comprehensive, interior enforcement program as well that makes it very difficult for people to work in the interior, obtain public benefits, find housing, drive motor vehicles, conduct financial transactions, and other things that make it difficult - if not impossible - for them to continue to reside illegally here in general.   Aliens living unlawfully in the USA should fear every day they may be picked up for deportation ....  currently they do not.

We can worry about who we might/might-not want to grant any amnesty to after those things have been accomplished.