Hey Constitutional Originalists ...

#26
#26
I'm 2A as all hell but I, and in fact the overwhelming majority of gun owners, can see the "reasonableness" of not having flame throwers for sale in convenience stores. And in this case we are in fact talking about an original part of the Constitution.

There's not a damn thing "reasonable" about anchor babies planted here by people who in absolutely every literal sense are on our soil illegally from the moment they arrive. Moreover, it's basically impossible to accept you aren't fully aware of this.
 
#27
#27
I'm willing to accept the babies as citizens as long as their parents get deported and can't become legal citizens through amnesty. Deal?
 
#28
#28
hndog609 said:
I'm 2A as all hell but I, and in fact the overwhelming majority of gun owners, can see the "reasonableness" of not having flame throwers for sale in convenience stores. And in this case we are in fact talking about an original part of the Constitution.

There's not a damn thing "reasonable" about anchor babies planted here by people who in absolutely every literal sense are on our soil illegally from the moment they arrive. Moreover, it's basically impossible to accept you aren't fully aware of this.
Click to expand...

Can you point me to the part of the constitution that references the difference between "original" parts and whatever you would call the alternative?



This is a pretty simple philosophical dividing line.

The ones who want to keep the 14th Amendment as is need to explain how that amendment in anyway was foreseeing the current situation, and/or adequately handling the issue.

The ones who want to change it need to demonstrate how that doesn't contradict the idea that the constitution should be interpreted "as is" because the people who wrote it were superhuman geniuses the likes of which the world will never see again.
 
#29
#29
utvolpj said:
I'm willing to accept the babies as citizens as long as their parents get deported and can't become legal citizens through amnesty. Deal?
Click to expand...

That would be consistent, but would create the problem of deporting US citizens into 3rd world countries, or breaking up those families that so many claim to have "strong values" for. Plus then the child would be receiving "government welfare."
 
#31
#31
IPorange said:
That would be consistent, but would create the problem of deporting US citizens into 3rd world countries, or breaking up those families that so many claim to have "strong values" for. Plus then the child would be receiving "government welfare."
Click to expand...

who said to deport the US citizens? May make anchor parents think twice before running thru the desert after their water breaks. If the parents truly cared for the children would they make that choice?
 
#32
#32
utvolpj said:
who said to deport the US citizens? May make anchor parents think twice before running thru the desert after their water breaks. If the parents truly cared for the children would they make that choice?
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Everyone in their right mind knows the government would not deport the natural parents and leave the child here.

The parents of the child know this as well.
 
#33
#33
utvolpj said:
I'm willing to accept the babies as citizens as long as their parents get deported and can't become legal citizens through amnesty. Deal?
Click to expand...


What is the source of the notion that, if an illegal immigrant has a baby on U.S. soil, then both the baby and the parent are U.S. citizens?
 
#34
#34
lawgator1 said:
What is the source of the notion that, if an illegal immigrant has a baby on U.S. soil, then both the baby and the parent are U.S. citizens?
Click to expand...

then you are for deporting the parents who broke the law in crossing the border? You are against amnesty and/or path to citizenship for these parents?
 
#35
#35
Wikipedia says:

The term "anchor baby" is a misnomer — it implies that by having a baby in the US, temporary or illegal immigrants can "anchor" themselves in the US. In fact, a US citizen child cannot file for a US visa for that citizen's parents until 21 years of age, and upon reaching that age, the citizen applicant must also be earning at least 125% of the US poverty threshold to be able to apply. Thus, temporary or illegal immigrants who have babies in the US have no means of remaining legally in the US; they must return home and wait at least until the child reaches age 21. Illegal immigrants usually cannot immigrate even after the child turns 21 since they usually face a multi-year or lifetime ban from immigration to the USA, regardless of sponsorship.


Do any of you really think that illegal immigrants come here, have a baby, and wait 21 years to claim a visa? Come on!

 
#37
#37
IPorange said:
Can you point me to the part of the constitution that references the difference between "original" parts and whatever you would call the alternative?



This is a pretty simple philosophical dividing line.

The ones who want to keep the 14th Amendment as is need to explain how that amendment in anyway was foreseeing the current situation, and/or adequately handling the issue.

The ones who want to change it need to demonstrate how that doesn't contradict the idea that the constitution should be interpreted "as is" because the people who wrote it were superhuman geniuses the likes of which the world will never see again.
Click to expand...

Droski's already made that argument and I'm rather in agreement, the constitution as written and the BOR (all ratified in 1791) is the basic docuement. The rest has been tacked on (or even off) in piecemeal fashion.

As for the rest of it I think in general your philosophical divide is pretty well stated. What's muddying the waters in this case is the fact we're talking about the issue's predication on illegal activity. Quite simply, in my mind anyway, the fact their parents are here illegally makes them de facto illegal and the 14th has no business applying for no other reason than that.
 
