• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Steve King Moves Forward on Bill to End Birthright Citizenship

Somerville said:
Another fine example of racism supported by false history. What you think of Hispanic immigrants, legal and illegal, is nothing compared to the words and actions of many Americans when the Irish and Italians began "flooding" into America.
Click to expand...

Where did he mention race?
 
pinqy said:
That's a pretty inefficient way to go about things, don't you think? Giving birth here and then waiting 21 years to enter legally. I'm not sure how that's an issue.
Click to expand...

Sure its inefficient. But it is an option and it does happen.
 
mike2810 said:
Why would you support a child of an illegal family being granted citizenship?
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't I? And it's not a question of "granting" citizenship...you wouldn't say a child born of one or more US citizens is "granted" citizenship by being born in the US. A child born in the US is a US citizen, with the exception of children born to those with diplomatic immunity (not "subject to the jurisdiction")

I'm not aware of any practical problems resulting from that. It does not provide an immediate backdoor for immigration unless the illegal parents give the child up for adoption. Otherwise the child is a minor and cannot stay here by him/herself and there are no special rights for the parents.


As far as the stats, didn't President Obama just pass an order to grant children of illegal aliens some slack. Why would he do that if it was not a significant issue.
Click to expand...
Which has nothing to do with children born here. The Dream Act etc are for minor children brought into the US illegally by their parents. The idea is that since the illegal immigration is not the fault or responsibility of the children, they should face no more restrictions than children legally here. That's obviously subject to debate but nothing at all to do with birthright citizenship.
Seems last I heard there are over 12 million illegal aliens here in the US.
Click to expand...
And? That doesn't make birthright citizenship an issue.

You evidently didn't read the link. My issue is that through the years the courts have misinterpreted the intent of the 14th when it comes to citizenship.
Click to expand...
I did, and I disagree. The issue is the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." I don't see how it could be argued that children of illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. That phrase applied to Native Americans born on reservations (until 1924 when all Indians were made citizens) and to the children of diplomats (who, having diplomatic immunity, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US).

And can you show anything where the intent of the 14th ammendment was not to apply to illegal immigrants? I've never seen such a thing.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
Sure its inefficient. But it is an option and it does happen.
Click to expand...

While it might, I really don't think it's an issue anyone needs to be concerned about, anymore than a naturalized citizen sponsoring parents or other relatives. It's not really distinct from that.
 
Whipsnade said:
[FONT=Georgia, Time New Roman, serif]Updated at 1:40 p.m. ET with a correction.[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Time New Roman, serif]WOW! this'l sure shore up the Hispanic vote for the midterms.[/FONT]:2wave:


<Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa, a leading conservative voice on immigration issues, introduced a bill on Wednesday to end the practice of birthright citizenship.>

<It's generally thought that the 14th Amendment provides a constitutional guarantee of citizenship for anyone born in the United States -- known as "birthright citizenship" -- but King told Hotsheet last year that he does not interpret the 14th Amendment that way.>

<Meanwhile, holding Washington's feet to the fire on the issue, Republican state lawmakers from five states came to the capitol Wednesday to unveil their ownstate-driven plan to curtail birthright citizenship. The lawmakers said that legislation addressing the issue will be introduced in 14 states, though they expect it to be immediately challenged in court as unconstitutional.>


Steve King Moves Forward on Bill to End Birthright Citizenship - Political Hotsheet - CBS News
Click to expand...

Should legislation be more concerned with votes or whats in the best interest of the union? This seems like a pretty common sense amendment, which is how it should be proposed, not as a simple law. You shouldnt be a citizen simply for being born on US soil. You should be born to a US citizen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/us/12babies.html?_r=0

About 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in the United States in 2008 — or 8 percent — had at least one parent who was an illegal immigrant, according to a study published Wednesday by the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group in Washington
Click to expand...

Which doesnt mean the other parent wasnt legal, but it also might miss miss some.
 
Last edited:
pinqy said:
While it might, I really don't think it's an issue anyone needs to be concerned about, anymore than a naturalized citizen sponsoring parents or other relatives. It's not really distinct from that.
Click to expand...

The distinction is that it is rewarding bad behavior. Its like your child doing something bad and then rewarding them for something that your other child did good. With a naturalized citizen you are rewarding good behavior.

I've got more to say but gotta get to work. cya!
 
jonny5 said:
Should legislation be more concerned with votes or whats in the best interest of the union? This seems like a pretty common sense amendment, which is how it should be proposed, not as a simple law. You shouldnt be a citizen simply for being born on US soil. You should be born to a US citizen.
Click to expand...

Why does who your parent's are matter? We already don't have full exercise of our rights until 21 (mostly 18), I say no citizens at birth. One must earn citizenship and become an American, else you just live here, can work here, no voting till you can prove you can find a state on the map.
 
Lachean said:
Why does who your parent's are matter? We already don't have full exercise of our rights until 21 (mostly 18), I say no citizens at birth. One must earn citizenship and become an American, else you just live here, can work here, no voting till you can prove you can find a state on the map.
Click to expand...

It matters because citizens have more legal standing. In an ideal USA, parents have earned the right to pass on citizenship to their children.
 
