|
Post by EscapeHatch on Apr 9, 2009 17:48:43 GMT -5
And I just may support him IF he keeps to his stated position during the campaign. He wants a stiff fine paid by those that are here illegally and illegals go to the back of the line for naturalization.
He needs to think through the chain immigration, though.
Has anyone heard about his stance on legislation to modify the laws regarding the anchor baby problem?
|
|
|
Post by lou on Apr 9, 2009 19:33:06 GMT -5
Hatch, so far he has not addressed this particular problem. I did hear he wanted to reduce the fine though.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Apr 9, 2009 20:29:20 GMT -5
The only solution to "the anchor baby problem" is to change the constitution. This part of the 14th amendment was originally intended to prevent the south from denying the freed slaves citizenship and voting rights,etc.Anyone born on American soil was a citizen,therefore the ex-slaves were citizens.
Before we speculate was the president is going to say and do,let's wait and see instead of the "I heard" this or that.God only knows where you heard what you heard.
|
|
CM
Rookie
Posts: 0
|
Post by CM on Apr 9, 2009 20:33:27 GMT -5
The only solution to "the anchor baby problem" is to change the constitution. This part of the 14th amendment was originally intended to prevent the south from denying the freed slaves citizenship and voting rights,etc.Anyone born on American soil was a citizen,therefore the ex-slaves were citizens. Before we speculate was the president is going to say and do,let's wait and see instead of the "I heard" this or that.God only knows where you heard what you heard. Thanks Bruce you jarred my ancient mind, to end anchor babies will require a constitutional change. Appropriate in it’s day but questionable today. But as you say let’s wait and see what the MAN has to say.
|
|
|
Post by Jack on Apr 9, 2009 20:59:01 GMT -5
The only solution to "the anchor baby problem" is to change the constitution. This part of the 14th amendment was originally intended to prevent the south from denying the freed slaves citizenship and voting rights,etc.Anyone born on American soil was a citizen,therefore the ex-slaves were citizens. Before we speculate was the president is going to say and do,let's wait and see instead of the "I heard" this or that.God only knows where you heard what you heard. Bruce, Many feel that the solution to the anchor baby issue is not a constitutional amendment, but rather a re-interpretation through Congressional action. Hatch can post volumes about this.
|
|
CM
Rookie
Posts: 0
|
Post by CM on Apr 9, 2009 21:27:34 GMT -5
The only solution to "the anchor baby problem" is to change the constitution. This part of the 14th amendment was originally intended to prevent the south from denying the freed slaves citizenship and voting rights,etc.Anyone born on American soil was a citizen,therefore the ex-slaves were citizens. Before we speculate was the president is going to say and do,let's wait and see instead of the "I heard" this or that.God only knows where you heard what you heard. Bruce, Many feel that the solution to the anchor baby issue is not a constitutional amendment, but rather a re-interpretation through Congressional action. Hatch can post volumes about this. I’ve not spend much time on the “Anchor Baby” issue, but my perception a constitutional change is required, so educate me.
|
|
CM
Rookie
Posts: 0
|
Post by CM on Apr 9, 2009 21:53:08 GMT -5
But let me not be accused of forgetting to spout off, my two cents, I would support a change to the anchor baby law.
I have not heard, is that Obama’s position?
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 9, 2009 22:40:54 GMT -5
I forgot to spout off.
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Apr 10, 2009 0:40:14 GMT -5
Change and Beliefs,
The anchor baby issue often goes hand in hand with it's sister issue which is chain migration. The anchor baby issue is really more of the current interpretation of a rule. It is hard for anyone to argue that the 14th amendment was other than about freeing the slaves and was never part of any argument about naturalization. To overturn a Supreme Court Ruling normally you need a new ruling. However the 14th amendment has a provision (like many others) that states “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” Naturally any legislation they write will have to withstand a number of legal challenges but they could certainly write it. I think there may be a little havoc for families that have one naturalized citizen child while subsequent children are not, but you wouldn't be able to grandfather the law for children in vitro at least I do not think so.
Chain migration would be the next part of immigration reform that would need addressing if you are expecting any kind of reform. We all know that amnesty and reform are not the same thing. Amnesty is a reset button for the debate on immigration reform and merely delays the debate and as nikki will tell you feeds the next wave of illegal immigration.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Apr 10, 2009 6:30:51 GMT -5
I guess the amendment could be reinterpreted but as read it is pretty clear that in a nutshell,anyone born on US soil is automatically a citizen of the United States.I agree the intent was not to grant citizenship to the children of women would wnter,both lrgally and illegally,in order to have their kids born here for the ole purpose of obtaining citizenship.Unfortunately at the time it was written,this wasn't an issue.Many middle and upper income Mexicans do this,not just illegals.