#38
#38
lawgator1 said:
Wikipedia says:

The term "anchor baby" is a misnomer — it implies that by having a baby in the US, temporary or illegal immigrants can "anchor" themselves in the US. In fact, a US citizen child cannot file for a US visa for that citizen's parents until 21 years of age, and upon reaching that age, the citizen applicant must also be earning at least 125% of the US poverty threshold to be able to apply. Thus, temporary or illegal immigrants who have babies in the US have no means of remaining legally in the US; they must return home and wait at least until the child reaches age 21. Illegal immigrants usually cannot immigrate even after the child turns 21 since they usually face a multi-year or lifetime ban from immigration to the USA, regardless of sponsorship.


Do any of you really think that illegal immigrants come here, have a baby, and wait 21 years to claim a visa? Come on!
Click to expand...
Why do they need a visa or citizenship?
They currently get here without either, and stay without either. They realize there is law on the books prohibiting how they got here. Waiting in line to become a citizen takes a lot longer, than having a baby and knowing your not gonna be deported leaving your gift for the US to raise.
 
#39
#39
lawgator1 said:
Wikipedia says:

The term "anchor baby" is a misnomer — it implies that by having a baby in the US, temporary or illegal immigrants can "anchor" themselves in the US. In fact, a US citizen child cannot file for a US visa for that citizen's parents until 21 years of age, and upon reaching that age, the citizen applicant must also be earning at least 125% of the US poverty threshold to be able to apply. Thus, temporary or illegal immigrants who have babies in the US have no means of remaining legally in the US; they must return home and wait at least until the child reaches age 21. Illegal immigrants usually cannot immigrate even after the child turns 21 since they usually face a multi-year or lifetime ban from immigration to the USA, regardless of sponsorship.


Do any of you really think that illegal immigrants come here, have a baby, and wait 21 years to claim a visa? Come on!
Click to expand...

sigh

it's about getting deported. i.e. the us govt will not deport an illegal if their child is a citizen.
 
#40
#40
BeecherVol said:
Why do they need a visa or citizenship?
They currently get here without either, and stay without either. They realize there is law on the books prohibiting how they got here. Waiting in line to become a citizen takes a lot longer, than having a baby and knowing your not gonna be deported leaving your gift for the US to raise.
Click to expand...



If that is so, then why does it matter if they have a baby? And why does it matter if the baby is a citizen?


droski said:
sigh

it's about getting deported. i.e. the us govt will not deport an illegal if their child is a citizen.
Click to expand...


You are saying that the practice is to not deport someone who has had a baby here? Link on that?
 
#42
#42
lawgator1 said:
If that is so, then why does it matter if they have a baby? And why does it matter if the baby is a citizen?
Click to expand...

BeecherVol said:
Why do they need a visa or citizenship?
They currently get here without either, and stay without either. They realize there is law on the books prohibiting how they got here. Waiting in line to become a citizen takes a lot longer, than having a baby and knowing your not gonna be deported leaving your gift for the US to raise.
Click to expand...

Simple, there not naive enough to think they may not need that card in the future. The baby's citizenship is enough to remove most doubt.

See Arizona Immigration Law for an added answer as to why they realize they need to do more to stay, than just what they did to get here in the future.
 
#43
#43
wedhealthyconstitution.jpg


8y9e94.gif
 
#44
#44
I guess since the amendment allowing women to vote/hold office isn't one of the originals, it doesn't carry as much weight. Interesting.
 
#45
#45
I addressed this issue once before.

It would be inconsistent to agree with what the GOP is currently planning in regards to the 14th Amendment and disagree when the left uses a similar argument regarding the 2nd Amendment.
 
#46
#46
droski said:
jesus. aren't you a lawyer? rather obvious you dont' live in a border state
Click to expand...


Well, let's see. I've got the law itself which is that the parents can apply for a visa when the baby turns 21 but that until then the parents are subject to deportation.

And I've got you insisting that the parents are nonetheless allowed by Immigration officials to stay if they had a baby here. When I ask you for data on that (and I really would be interested to see it), you dismiss the question as immaterial.

Starting to sense that maybe the "baby anchor" thing isn't real at all, and is conjured up to justify general opposition to a part of the 14th amendment.
 
#47
#47
MG1968 said:
I addressed this issue once before.

It would be inconsistent to agree with what the GOP is currently planning in regards to the 14th Amendment and disagree when the left uses a similar argument regarding the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

Sounds like it's time for a Constitutional Convention!
 
#48
#48
Lexvol said:
What if...the mother is lying with her body in Mexico and actually shoots the baby out projectile style.... and without touching the ground the baby lands in Texas?
Click to expand...

I think both feet have to be down.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#50
#50
lawgator1 said:
What's up with this?

Legislators set sights on 'anchor babies' - CNN.com

The Fourteenth Amendment says:

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.



So how is this misapplied?
Click to expand...

LG you know damn well that that was one of the Reconstruction Amendments that wasn't worded well. Stop, man, you know exactly what it was intended to do.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top