Birthright Citizenship?

[TonySutton]

Gee thanks. It lists the position as "End Birthright Citizenship."

Pardon, didn't know you wanted me to hold your hand and whistle merrily along the way. I only took you half way there on purpose. If anyone wishes to know RPs position on a certain issue they should visit his website and do some research.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I have some Polish friends who had a baby here. They are not citizens, but their baby is. Are you saying that he shouldn't be a citizen?

I'm not Ron Paul, but my take would be that the baby should follow the parents...i.e. if they are Polish citizens, the baby should be a Polish citizen. If they are US citizens, the baby should be a US citizen.

If they go through a legal process to switch from being Polish citizens to US citizens, the baby should be included in that process, and switch with them...

Of course that is not how it is today...just a proposal...

 

[Xenophage]

I don't believe in ending birthright citizenship. I think illegal immigration is an economic issue, and a welfare state issue, and the battle should be fought on those grounds. Although Paul wants to end birthright citizenship, he's the only candidate who'll fight the *real* sources of illegal immigration problems.

 

[PennCustom4RP]

Yes, but they are not Americans as the earlier poster required.

So let me get this straight. I want to make sure that I've got RP's position (not the position of posters here) straight.

The ONLY people that would be denied birthright citizenship are children of illegal immigrants?

It is the illegal immigrants that are taking advantage of this clause in the 14th amendment, to which it was never intended.

I have some Scottish friends and they are resident legal aliens, living here permanently, so this gives them legal status in the US. Their children are American citizens.

 

[GravitysRainbow]

It is the illegal immigrants that are taking advantage of this clause in the 14th amendment, to which it was never intended.

I have some Scottish friends and they are resident legal aliens, living here permanently, so this gives them legal status in the US. Their children are American citizens.

Am I the only one who thinks that the 14th Amendment is more trouble than it's worth? It was one thing to end slavery, but now we're forcing private entities like businesses and the Boy Scouts to accept blacks and gays, taking away states' rights to administer elections through poll taxes, busing affluent children to ghetto schools, and providing a "get out of jail free" to anchor babies.

That couldn't have been what was intended. Maybe we should think about amending the Constitution. Has anyone looked into how you go about starting a Constitutional Convention? I know it's never been tried, but these days, barring a Ron Paul victory, it seems like the only way us everyday people could have any chance of challenging the Washington elite and its holy cow of an amendment.

 

[Mesogen]

Pardon, didn't know you wanted me to hold your hand and whistle merrily along the way. I only took you half way there on purpose. If anyone wishes to know RPs position on a certain issue they should visit his website and do some research.

All I saw was a vague statement and a single sentence that didn't explain anything.

I'm not Ron Paul, but my take would be that the baby should follow the parents...i.e. if they are Polish citizens, the baby should be a Polish citizen. If they are US citizens, the baby should be a US citizen.

If they go through a legal process to switch from being Polish citizens to US citizens, the baby should be included in that process, and switch with them...

Of course that is not how it is today...just a proposal...

That sounds like a coherent position. Not one I agree with, but it's understandable.

It is the illegal immigrants that are taking advantage of this clause in the 14th amendment, to which it was never intended.

I have some Scottish friends and they are resident legal aliens, living here permanently, so this gives them legal status in the US. Their children are American citizens.

If the amendment was intended to keep out illegal immigrants then maybe they should have put in a clause about that?

Their children are citizens because of the amendment that RP wants to change.

It'll never happen anyway, so all this is academic.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

If the amendment was intended to keep out illegal immigrants then maybe they should have put in a clause about that?

The Amendment had nothing to do with immigration. It had to do with the rights of people living and working in the US.

I believe that original intent was not to make citizens of a child born of foreign parents who just crossed the border for that specific purpose. If that was anticipated, it would have probably been addressed. Ron Paul's position that a loophole needs to be fixed is valid, and probably in the original spirit of the law. The current wording is not sufficient to answer the question.

"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."

Is a baby born of foreign parents "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States?

 

[snaFU]

Nice response...you got me there...that's the kind of intelligent response I have come to expect on this forum...not from the majority, but just a vocal minority.

what do you expect from xenephobes?

 

[cindy25]

the only major countries with birthright citizenship are USA, Canada and Australia.

UK has been parental since the 80s, Ireland and NZ since last year.

but ending birthright citizenship could be a bureaucratic nightmare. someone would have to prove his parents or one parent was a citizen. In countries with longtime parental citizenship such as Kuwait and the Philippines you have people whose families have been there for decades, and they are still not citizens.

 

[ErikBlack]

the only major countries with birthright citizenship are USA, Canada and Australia.

UK has been parental since the 80s, Ireland and NZ since last year.

but ending birthright citizenship could be a bureaucratic nightmare. someone would have to prove his parents or one parent was a citizen. In countries with longtime parental citizenship such as Kuwait and the Philippines you have people whose families have been there for decades, and they are still not citizens.

It seems like it would relatively easy to prove. When a baby is born the parents apply for a birth certificate. A condition of issuing a birth certificate would be that the parents prove their own citizenship. They could do this by any number of means, such as producing their own birth certificate, or a US passport, or social security card, whatever. Only once the parent's citizenship is verified will a birth certificate be issued to the baby. The same thing for social security cards. Obviously neither birth certificates or social security cards are very libertarian, but they have been around for a long time, we all have them and chances of them going away are slim at least in the near future. So that would be one method which could be used to prove citizenship.

 

[revolutionary8]

Here is the basic problem with Birthright Citizenship that many recognize... I think RP does as well...
Mexican Nationals only want the best for their families. Their own government is already a tyrannical dictatorship that many feel is beyond repair. They come to America to live "The American Dream". They are illegal aliens when they arrive. They find a job, get an id, find work, get a house. They have a child.
Their child has rights afforded them by the Constitution (even though they are becoming harder to find even for Citizens) of the US. The parents do not. The parents are plucked off of the streets for everything from a traffic ticket to a non-violent drug charge and pumped in to our prison empire. They are slaves. Families are ripped apart, children are left heartbroken. All because they believe in "The American Dream".

The Americans blame the illegals for what the elitists are doing, the illegals think the Americans are all racists and mad at them, and the elitists/oligarchs sit back and laugh.

It is devastating to watch it happen.

 

[RickSp]

Birthright citizenship dates back to the founding of this country. The only major exception was for slaves which was corrected by the 14th Amendment. It appears that Paul wants to renew the exception to citizenship, applying it this time to the children of immigrants.

I find it highly regrettable that Dr. Paul, the "champion of the Constitution", wants to amend the Constitution in violation of the clear intent of the founders. It is doubly regrettable that this sort of xenophobia is tainting a campaign allegedly based on promoting liberty and justice.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Birthright citizenship dates back to the founding of this country. The only major exception was for slaves which was corrected by the 14th Amendment. It appears that Paul wants to renew the exception to citizenship, applying it this time to the children of immigrants.

I find it highly regrettable that Dr. Paul, the "champion of the Constitution", wants to amend the Constitution in violation of the clear intent of the founders. It is doubly regrettable that this sort of xenophobia is tainting a campaign allegedly based on promoting liberty and justice.

I don't know why xenophobia (or racism) have to enter into the debate. I certainly don't believe that applies to Ron Paul. The desire to have consistent, fair and well-planned immigration policy makes sense. What we have today does not make sense. Wanting to correct the problem does not make one a "xenophobe".

And what about over-population? We can not continue to expand population infinitely in this country, or on this planet (although those who profit from the cheap labor pyramid scheme think we can).

And basic to Ron's philosophy is that we can't and shouldn't tell other countries what to do. If our economic system and rule of law stops at the border, than we surely need to control how many people cross that border.

Once again, there is nothing "xenophobic" about it.

 

[RickSp]

I don't know why xenophobia (or racism) have to enter into the debate. I certainly don't believe that applies to Ron Paul. The desire to have consistent, fair and well-planned immigration policy makes sense. What we have today does not make sense. Wanting to correct the problem does not make one a "xenophobe".

And what about over-population? We can not continue to expand population infinitely in this country, or on this planet (although those who profit from the cheap labor pyramid scheme think we can).

And basic to Ron's philosophy is that we can't and shouldn't tell other countries what to do. If our economic system and rule of law stops at the border, than we surely need to control how many people cross that border.

Once again, there is nothing "xenophobic" about it.

I support "fair and well-planned immigration policy". I only wish Dr. Paul did. The current laws that effectively ban most immigrants aren't working. The police state tactics promoted by the Republicans including Paul are also doomed to fail. A "fair and well-planned immigration policy" that would provide an eventual path to citizenship would help us control our borders while also being true to our values and traditions, even if the xenophobes and nativists would hate the idea that we would be letting so many brown-skinned folks in.

Overpopulation? If everyone in the world moved to the United States we would still have a population desnity only slightly higher than Belgium. The truth is we need immigrants in all segments of the economy.

And if you can't detect the xenophobia in the immigrant bashing by Republican party candidates including Dr. Paul, well that is your issue.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Overpopulation? If everyone in the world moved to the United States we would still have a population desnity only slightly higher than Belgium. The truth is we need immigrants in all segments of the economy.

Ok, you're not being serious now...

 

[ErikBlack]

Overpopulation? If everyone in the world moved to the United States we would still have a population desnity only slightly higher than Belgium. The truth is we need immigrants in all segments of the economy.

Yes, but you must realize that people of the United States have a much higher per capita consumption of natural resources as a result of our higher quality of life. Even though the population density of the US is relatively low our country has a greater environmental impact than any other nation. We cannot continue to broaden our base, bringing new people into our lifestyle because our country, and in fact the world, does not contain the resources needed to support our high consumption lifestyle in much greater numbers.

The US imports far more goods than it exports. This means we are consuming more than we produce. The more population expansion we experience the greater this balance is skewed. This creates poverty in the 3rd world and beyond that drives up prices here at home on limited resources such as oil which we are consuming at an astonishing rate.

 

[RickSp]

LOL. I was using Belgium as an example. I was not literally suggesting that the entire world move to the United States - only that concerns about overpopulation are wildly overblown. Malthus and Chicken Little have a lot in common. The sky is not falling.

We are still a nation of immigrants, even if the xenophobe conservatives get upset about it. It is time to defend the Constitution - including the 14th Amendment.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

... only that concerns about overpopulation are wildly overblown. Malthus and Chicken Little have a lot in common. The sky is not falling.

Of course, the sky is not falling today...

But if we were all yeast in a bottle of grape juice, almost finished converting all of the sugar into alcohol, there would still be yeast (people) saying the solution is population growth, right down to the bitter end. What worked in the past does not necessarily work in the future.

No worries though...In time, the "growth" solution will be appropriate again. There always has to be a few lemmings left over to start the cycle again.

 

[qh4dotcom]

I disagree with Ron Paul on this one...ending birthright citizenship will cause illegal immigrants parents to abandon their children if that is the only way they can remain in America. An abandoned child cannot be deported since no one knows who the parents are, nor if they are illegal immigrants or if they're dead or alive or where they came from. Also no one would be able to tell to what country the child should be deported to.

 

[noztnac]

Birthright citizenship dates back to the founding of this country. The only major exception was for slaves which was corrected by the 14th Amendment. It appears that Paul wants to renew the exception to citizenship, applying it this time to the children of immigrants.

I find it highly regrettable that Dr. Paul, the "champion of the Constitution", wants to amend the Constitution in violation of the clear intent of the founders. It is doubly regrettable that this sort of xenophobia is tainting a campaign allegedly based on promoting liberty and justice.

Back then we had an almost unlimited amount of land and we needed people to immigrate. Now things are different.

Mothers from around the world take vacations to the US specifically to have their children born in the US. I teach in South Korea and roughly 1/4 of my students are technically American because their mothers vacationed in Hawaii while pregnant.

There's nothing unconstitutional about amending the constitution.