Does this bother anyone?

[Anonymous]

The fact that 1 in 12 babies are born to illegals, or that congress wants to abolish the automatic US citizenship that comes with those circumstances?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/11/hispanic.study/index.html?hpt=T2

[jsteele]

Congress can't abolish the the automatic citizenship bestowed upon people born in the US. What bothers me is people who don't understand our Constitution, especially those who serve in Congress.

[Anonymous]

And people wonder why the schools are over crowded. Anchor babies, the new American Dream

[Anonymous]

Hopefully we will amend our constitution to remedy this situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully we will amend our constitution to remedy this situation.

If this were done, how would the revised amendment look? Would both parents have to be citizens? If only one, equal rights would presumably require that either would suffice. In the case of the father, would there be DNA testing to assure that there was no deceit? What if the father were unavailable or unwilling to cooperate?

Have any of you seen discussion of these issues?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact that 1 in 12 babies are born to illegals, or that congress wants to abolish the automatic US citizenship that comes with those circumstances?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/11/hispanic.study/index.html?hpt=T2

Yes. It makes me mad as hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fact that 1 in 12 babies are born to illegals, or that congress wants to abolish the automatic US citizenship that comes with those circumstances?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/11/hispanic.study/index.html?hpt=T2

How soon people forget that we are all children/decedents of immigrants. For the most part we are all better off than we would have been had our ancestors not come to this great nation. The overwhelming majority of immigrant people that I know today are good hard working people who have come to America for the same reasons as my ancestors. These are good and decent people who deserve to be respected and protected.

[Anonymous]

If we abolish citizenship for these children, won't that create even more illegals? How does that help the problem of having illegals in this country?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Congress can't abolish the the automatic citizenship bestowed upon people born in the US. What bothers me is people who don't understand our Constitution, especially those who serve in Congress.

Seriously, don't you think that the Court that decided that the "well regulated militia" clause was meaningless could just as easily decide that the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause can be interpreted to mean the parents are legal residents? I mention the Second Amendment to forestall a response based on precedent, which we now know is only as binding as the Roberts Court feels like allowing it to be.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, don't you think that the Court that decided that the "well regulated militia" clause was meaningless could just as easily decide that the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause can be interpreted to mean the parents are legal residents? I mention the Second Amendment to forestall a response based on precedent, which we now know is only as binding as the Roberts Court feels like allowing it to be.

I guess these days that's a justifiable fear. But, something tells me that guys with names such as Scalia and Alito will find immigrant-bashing difficult and a black dude wouldn't want to screw with the 14th amendment (though that may be overly optimistic of the black dude in question). If I'm right, that decimates the right wing of the court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And people wonder why the schools are over crowded. Anchor babies, the new American Dream

Oh, please. Which schools in this area are overcrowded because of all the children of illegals taking up space. Exactly which ones are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that 1 in 12 babies are born to illegals, or that congress wants to abolish the automatic US citizenship that comes with those circumstances?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/11/hispanic.study/index.html?hpt=T2

How soon people forget that we are all children/decedents of immigrants. For the most part we are all better off than we would have been had our ancestors not come to this great nation. The overwhelming majority of immigrant people that I know today are good hard working people who have come to America for the same reasons as my ancestors. These are good and decent people who deserve to be respected and protected.

The discussion is about "illegal" immigrants. Yes, as John F. Kennedy entitled his book, "A Nation of Immigrants", all US citizens, other than Native Americans, immigrated. However, and this is the big difference, my ancestors entered the country legally. That makes all the difference because they did not break the law to come into this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And people wonder why the schools are over crowded. Anchor babies, the new American Dream

Do you really want the United States to emulate Kuwait?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, don't you think that the Court that decided that the "well regulated militia" clause was meaningless could just as easily decide that the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause can be interpreted to mean the parents are legal residents? I mention the Second Amendment to forestall a response based on precedent, which we now know is only as binding as the Roberts Court feels like allowing it to be.

I guess these days that's a justifiable fear. But, something tells me that guys with names such as Scalia and Alito will find immigrant-bashing difficult and a black dude wouldn't want to screw with the 14th amendment (though that may be overly optimistic of the black dude in question). If I'm right, that decimates the right wing of the court.

Have you forgotten that the "black dude" is against affirmative action even though this is how he was able to attend college? Also, I do not agree with you about "guys with names" which end in vowels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, don't you think that the Court that decided that the "well regulated militia" clause was meaningless could just as easily decide that the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause can be interpreted to mean the parents are legal residents? I mention the Second Amendment to forestall a response based on precedent, which we now know is only as binding as the Roberts Court feels like allowing it to be.

I guess these days that's a justifiable fear. But, something tells me that guys with names such as Scalia and Alito will find immigrant-bashing difficult and a black dude wouldn't want to screw with the 14th amendment (though that may be overly optimistic of the black dude in question). If I'm right, that decimates the right wing of the court.

Have you forgotten that the "black dude" is against affirmative action even though this is how he was able to attend college? Also, I do not agree with you about "guys with names" which end in vowels.

What evidence do you have that that is how he attended college?

Also, there are lots of legitimate opinions against affirmative action (I don't subscribe to them personally), so it's reasonable for folks, black and white, to hold legitimate opposition to them. To equate affirmative action with the 14th Amendment in terms of the relevance to black people is a bit absurd, given that the 14th Amendment ONLY guaranteed the legitimacy of their personhood and whatnot.