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: 125

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Which proves Misty is a racist... how?
Look, either quote what she said and explain your reasons for thinking it's racist, or retract the claim. That's all I'm asking. Can anyone on the site fulfill this one, simple request?

All I'm asking for is one example. The way you guys are making it sound, the whole thing was copied from the KKK field manual. This isn't a short thread, surely one example exists to substantiate your claim.

And finally, Misty didn't deport your family members. Trying to hold her accountable for it does nothing for your case. In fact, she said multiple times that she didn't support deportation. I don't understand the stubbornness in ignoring this.
If they were evicted because of the color of their skin/eyes/hair or genetic features then yes.

If not, then no.

You do understand what racism means, right?
No go.
He didn't give an example of racism and neither have you. Either provide one or admit that you are talking without thinking, falling to emotion and your claims have no basis. I want to know how changing immigration policy for ALL immigrants becomes a racist argument in your logic. In fact cut and copy an example from Doone if you wish or in supplement to your own.

By the way, refugee and illegal immigrant are apples and oranges if you are using the legal definitions. If you aren't, then perhaps that is the problem in communication we are seeming to have. Let's stick to the dictionary when it comes to terminology to prevent anymore confusion if that is from where it's arisen.

No one has forced your silence. It's been the very opposite. All through this conversation I've asked MANY times over for you and Doone to defend you rather inflammatory statement with proof. Now Frink is asking you point blank, too. Either step up or admit you have nothing.
What'd she win?
Alas! We shall rend our clothing and gnash our teeth! Mourning be upon all of us. Human rights are hit, wounded and near death.


An internet conversation has somehow shaken our world to the very foundation! End days are upon us!
Apparently I've won a free ticket to Crazytown...that's the place where 'racism' can mean whatever you say it means if you:
A) suffer from a generational gap, B) Have witnessed skinhead violence C) Were born to a Jewish family or refugee parents.
One of the benefits of residing in Crazytown is that you don't have to back up even the most inflammatory claims with examples or quotes and you are entitled to toss up random facts about other websites and first person accounts that have nothing to do with the current conversation! Oh yeah, you can also blatantly ignore other's clarifications of things like NOT supporting deportation or disturbing the 14th amendment if it takes from your melodramatic posing!
You're using the guilt-by-association fallacy in the form of Godwin's Law and Reductio ad Hitlerum, among others. "Hitler said ____ and Hitler did ____, therefore anyone who says ____ is just like Hitler and therefore supports ____." Might as well say "Hitler wore pants and committed genocide. Therefore anyone who wears pants is like Hitler and therefore supports genocide." You need to understand that things aren't bad because Hitler said them. They're good or bad on their own merits. Your attempt to connect the views of Misty with the views of Hitler is pretty asinine.

But besides that, what you're saying is as follows: "racists have used those arguments as support for their racist views, but I can't find anything explicitly racist about what you said."

So it's settled--the claim was unsubstantiated. Thank you for your honesty.
29 minutes ago, in a reply to Doone: "2) Frankly, I don't care for the discussion either and agree with your reasons."

1 hour ago, in a reply to you: "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?"

So now I'm a racist who supports the bill, huh? Defending Missy from your slurs makes me a racist? FAIL. Congratulations, your credibility on the topic has dropped to zero. Enjoy your prize.

I predicted it would come to this point, and I don't feel the need to respond to your absurd allegations. My credentials speaks for itself and I certainly don't feel the need to prove myself to you, especially considering the conduct I've witnessed on this thread.

You clearly have no understanding of philosophy, and if you had any training in the area you probably wouldn't have made those statements about logic, the science of evaluating arguments. That's all it is. If you wish to continue making a fool of yourself, by all means, continue. But you're not going to get by with trying to bullshit someone who actually knows what they're talking about.
"The sad fact is that a person can be racist without being a bigot."

Do you want to take that back or do you want me to cut and copy the dictionary for the REAL definition, not the one you've molded to fit your ideas?

"Racism stems from cultural factors, such as when you suggest that resources can be saved by ending citizenship rights rather than resources can be increased by making EXXON pay their income tax. You attacked people rather than the process. That is racism."

Just because you were raised Jewish and someone's mother was a refugee doesn't make you the deciding voice of what makes racism and what doesn't. If you see it where others don't, maybe it's a personal problem you have that was formed by experiencing intolerance and thereby making you more sensitive to it. Notice how other people have said "this isn't a racial issue, it's an economic one?" This is where you either dispute such a comment with an example of how it is, or some proof. If you can't do that, you loose the right to make the claim that it is. Saying that "it's impossible to give a single example of you being racist when your entire argument stems from racism" is obviously illogical. If my entire argument is based on a failed principal, then that should make it even easier for you to explain or refute. So far you've done neither. Another failure. I couple it with the fact that I've quoted this post after you've also claimed that you and doone have provided several already, in which case all it takes is a cut and paste. Go ahead. One more chance....

See, the point of the discussion was to talk about alternatives to the resource problems. Exxon paying their income tax is on par with the conversation. Too bad it took you this long to get there. Wish you could have skipped all your hysterics that distracted from the conversation and instead started tossing in ideas from the very beginning.

I can see why you are scared. If I'm understanding your perspective correctly, the world must be a scary place for you.
Apparently somehow your brain translates:
Illegal immigration is bad for everyone. More legal residency and work permits good for everyone = racist hatemongering!
No wonder you're scared.
Nope, not getting defensive at all. Actually I was quite upset earlier, but after your crazy-ass rant against LOGIC of all things, and the subsequent attack on Frink (who just stepped in to moderate this discussion by asking for explanations to weigh your claims, which of course you couldn't provide,) I've come to the conclusion that you are a very confused man. No doubt it was probably at least in part to the things you might have witnessed growing up in a Jewish family (Though after your last few posts I'm starting to wonder if that is true or if you aren't just some strangely deluded internet troll.)
I see the rest of the conversation going something like this:
You've now taken a bill that no one agrees with the basis of (14th amendment modification) and decided that anyone that DOES agree with it is a racist simply for the fact that there are racists out there that support it. When it was pointed out to you that this isn't considered a legitimate debate or discussion reply (and please see the Debate Guidelines in Announcements and Known Issues or roll over your 'my page' tab. There are also links to explain WHY it isn't a legitimate argument, in case you want to educate yourself a bit.) you launched into a tirade against an unbiased party, calling him a racist, too.
The more we poke, the more unhinged you become. Eventually, even poor Doone is going to distance himself from agreeing with you because it's clear you guys aren't on the same page anymore and from what I've seen, he's usually a pretty level headed guy (when I'm not accidentally vicariously insulting his wife and kids by holding an opinion on the country she was born in.) So he's going to distance himself by subtly disagreeing on your debating tactics or simply not answer anymore at all, which will leave you alone in this thread, which will incite you even more, which will cause the delicious flavor of self-delusion you seem to carry come sprouting out of every pore for all the world to see. This will cause the discussion to no longer center around the author's intent to discuss immigration policy, but instead become some kind of weird side-show freak act that participators and spectators alike can't seem to tear their eyes off of, despite their knowing better. (Myself included.)
Obviously, you aren't even trying to help your own argument anymore... but I must admit... I can't turn away.
Still waiting for it, Bill. Where are these examples of my arguments being racist or hate-filled?
You talked a good talk and played the melodramatic "you've forced my silence" role really well, but now that Frink has also asked you to step up, things have gone awfully quiet over there.
I'll keep checking back :)


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service