Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I'm sorry -- you don't consider the 14th amendments to be part of the constitution?> Of course I do. I just share its author's view that it should confer automatic citizenship on anyone born here.
Originally Posted By DlandJB Did you mean you DON'T share the author's view? How then do you believe citizenship should be confered?
Originally Posted By jonvn Actually, I don't think people born here when their parents are here illegally should be granted citizenship, either.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Did you mean you DON'T share the author's view?> No, I meant what I said. <How then do you believe citizenship should be confered?> As the amendment says, citizenship should only be conferred upon those properly naturalized or those born here whose parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the US, ie citizens or here legally.
Originally Posted By DlandJB So let's say someone comes here illegally and has kids. Then later on they get naturalized. Would the kids then have to also become naturalized or would they automatically be citizens? It would be interesting to know if any Americans who became famous or were highly decorated soldiers were children of illegals. I'm sure we would find a few. I honestly have not made up my mind about this. I don't see why children should be made to pay for the parents' crimes.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So let's say someone comes here illegally and has kids. Then later on they get naturalized. Would the kids then have to also become naturalized or would they automatically be citizens?> One, someone here illegally shouldn't be able to get naturalized. But given that, the kids should also have to get naturalized. <I don't see why children should be made to pay for the parents' crimes.> Not receiving a benefit one is not entitled to is not a punishment.
Originally Posted By DlandJB No, I meant what I said.>> Sorry for the misunderstanding. The 14th Amendment 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" I don't see the word "properly" with "naturalized" and there is no "born here whose parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the US." Born in or naturalized is all it says.
Originally Posted By DlandJB One, someone here illegally shouldn't be able to get naturalized. But given that, the kids should also have to get naturalized.>>>> But it happens all the time.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh If you do a little research, you'll find that originally, that provision of the amendment did not apply to the children of American Indians. A statute had to be enacted at a later date to grant them citizenship. Why? Because even though they were all born here, they were born to parents who were not under the jurisdiction of the US. Similarly, people here illegally are not under the jurisdiction of the US, and their children cannot be born under it. Any other interpretation of the provision makes the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" unnecessary.
Originally Posted By DlandJB I didn't say it did make it right. I just said it has been status quo for a long time.
Originally Posted By DlandJB Because even though they were all born here, they were born to parents who were not under the jurisdiction of the US. >>> Unles the US decided it wanted to move them to another reservation.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd Of course planned parent hood which is where buffet and gates gave a lot of their cash, will help educate people as to their choices. Having masses of children is a selfdestructive act that shows a lack of respect for yourself and the planet, and god.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>That is a problem everywhere, isn't it? A huge problem. Look at how little potable water exists in the world right now.<< It is also very likely that nations will go to war in the future over water rights. >>But the old cliche "necessity is the mother of invention" holds true. We will find the water we need if we really want to...and when we really have to.<< Better to never be in that situation to begin with.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I'd say if you were a Native American, the time to do that would have been around 1620.<< Perhaps we should learn from their mistake.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd <<< >>I'd say if you were a Native American, the time to do that [stop immigration] would have been around 1620.<< Perhaps we should learn from their mistake.>>> Never give a sucker an even break.
Originally Posted By DlandJB It is also very likely that nations will go to war in the future over water rights. >>>>>>>>.. I wouldn't be at all surprised.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <>>I'd say if you were a Native American, the time to do that would have been around 1620.<< Perhaps we should learn from their mistake.> Interesting thought