Kal'Stang said:
How many anchor babies are 21+ sponsoring thier parents for citizenship now? I would bet more than a few.
Click to expand...
I am unclear why it is actually a problem? Seriously, a couple of people that have put in collectively over 4 decades of effort, and have a number of years ahead of them yet. Buddha on a bike, what exactly do you want out of people to become citizens?
 
Kal'Stang said:
The distinction is that it is rewarding bad behavior.
Click to expand...
Being born is bad behavior????? The parents receive no reward. Unless you seriously consider waiting 21 years to be legally admitted a "reward." How is that more of a reward than a 21 year old marrying a US citizen gaining citizenship, and then bringing his/her parents over?

Its like your child doing something bad and then rewarding them for something that your other child did good. With a naturalized citizen you are rewarding good behavior.
Click to expand...
Again...21 years delay is not really a reward in my book.
 
jonny5 said:
You shouldnt be a citizen simply for being born on US soil. You should be born to a US citizen.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, are you seriously claiming that Blacks born in the mid-late 1800's shouldn't have been US citizens because their parents were not? That's the reason birthright citizenship was instituted, but you're saying it shouldn't have been.

So let's say it hadn't been. What would have been the consequences?
 
jonny5 said:
It matters because citizens have more legal standing. In an ideal USA, parents have earned the right to pass on citizenship to their children.
Click to expand...

I believe in individual rights, not transitive ones. That's your ideal USA, mine is much different.
 
Lachean said:
I believe in individual rights, not transitive ones. That's your ideal USA, mine is much different.
Click to expand...
Which gets us back to what this is really about, an attempt to (again, and further) legally entrench an intergenerational social class system. :(
 
Ray410 said:
Steve King, where were you when we needed you, no one spoke for our country and now it's gone.

Need to make this bill retroactive about thirty years in order to mitigate the incredible liberal engineered destruction that spread across the entire American landscape.
Click to expand...

Stormfront down for maintenance?
 
This issue is making a mountain out of a molehill. The vast majority of illegal migrants come here for jobs. Waiting 21 years for the kid to sponsor you, another five to six to get the paperwork done, and finally that issue of trying to get legal status when you already broke the law coming in seems like a pretty inefficient way to get citizenship. The fact that anyone, let alone enough people to make this a bigger problem than kids being born here without citizenship would do this (which I have seen no evidence of, and would be a major problem) just goes to show the inefficiencies of our system.

As for the point that America is only one of a few countries that has birthright citizenship, so what? Even if we ignore that this argument is nothing more than a thinly disguised appeal to authority, why should America be similar to the rest of the world? Very few countries have as stringent free speech protections as America does. Almost no countries have an equivalent to our gun rights. The same people who call for an end to birthright citizenship often vociferously defend these other things. I thought that America being special was something to be admired. Now I'm not saying that the uniqueness of our position is reason to have birthright citizenship. That's just as much of a fallacy as the opposite argument, but why the hell do we have to do what everybody else does?
 
jonny5 said:
In an ideal USA, parents have earned the right to pass on citizenship to their children.
Click to expand...

Being born here to citizen parents =/= earning the right to pass on citizenship, though. It is the exact opposite of earning said right.

there are only two type sof people who have done something to earn their citizenship: naturalized citizens who came here from another nation and went through the naturalization process and those who have performed civil services such as serving in the military. Everyone else, which is the vast majority, did nothing to earn their citizenship.
 
Tucker Case said:
Being born here to citizen parents =/= earning the right to pass on citizenship, though. It is the exact opposite of earning said right.

there are only two type sof people who have done something to earn their citizenship: naturalized citizens who came here from another nation and went through the naturalization process and those who have performed civil services such as serving in the military. Everyone else, which is the vast majority, did nothing to earn their citizenship.
Click to expand...

I had to pass a Constitution test in high school. :lol:
 
pinqy said:
I'm sorry, are you seriously claiming that Blacks born in the mid-late 1800's shouldn't have been US citizens because their parents were not? That's the reason birthright citizenship was instituted, but you're saying it shouldn't have been.

So let's say it hadn't been. What would have been the consequences?
Click to expand...

No, I am not claiming that.
 
Tucker Case said:
:lol: Me too. Is that just Illinois law, or is it national?
Click to expand...

Good question. I don't know. Probably Illinois. I had to pass an Illinois Constitution test in 8th grade too.
 
Tucker Case said:
Being born here to citizen parents =/= earning the right to pass on citizenship, though. It is the exact opposite of earning said right.

there are only two type sof people who have done something to earn their citizenship: naturalized citizens who came here from another nation and went through the naturalization process and those who have performed civil services such as serving in the military. Everyone else, which is the vast majority, did nothing to earn their citizenship.
Click to expand...

In an ideal USA, every citizen has obeyed the law and contributed to the administration of the union, through various means. That is the citizenship contract with the union.
 
jonny5 said:
In an ideal USA, every citizen has obeyed the law and contributed to the administration of the union, through various means. That is the citizenship contract with the union.
Click to expand...
In an ideal USA the immigration policies, government paralyzation and inaction, and bigoted nativists don’t help fabricate millions of said criminals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom