Moderator: Jon Estes
The need for this amendment rose of out slavery, the Civil War, and Reconstruction. Some say this law is outdated for the United States in present times. I haven't given it a lot of study, but I know it is involved in the problem of legally and compassionately dealing with illegal immigrant parents of children who are U.S. citizens.Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
As was prohibition (until it wasn't, of course).Sandy wrote:Birthright citizenship is as constitutional as the right to bear arms.
According to the American Immigration Council, "5.9 million U.S. citizen children under the age of 18 live with an undocumented family member." While that number is an estimate based on census date, I don't think it is a figment of the imagination.Sandy wrote:The problem is that these discussions focus on a crisis that is a figment of the imagination.
According to this site, the story is a little more complicated than that.Sandy wrote:We call that period of time "the Bush administration."...During that period of time, the 9-11 terrorists came into the US.
First came to U.S. in Oct. 1991 to study English in Tucson, Arizona. Had been in U.S. in April 1996, when he lived in Oakland, Cal. where he studied English, and later received flight training in Scottsdale, Arizona. He left in Nov. 1996 and returned again in Nov. 1997 while he obtained a FAA commercial pilot certificate. He left again in April 1999.
Arrived at Los Angeles Jan. 15, 2000 with Nawaf al-Hamzi on B-2 tourist visa from Malaysia.
In January 2000, obtained 10-year, multiple entry tourist visa in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Entered the U.S. in May 2000, applied September for change of status to student.
Entered the U.S. in May 2001. According to the 2/04 Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, his passport may have had "suspicious indicators."
[Data compiled from various news sources and checked where possible against official sources including the Dec. 2002 Senate report "Joint inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001" (Released in July 2003) and the Feb. 2004 Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks.]
Rvaughn wrote:According to the American Immigration Council, "5.9 million U.S. citizen children under the age of 18 live with an undocumented family member." While that number is an estimate based on census date, I don't think it is a figment of the imagination.
Of course it is a cumulative total (and of course I didn't say anything about Trump or a wall). I am responding to Keith's original post about what kind of changes we might need to make. It seems to me that there is a disconnect between birthright citizenship and some things in our immigration laws. And it will be a crisis to the child who is a citizen by birthright if ICE says they need to send the parents back where they came from. I raised this point to wonder what changes could bring this disconnect more in line together, maintaining good immigration law while showing concern for these families. Or do we need to tweak birthright citizenship some way to help address this? Perhaps you have no ideas about that, but railing against Trump doesn't really address the question I'm asking.Sandy wrote:That's a cumulative total and includes all of those who are in this country illegally. Trump is claiming that this is still a "crisis." For some who naively think that a border barrier and enforcement can stop all illegal crossing, perhaps. But the southern border is not the only source of the problem.
Rvaughn wrote:Of course it is a cumulative total (and of course I didn't say anything about Trump or a wall). I am responding to Keith's original post about what kind of changes we might need to make. It seems to me that there is a disconnect between birthright citizenship and some things in our immigration laws. And it will be a crisis to the child who is a citizen by birthright if ICE says they need to send the parents back where they came from. I raised this point to wonder what changes could bring this disconnect more in line together, maintaining good immigration law while showing concern for these families. Or do we need to tweak birthright citizenship some way to help address this? Perhaps you have no ideas about that, but railing against Trump doesn't really address the question I'm asking.Sandy wrote:That's a cumulative total and includes all of those who are in this country illegally. Trump is claiming that this is still a "crisis." For some who naively think that a border barrier and enforcement can stop all illegal crossing, perhaps. But the southern border is not the only source of the problem.
It is a big problem to every family who lives under this shadow.Sandy wrote:How much of a problem is it that there are 5.9 million parents in the country "illegally" though connected to their children because of birthright citizenship?
Thanks. I think some kind of "pathway to citizenship" should be worked on as a solution, at least working on giving parents of U. S. minor citizens some kind of legal status that is not "illegal." My opinion is that is definitely the solution for those who are already here and are contributing members of our society. The possible downside of this is that it could encourage other people to come to the U.S. to have birthright citizens and become "legal" rather than choosing the "normal" route to legal citizenship.Sandy wrote:I don't see why our government could not come up with a "pathway to citizenship" that would not involve deporting them to their country of origin.
