AP -- U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, a Republican candidate for governor of Georgia, has proposed changing the long-standing federal policy that automatically grants citizenship to any baby born on U.S. soil, a move opposed by immigrant rights advocates.

Supporters of Deal's proposal say "birthright citizenship" encourages illegal immigration and makes enforcement of immigration laws more difficult. Opponents say the proposed law wouldn't solve the illegal immigration problem and goes against this country's traditions of welcoming immigrants.

Automatic citizenship is enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which says: "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." That provision, ratified in 1868, was drafted with freed slaves in mind.

Deal and his supporters say the 14th Amendment wording was never meant to automatically give citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants.

"This is a sensible, overdue measure that closes a clause that was never meant to be a loophole," said Bob Dane, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which seeks tighter immigration restrictions.

Under Deal's proposal, babies born in the U.S. would automatically have citizenship only if at least one of their parents is a U.S. citizen or national, a legal permanent resident of the U.S., or actively serving in the U.S. military.

Azadeh Shahshahani, director of the Immigrants Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia, said the proposed law "is not cognizant with the American spirit."

"We would stand in strong opposition to this bill as it's in fundamental contradiction to our nation's long history of welcoming immigrants and bestowing inalienable rights" on all people born here, regardless of the circumstances of their birth, she said.

Story continues below Supporters of the bill say automatic citizenship provides an incentive for women to risk coming to the country illegally. They call U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants "anchor babies" because, when they become adults, the children can sponsor their parents for legal permanent residency.

"Coming into the country for the express purpose of having a child in order to anchor that child and yourself is, in effect, gaming the system," Dane said.

Lisa Navarrete, vice president of the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group, said the proposed law wouldn't stem illegal immigration and would make the problem worse because not only would illegal immigrants be undocumented, their American-born children would be too.

"The worst part of it is you end up with potentially millions of children who are stateless, who were born here and have no ties to any other country, yet they're not considered citizens or part of the United States," she said.

Roy Beck, president of NumbersUSA, a group that favors restricting immigration, said the policy of granting automatic citizenship to people born here is "out of sync with the modern world." He and Deal said that the U.S. is one of the few wealthy industrialized nations that still allows birthright citizenship.

Deal, who has submitted his bill to the House Judiciary Committee, said he's not optimistic about it becoming law this year unless it is tacked onto another bill.

"I think the current makeup of the Congress is such that this will never get a hearing and will never be an issue that we get a chance to vote on," he said. "But I think it's important to keep the issues that are part of the immigration problem alive."


Views: 130

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Read below (again) and see where I've stated that I don't agree with it.
Or read above, too.
Let me make this very, very clear.
I posted a draft of a bill and asked for opinions. When I got a few, I posted some of my own, and then a few REVISIONS I thought would make it better.
I never said it was a good bill to begin with, ok?
Still with me?
One of those revisions was to grant citizenship as per normal (thereby NOT changing the 14th amendment at all) but making modifications to the sponsorship process (modifications of which happen every day, as it has nothing to do with the 14th amendment, but instead to immigration policy that fluctuates yearly or as needed.)
So..if you are still reading, you can see that there is no need for me to do independent research or tell you why I think it's ok to change the 14th amendment, because that isn't my stance.
This is called a discussion. It evolves and grows. That was the purpose of posting it. Now if you'd like to address the revisions I posted up there, then feel free, but please quit your hysterics over something that isn't even on the table hypothetically let alone factually.
Wait.. what? You are saying that an atheist can get murdered because of a change in always changing immigration laws that would prohibit anyone from sponsoring someone that's already broken the law by residing in the U.S illegally?
Or that a legal or illegal immigrant can? That's not even making sense. Go ahead and spell it out for me, please.
Ok.. since you won't accept my invites to private chat, we'll do this here. You are obviously ok with it, so am I. I only offered to keep this discussion on track.

First off, you stated above
"I am totally against the idea of repealing part of the 14th Amendment...."

If you would have read my post, you would have seen this:
"(This was presented as my idea, not the legislation. I'm totally doing away with the citizenship thing for a moment.)"
which shows I'm not even arguing that fact, I agreed with you on it.

Secondly, you threw out some pretty provocative words such as 'racism' and 'hate-filled.'
I asked you to provide one shred of proof at all that anything I said or indicated, or even the discussion of the bill as was or in modified form would show a racist attitude. You didn't. Now either back up your words with some substance or bow out.

