Time: Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona

[Flipsyde]

How in the WORLD does this not violate the spirit of the law

I apologize I should have been more clear. It doesn't violate the spirit of the 14th amendment. That is what I meant, not the proposed law in question.

[Teller]

I was speaking specifically about Arizona's GOP who seem to only wish to pass one awful law after another, and they WILL pay the price for that mistake, because make no mistake Caucasians will soon no longer be the majority race in America, that's a fact that many are going to have a VERY difficult time coming to grips with.

Difficult, hell.

I'm thinking I'll "see the light" and become an affirmative action supporter then.

[MaddogCT]

Just waiting for the time when an AZ lawmaker is exposed to have hired an illegal immigrant. That will be fun.

[Thiebear]

"Evil Government Is Evil, Hey, Wait, I Can't Fix This! FIX THIS FOR ME EVIL GOVERNMENT!"

I'm sure they'd probably be crying about federal gov't infringing on state's rights, if they actually had done something by now.

Psst: protecting the borders IS one of the few things they are supposed to do.

AND is why Arizona is getting in trouble by trying to draw attention.

[Tweedr01]

So what? You type this as if it matters. The US is not a direct democracy and the constitution already has rules in place for making changes to it. That simple majority simply doesn't have the power to change the rules on this issue. This isn't an accident either, stuff like this is supposed to be extremely difficult to change so that an ignorant simple majority can't **** everything up.

That poll matters about as much as this entire conversation on a message board does, so what?

[TimmySmith]

Psst: protecting the borders IS one of the few things they are supposed to do.

AND is why Arizona is getting in trouble by trying to draw attention.

Indeed. Arizona making reactionary law is somehow "controversial", while the federal government's lack of enforcement of existing laws is not.

[Burgold]

Indeed. Arizona making reactionary law is somehow "controversial", while the federal government's lack of enforcement of existing laws is not.

Well, I would hope that creating laws that go against the Constitution would be controversial. Wouldn't you hope so too?

[Tweedr01]

Some very interesting stuff here:

Section one of the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to accomplish one purpose: End to denial of those fundamental rights that belong to all citizens of the United States by virtue of citizenship under Article IV' date=' Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution wherever they traveled within the Union. Under the original Constitution, citizens of the United States were required to be first a citizen of some State - something newly emancipated citizens could not claim. This is why it was imperative for the first section to begin with a definition of citizenship so that no State could refuse recognition of newly freed slaves as U.S. citizens by withholding the right to protection of the laws in life, liberty or property in the courts as enjoyed by white citizens.[/quote']

http://federalistblog.us/mt/articles/14th_dummy_guide.htm

[Burgold]

If that's how you think it should be interpeted than you take that argument to the Supreme Court... then, if they agree that's when you pass this law.

[Bang]

I don't have an opinion on this possible law one way or another at this point. BUT, I think it is as clearly spelled out in the constitution as it can be.

I find it amusing watching people in this thread pretty much say that isn't what it means and that it doesn't matter.

As has been said numerous times. If you want to change the constitution to reflect a modern problem, there are methods of doing so than just ignoring it entirely.

I think the bigger threat to our country is people who decide that if the Constitution doesn't suit their immediate needs, then the answer is to defy it.

I wonder how many of our parents or grandparents acted as anchor babies for as yet unnaturalized parents arriving from where they came from?

~Bang

[DixieFlatline]

If that's how you think it should be interpeted than you take that argument to the Supreme Court... then, if they agree that's when you pass this law.

To play devil's advocate, you can't just decide to take an argument to the Supreme Court to get clarification on the Constitution. There has to be some sort of legal disagreement going on. The only way to do that is pass a law that seems to fly in the face of it and move it up the Courts.

[DixieFlatline]

I don't have an opinion on this possible law one way or another at this point. BUT, I think it is as clearly spelled out in the constitution as it can be.

I find it amusing watching people in this thread pretty much say that isn't what it means and that it doesn't matter.

As has been said numerous times. If you want to change the constitution to reflect a modern problem, there are methods of doing so than just ignoring it entirely.

I think the bigger threat to our country is people who decide that if the Constitution doesn't suit their immediate needs, then the answer is to defy it.

I wonder how many of our parents or grandparents acted as anchor babies for as yet unnaturalized parents arriving from where they came from?

~Bang

I think of the arguments on the law supporters side are interesting enough to explore. Specifically the quote from one of the co-authors explicitly saying aliens wouldn't be covered. I would think on your example of parents/grandparents that most of them were here legally and under jurisdiction of the US.

I've yet to hear how people coincide how a diplomat's baby isn't covered, but a baby of an illegal alien is.

[Tweedr01]

I don't have an opinion on this possible law one way or another at this point. BUT, I think it is as clearly spelled out in the constitution as it can be.

I find it amusing watching people in this thread pretty much say that isn't what it means and that it doesn't matter.

As has been said numerous times. If you want to change the constitution to reflect a modern problem, there are methods of doing so than just ignoring it entirely.

I think the bigger threat to our country is people who decide that if the Constitution doesn't suit their immediate needs, then the answer is to defy it.

I wonder how many of our parents or grandparents acted as anchor babies for as yet unnaturalized parents arriving from where they came from?

~Bang

For sure I posted to show the history of why the law was made, but it also shows that the law was created/changed at some point as well to address a very important issue. It seems that most believe the Constitution is a hands off document, and that nothing can be changed, which is wrong. It can be changed, and it has been done many times before when a critical situation arises. I think now consitutues as one of those situations, which is why AZ is going to such lengths to get noticed. Again, this controversy brings about discussion, which can lead to change, whether that change occurs or does not is yet to be seen though.

[Tweedr01]

I think of the arguments on the law supporters side are interesting enough to explore. Specifically the quote from one of the co-authors explicitly saying aliens wouldn't be covered. I would think on your example of parents/grandparents that most of them were here legally and under jurisdiction of the US.

I've yet to hear how people coincide how a diplomat's baby isn't covered, but a baby of an illegal alien is.

Now if a diplomat, tourist, or another legal visitor of the US had a child while here, would the government fight to make the child a US citizen? Or is this only applicable to illegal aliens?

[Henry]

Now if a diplomat, tourist, or another legal visitor of the US had a child while here, would the government fight to make the child a US citizen? Or is this only applicable to illegal aliens?

I suspect most diplomats/tourists don't WANT their kids to be US citizens so it's not really an issue. My sister was born in Italy while my dad worked for the foreign service. Until she was 18 she had dual citizenship, and then she chose the US. It never made the papers in either country.

This thread is really something. For years I've heard "I don't care what they are doing here or why, illegal means ILLEGAL." So many of you are ALL about the letter of the law when it comes to the word 'illegal' in 'illegal aliens' (and I actually agree with that) but apparently the letter of the law means nothing when we are talking about the constitution of the United States. It's disgusting.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Now if a diplomat, tourist, or another legal visitor of the US had a child while here, would the government fight to make the child a US citizen? Or is this only applicable to illegal aliens?

Diplomats are not subject to US jurisdiction. So, under the 14th Amendment...no.

Tourists are subject to US jurisdiction. So, under the 14th amendment...yes.

Illegal immigrants are subject to US jurisdiction. So, under the 14th amendment...yes.

Invading armies are not subject to US jurisdiction. So, under the 14th amendment....no.

So to answer the question they ask on every thread on Free Republic. Yes...if Osama Bin Laden snuck into the country with one of his wives...and she had a baby. The baby would be a US citizen at birth and - yes - could run for president when he or she turned 35.

Ooooooohhhhhhhh.....spooky!

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I suspect most diplomats/tourists don't WANT their kids to be US citizens so it's not really an issue. My sister was born in Italy while my dad worked for the foreign service. Until she was 18 she had dual citizenship, and then she chose the US. It never made the papers in either country.

Your sister's citizenship in Italy is governed by Italian law. She was a US citizen at birth. I'm not sure what you mean by "choosing the US." I assume that Italy needed her to take some overt step to continue her dual citizenship and she did not do so.

A friend of mine moved to Italy after law school. He acquired Italian citizenship a few years ago, because there are some aspects of the Italian economy (I guess) that are cut off to non-citizens.

[Tweedr01]

Diplomats are not subject to US jurisdiction. So' date=' under the 14th Amendment...no.

Tourists are subject to US jurisdiction. So, under the 14th amendment...yes.

Illegal immigrants are subject to US jurisdiction. So, under the 14th amendment...yes.

Invading armies are not subject to US jurisdiction. So, under the 14th amendment....no.