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Apr 10, 2009 13:15:02 GMT -5
The only way I can see to stop birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens vis a vis the 14th Amendment is to either amend the Constitution again or force the issue with SCOTUS to overturn previous decisions like Wong Kim Ark, WKA for short. For SCOTUS to even be involved a case with standing has to be brought before it. We all know how difficult it is to prove "standing". See So&So vs Barrack Obama. About ten years before WKA, SCOTUS declared that children born to non-citizens in the US illegally were not automatically citizens. They interpreted Bingham correctly. This was mentioned in the majority opinion in the Slaughter House Cases. But, Slaughter House was not about illegal immigration and the declaration appears to not have the same force and effect as a decision. It was simply a minor part of the majority's many "reasons" for reaching its decision. WKA didn't exactly create "settled law". It was about whether or not the child born of Chinese parents in the US who were not allowed to become US citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act. The Act itself was not unconstitutional. But,SCOTUS decided that it could not apply to children born in the US. But, it was a tricky decision. Chinese citizens were not forced to leave the US as a result of the Act. If they left the country however, they were simply not allowed back in- in most cases. They would be sentenced to death, ex parte of course , by the Imperial government of China if they became citizens of another country. The Chinese Exclusion Act unintentionally solved this problem (or made it worse?) for many Chinese. But, I read something that said that Chinese law said that children of Chinese citizens born in foreign lands were still citizens of China. They were "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof." But, that was foreign law. The problem remains today about whether or not SCOTUS got it right in WKA. SCOTUS could elect to review the case for cause, like upon petition. But, the petition itself has to come from "standing". Another way is for Congress to pass legislation that defines birthirght citizenship, thereby challenging the WKA ruling, and get sued. That will happen just after Obama cuts taxes for the rich 90%. I can't think of how any person can sue the government to change the interpretation of the 14th. What could possibly be the complaint? Chain immigration is an altogether different story. Congress could end it with a simple Act. It could not be successfully challenged in SCOTUS. It is not unconstitutional to discriminate against non-citizens that are not already here with regard to entry into this country.
|
|
|
Post by Jack on Apr 10, 2009 13:23:06 GMT -5
Hatch, Here's one attempt that didn't get anywhere: H.R. 1940:110th Congress Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007 To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth. www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1940
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Apr 10, 2009 13:28:39 GMT -5
Yes, and the damned thing never even saw a sunset.
|
|
|
Post by EscapeHatch on Apr 10, 2009 13:38:45 GMT -5
Hatch, so far he has not addressed this particular problem. I did hear he wanted to reduce the fine though. This is where I read it.
|
|
|
Post by tpfkalarry on Apr 10, 2009 14:54:58 GMT -5
They Say It's A Bad Time For This Idea......
I doubt you have to be Sherlock Holmes or in possession of the enigma machine to crack the code found in the objection to the Obama proposed immigration reform. They say it is a bad time economically to try and pass immigration reform when they really mean it is a bad time politically. The democratic majority on the surface makes the casual observer think the proposal will be worst than the most recent attempts. But a number of the democrats are not far left but center left and they would be in no mood to try and run for re-election if some half-hearted reform that is heavy on forgiving and light on enforcement is passed less than a year before the mid-terms.
But in some respects it still is a bad time for republicans to have to circle their wagons. The stimulus package was a learning experience for both Rahm Emmanuel and the president. Hopefully the first lesson they learned was to write their own proposal or at least the majority of the framework you want it built on and not turn the task over to Pelosi. Secondly they should have learned not to give the republicans any concessions unless you are in the process of voting on the specific measure. They included the tax breaks the republicans wanted and they still voted against the measure (even after they put their own pork in it). They should feel free to put in anything they think the republicans would object to and then make them pay dearly to have it removed while leaving out anything the republicans would favor and again making them purchase each item of theirs you included. I doubt that is the way the president would prefer to do it but you can't blame him the republicans are training him to do this.
Chain migration and anchor babies are clearly key links in any proposal that attempts to bring any kind of lasting reform. Unfortunately they are both important to the fastest growing segment of voters. I assure you that is not lost on either party. If the reform is to succeed those two segments will require bi-partisan support. I would think that if they could eliminate anchor babies they would eliminate some of the future chain migration as a result. I hope the center right and some of the right wing are at least willing to put down their swords long enough to be part of the process. Listening to Rick and others attack the announcement (not even a proposal yet just the announcement that a proposal is in the works) as a purely amnesty program makes me think the neo-cons won't actually be a part of the discussion.
|
|