Thirdly, "You can ban me now for having the temerity to disagree with you." sounded down right personal to me. Can you tell me of anyone I've ever banned? Can you tell me of anyone I've ever even been so much as hostile or even ignored personally for an opinion that's varied from mine? Can you even note one time or place I've carried personal feelings over from a discussion into chat? Into another discussion? I'd really like to hear some reasoning behind that comment. I play hard ball when it comes to discussions, but as a community member, I'm also a team player. Just because I don't agree with someone on a particular subject does not mean I won't listen, talk, joke, collaborate or recognize them as a member of this community. in fact, the moment I felt this may have turned personal, I tried to contact you privately to see if there was anything we had to work out.

Lastly, "Yes, I did read your post. It may be a springboard for a discussion to you but it is an horrific idea to me." If you read my post, there must have been some misunderstandings since the only point you tried to argue was one I agreed with anyway. Either you missed or made the decision not to respond to the other points and questions I had for you. Now, I understand that it is a horrific idea to you. You've made that clear. What's missing is the WHY. Racism, hate-filled.. you said that. Just because you say it doesn't make it fact. I'm asking you how you came to that judgment and on what basis. I'm asking you to provide examples of how or why it is what you say it is. I'm asking you to back up your argument. The funny thing is to me, I'm asking you to do it because I'm interested, not because I'm even taking the other side. If I were, I'd have never bothered trying to contact you privately, and instead just called you out on everything you failed to answer and for taking a personal dig at me just because I'm a mod.
Here's your chance. The stage is yours....
1) My comments about Thailand and the Thai people are not in the least bit racist. I invite you to quote one thing in context that is. Some of the things I post are insulting, I agree, but they are insulting to a particular way of thinking or belief, not to the race of the person. Never have I insulted Thais as a race (which they aren't. They are a nationality) though I'm quite frank in my disagreement with some actions that people living in Thailand, expats included, embrace. I'm of the mind that you are not responsible for the families you are born into and the color of your skin has no bearing in making you a lesser or greater person, but you ARE responsible for the actions you commit or the ideals you hold. Your judgment of me on an unrelated topic has skewed your ability to reason in this discussion both as a person and especially as a mod.

2)Again, obviously you didn't read the argument from the beginning or where it evolved to. Nowhere was it mentioned that anyone would be expelled from any country. Deal's bill suggested no longer granting instant citizenship, it said nothing about revoking existing citizenship. It was also not retro-active, meaning that 'anchor babies' already born would not be affected. This is meant as a deterrent to slow oncoming illegal immigration, not deport illegal immigrants that are already here or existing citizens. The idea was to close a loophole that was enticing foreign nationals to knowingly come into the country illegally. Later I suggested nixing the citizenship part of it and instead limiting sponsorship abilities. (Which answer your point 5) to free up resources for immigrants that want to come on work visas or green cards. People on work visas and green cards are also immigrants, in fact, some are even of the same race! For your sake you ought to at least take a look at what you are arguing against before jumping right in with the inflammatory comments and emotive phrases that have nothing at all to do with the issue at hand. Much like your personal opinion of me or the anchor baby hate groups you took a stroll through, they have no bearing on the situation and only serve to confuse, dilute and generally clutter what was meant to be an insightful and thought provoking discussion.

3) Your words "at least for now" indicate that you think you might not be in the future. Whether that is your own choice or not, you might want to consider the decisions you made and actions you took to put it in question. It seems to me you fully realize what an ass you've made of yourself and now question your own judgment or what others think of you. More ever, perhaps you ought to take a good long look at your mediation abilities and contributions to the community and honestly ask yourself why you are still one in the first place. (Remember, I offered and attempted to take this private. You wanted it aired here.)

4) "I am not calling you a racist..."
Of course you aren't. That would take balls. You insinuated it in the first point of the post I'm now responding to, though. As for the websites you looked at, they have nothing to do with me or the arguments I'm presenting. I haven't even seen them, but I've asked you to link them to the bill in its original form (when it was still being discussed) or with my suggested modifications (or any modifications anyone would like to throw in.) and you've done neither. Guilt by association doesn't mean much. Just because a few yahoos support a piece of legislation does not make the legislation itself racist. 'OOOohhhh! The KKK supports higher cigarette taxes. That means all non-smokers are skinheads?!" WTF? Either provide some examples or drop it.

5)The reasons Deal gave were insufficient to sway me, too. I don't assume they are politically motivated or assume anything at all except that the facts aren't backing up the necessity. Again, why are you bringing this up? How many times do you need me to say that it is a portion of the bill that should be thrown out the window? How many times do you need me to say that we agree on it? How many times do you need me to say that the discussion has moved passed this point? (Unless someone else has anything to add on that in particular?)

I know it's much more fun to just stir the pot instead of respond like an adult, but sidestepping facts, questions pointed to you and the entire intent of a discussion is more what I'd expect from fundamental religious people so full of conviction they lack reason and logical thinking abilities. It isn't what I'd expect to find in a member of a site dedicated to THINKING unless they were on the PP thread. You've taken a very hypothetical discussion that stemmed from a not so good idea (but had the potential to evolve into a multitude of good ones) as well as provide a chance to provide educational opportunities on the entire spectrum of immigration and instead turned it into a personal issue you've apparently had with me for quite some time. Instead of acting like an adult and coming to me with your problems or talking in private (like I tried to do).. instead of ignoring me as a poster in this discussion all together if you were skewed towards me, hell instead of using it as a platform to showcase your beliefs with evidence so others could judge (which I was asking for and continued to do on multiple occasions) you eroded any integrity your points may have had by admitting they are personally motivated. The funniest thing of all is that I genuinely went the distance to try and get you to back up your words because I respected your opinion and wanted to see where it was coming from. Now that I know, everything falls into place. What a joke!
And what sucks is the refugees don't get paid if their boss gets caught plus deportation. Humans deserve better.
The Chiappas should get refugee status and be exempt from the immigration laws, in my personal opinion. That is one of the revisions that should be immediate.
That seems rather counter-productive (though the U.S government often is.) Wouldn't it be better to grant refugee status to a select group rather than rely on a loophole that is adding to a much larger problem?
I'm not going to go so far as to say that any company that depends on illegal immigrants to stay open doesn't deserve to be open, but that's what on my mind. I agree that the places that hire and especially exploit illegal immigrants should be held accountable to the highest degree. I've seen very small kiwi orchards depend on LEGAL immigrants and father/sons working do just fine, but every circumstance is different.
I wonder what Norway does. They have a good model for government, at least concerning the things I've researched. I wonder what their policies are.
Heya MMAH,
Glad you decided to wade in. You've got some great points.
I agree with you that I see no tie to racism here. I also agree that changing the 14th is a bad idea, but I do think there needs to be some huge action on immigration policy. Just like you said, what we have right now keeps (or gets) the rich rich and the poor poor.
Illegals are going to be exploited. The goal is to reduce or eliminate illegal immigration and replace it with a comprehensive LEGAL work system. To do that, we need to first slow the tide of illegal immigration and reform legal immigration. Right now the 'anchor baby' loophole is a big, shiny draw that keeps bringing people in by the millions (as quoted above) If it's easier to live here undocumented, that's just what will happen. If there are actual benefits to being documented, people will go that route instead. (notice I'm using a future tense. I'm in no way talking about deportation, only instead of curbing future illegal immigrations from taking place.)
How do we remove that loophole without infringing upon human rights? That's one of the many questions.
The goal is to remove the power of that person/company over an immigrant and replace it with due process. Suddenly you've got a man that doesn't earn 3$ an hour, he earns 6$ Suddenly you can't just call the big green buses if you don't want to sign a pay check. Suddenly you can't just fire someone if there is an HR problem and know he'll be deported instead of time and money to resolve it.
Basically, we need to empower legal immigrants and make our immigration policy more realistic. To do that, we need to halt illegal immigration as the easy answer and make it a desperate last resort with due process and appeals. The current situation is only creating a crippled economy and racial tensions. These are people, not just dishwashers or pruning sheers. They deserve the right to work and live and be documented/legally protected. When it's easier not to be, the laws are in essence denying them of that right.
HOLD THE PHONE. The discussion is getting a reboot.

First: people, don't take things so personally. Having pissing contests as to how non-racist you are doesn't help your case; It's just that--a pissing contest.

Second: While it doesn't surprise me that this bill originated from a Republican--and they aren't shy about being the party of racists--I didn't see any racism or racist ideals being promoted in this thread by any members before the accusations started flying. So please, stop and think before you use the scarlet letter of racism to stifle meaningful discussion. In my judgment, that's all it's doing in this instance.

Third: Stick to the debate. Is it a good idea or a bad idea? What are your reasons for thinking it is or isn't? What's your response to the other person's points? We're here to discuss ideas. Let's stick to that, eh?

Thank you for your compliance.
You're entitled to your opinion, but everyone would benefit by further explanation. Simply declaring something to be so does nothing to convince me. Give me an example of a racist argument Misty used and why it's racist. I don't agree with Senator Deal's bill even the slightest bit, but I still didn't see her being racist. Can you explain your reasoning?
I forced your silence by asking for your input?

Three things:

1) I didn't see Doone providing any examples of Misty being a racist.

2) I read the post about your mother's experience. At worst, it would put Misty's arguments into a nationalist or protectionist context, not a racist one. At worst.

3) I asked for an example of a racist argument made by Misty and your reasoning for thinking it's racist (provided, obviously, that it's not self-evident). Do you have an example or not?


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service