So to answer the question they ask on every thread on Free Republic. Yes...if Osama Bin Laden snuck into the country with one of his wives...and she had a baby. The baby would be a US citizen at birth and - yes - could run for president when he or she turned 35.

Ooooooohhhhhhhh.....spooky![/quote']

Thanks for answering, I really had no idea one way or the other if there were stipulations to the law, but thats what I figured. What if under our US jurisdiction, the two that would be under our jurisdiction, they did not want to be US Citizens, would it matter what they wanted? Would they have to become US Citizens because of this law, or do they get a choice? I'm just trying to see how far the law goes.

[Larry]

I think of the arguments on the law supporters side are interesting enough to explore. Specifically the quote from one of the co-authors explicitly saying aliens wouldn't be covered. I would think on your example of parents/grandparents that most of them were here legally and under jurisdiction of the US.

I've yet to hear how people coincide how a diplomat's baby isn't covered, but a baby of an illegal alien is.

1) I do agree. That one quote somebody posted actually does seem relevant, to me.

2) I'm not at all certain that children born to diplomats aren't US Citizens, right now.

I've read that there are, right now, travel agencies which are selling "baby packages" to expectant families, whereby they can come to the US and stay in a hotel across the street from a hospital until "it's time", simply so that the parents can give their child the gift of dual citizenship (US and wherever they come from), in case the kid wants to be a US citizen, when he grows up.

Somehow, I don't see anybody complaining about rich parents basically buying US Citizenship for their kid, as a birthday present.

[Larry]

So to answer the question they ask on every thread on Free Republic. Yes...if Osama Bin Laden snuck into the country with one of his wives...and she had a baby. The baby would be a US citizen at birth and - yes - could run for president when he or she turned 35.

But only if whatever state they're in will issue them a long form birth certificate.

[Larry]

Thanks for answering, I really had no idea one way or the other if there were stipulations to the law, but thats what I figured. What if under our US jurisdiction, the two that would be under our jurisdiction, they did not want to be US Citizens, would it matter what they wanted? Would they have to become US Citizens because of this law, or do they get a choice? I'm just trying to see how far the law goes.

As I understand it from the "Birther" threads (note: I'm assuming that the Birthers actually are telling the truth about this law.) . . .

A parent cannot reject citizenship for their child. A child, born in the US, is a citizen. Period. (As are all children born, overseas, to US citizens.)

However, the US law also says that if, by the time the child turns 25, he has not moved back to the US, (and I think the law says something like "or has taken some other active step to affirm his US citizenship"), then the law assumes that the now-adult has renounced his own citizenship.

[Kilmer17]

15 pages and 221 replies on this board tells me the proposed law has had it's desired affect.

[Tweedr01]

1) I do agree. That one quote somebody posted actually does seem relevant, to me.

2) I'm not at all certain that children born to diplomats aren't US Citizens, right now.

I've read that there are, right now, travel agencies which are selling "baby packages" to expectant families, whereby they can come to the US and stay in a hotel across the street from a hospital until "it's time", simply so that the parents can give their child the gift of dual citizenship (US and wherever they come from), in case the kid wants to be a US citizen, when he grows up.

Somehow, I don't see anybody complaining about rich parents basically buying US Citizenship for their kid, as a birthday present.

To be honest I never knew they had trips like that setup, I think that is total crap too for travel agencies to set something like that up as well. Do you have any info on this, or any numbers as to how many people actually do this kind of thing?

[The 12th Commandment]

To be honest I never knew they had trips like that setup, I think that is total crap too for travel agencies to set something like that up as well. Do you have any info on this, or any numbers as to how many people actually do this kind of thing?

Why is that a problem for you? People with means don't have to hop a ship from their home country anymore they do something like this instead. I don't see a problem with it, it's immigrants doing what immigrants do. Old timers where proud as punch when their kids where American.

[Burgold]

To play devil's advocate, you can't just decide to take an argument to the Supreme Court to get clarification on the Constitution. There has to be some sort of legal disagreement going on. The only way to do that is pass a law that seems to fly in the face of it and move it up the Courts.

Not necessarily so. If you could prove... say you get the administrators of a hospital to join you... that you are damaged by this "illegal citizenship" that's been misinterpreted than you could sue and get a happy courtcase going.

The trick is to figure out who has been hurt by this law and how you can sue to get a clarification by a good conservative activist judge.