Sandy wrote:Perhaps one of the ways of compensating for this would be to deduct whatever cost there may be to taxpayers from any foreign aid the US provides their country of origin. For most of them, being here represents a new chance at life. Let them have it.
Rvaughn wrote:The possible downside of this is that it could encourage other people to come to the U.S. to have birthright citizens and become "legal" rather than choosing the "normal" route to legal citizenship.
Rvaughn wrote:According to this site, the story is a little more complicated than that.Sandy wrote:We call that period of time "the Bush administration."...During that period of time, the 9-11 terrorists came into the US.First came to U.S. in Oct. 1991 to study English in Tucson, Arizona. Had been in U.S. in April 1996, when he lived in Oakland, Cal. where he studied English, and later received flight training in Scottsdale, Arizona. He left in Nov. 1996 and returned again in Nov. 1997 while he obtained a FAA commercial pilot certificate. He left again in April 1999.Arrived at Los Angeles Jan. 15, 2000 with Nawaf al-Hamzi on B-2 tourist visa from Malaysia.In January 2000, obtained 10-year, multiple entry tourist visa in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Entered the U.S. in May 2000, applied September for change of status to student.Entered the U.S. in May 2001. According to the 2/04 Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, his passport may have had "suspicious indicators."[Data compiled from various news sources and checked where possible against official sources including the Dec. 2002 Senate report "Joint inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001" (Released in July 2003) and the Feb. 2004 Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks.]
Sandy wrote:9-11 happened on W's watch. Yes, some of them had been in the country before, and one for a while prior to the attack, but just about every memoir I've read on the subject says that the Bush administration's watch on immigration and border security wasn't paying attention and if they had been, they may have prevented the attack.
Sandy wrote:9-11 happened on W's watch. Yes, some of them had been in the country before, and one for a while prior to the attack, but just about every memoir I've read on the subject says that the Bush administration's watch on immigration and border security wasn't paying attention and if they had been, they may have prevented the attack.
Sandy wrote:Both of James Risen's works on the subject are well documented. I picked up The New Pearl Harbor right after it came out. State of War is also pretty good. And there's some pretty good background in Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower.
I think that is right, probably both the easiest and best for those who are here. Are you also saying just continue the same process for the future?Sandy wrote:The easiest way to do this would be to give anyone who is here because they have a child who is a birthright citizen a visa and then require them to participate in some form of class or training experience in order to earn citizenship.
No implication; just correction. Sandy spoke of "that period of time 'the Bush administration'" and "During that period of time, the 9-11 terrorists came into the US." Some of them came during the George W. Bush administration and some did not. It is not correct to assign one thing happening in a certain period of time when it did not.KeithE wrote:Interesting stuff, Rvaughn. It is very complicated. I’ve been aware of this for years (being a 9/11 skeptic). Your point is that many of the initial hijacker entries into the US was during the Clinton period to counter Sandy. You are right. Your implication is (I guess) one can’t blame Bush for 9/11.
Rvaughn wrote:I think that is right, probably both the easiest and best for those who are here. Are you also saying just continue the same process for the future?Sandy wrote:The easiest way to do this would be to give anyone who is here because they have a child who is a birthright citizen a visa and then require them to participate in some form of class or training experience in order to earn citizenship.
Sandy wrote:Rvaughn wrote:I think that is right, probably both the easiest and best for those who are here. Are you also saying just continue the same process for the future?Sandy wrote:The easiest way to do this would be to give anyone who is here because they have a child who is a birthright citizen a visa and then require them to participate in some form of class or training experience in order to earn citizenship.
Sure. From an economic standpoint the country can easily support it, especially since many of those here illegally from Mexico in particular are returning in larger numbers than they are entering. Changing that law is about as likely as repealing the electoral college.
Immediate Relative Green Cards are processed within a few months since they have no yearly cap
Family Preference Green Cards are processed from 1 to 10 years depending on the wait time and yearly caps
Employment Based Green Cards are processed from 1 to 4 years depending on the wait time and yearly caps
Diversity Green Card winners are announced within 7 months after the initial lottery applications, but the visa processing after the announcements takes another 7 months.
From getting a green card to taking the U.S. citizenship test and interview, it can take quite a long time to become a U.S. citizen. Currently, it takes about 6 months to a year to get U.S. Citizenship from the time you apply.
Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests