Poll at yahoo on anchor babies

[Guest page90lx]

Go to yahoo's daily poll and vote what you think on Arizona law about anchor babies.

[Guest jackdm3]

Linky?

[Mike.357]

i know I am too lazy to go find it

[molonlabetn]

This is where I found it: What's your opinion on 'anchor babies'? - The Week

[towerclimber37]

26% say yes, 53% say NO! that should tell ya something

[MCSCOTT]

They should be deported immediately after they are born, along with the parents, and the hospital bills should be sent directly to their country of origin.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

They should be deported immediately after they are born, along with the parents, and the hospital bills should be sent directly to their country of origin.

Second that!

[Guest PapaB]

Here's where the Constitution allows for anchor babies.

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

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.

I think it's time for a new Constitutional Amendment. The 14th Amendment was passed to address the problem of slaves not being granted Citizenship. I think it's safe to say that the people this Amendment protected are now dead and gone.

I'd like to see an amendment giving citizenship only to children born of 2 legal residents of the U.S., at least one of whom must be a citizen. I'd also like to change the Constitution to require the President and Vice-President be born of 2 U.S. citizens. The current provision, that they be born on American soil, was designed to protect us from foreign governments infiltrating the highest levels of government. As it is now, I don't think we have that protection any longer.

[daddyo]

I'd also like to change the Constitution to require the President and Vice-President be born of 2 U.S. citizens. The current provision, that they be born on American soil, was designed to protect us from foreign governments infiltrating the highest levels of government. As it is now, I don't think we have that protection any longer.

Not only that, but an amendment that would require military service before being elected to the Presidency. It's obvious that the current POTUS' lack of military experience and leadership is killing us.

[Mike.357]

I believe in following the constitution, even the parts I may not like.

[G27]

Yep, that pesky 14th Amendment means we'd have to have another amendment to the constitution. I'd like to see that happen, but for now, I'm following the law of the land.

[Photoguy67]

I believe in following the constitution, even the parts I may not like.

I agree with that, however I don't think it should give the parents access to the U.S. whenever they feel like being here.

[Daniel]

No. At least one of the parents should be a legal resident. 54%

.

[Guest Boogieman]

I believe in following the constitution, even the parts I may not like.

I do too however I do not think that our forefathers thought what is happening today would be happening. Ammend it again, please......

[Mike.357]

I do too however I do not think that our forefathers thought what is happening today would be happening. Ammend it again, please......

now apply that to our 2A rights. Gets kind of sticky.

[Guest Boogieman]

now apply that to our 2A rights. Gets kind of sticky.

The thing is that we are not abusing our 2A rights. The illegals are abusing the 14th as an end around to gaining legal citizenship. It was foreseen that the people would have need to be armed to protect country, home, and family and thus it was written into the Constitution. What was not foreseen was wagon trains of pregnant illegals hopping the border while in labor and rushing to the nearest US hospital. The 2nd is being followed as intended, the 14th is not.....

[JAB]

now apply that to our 2A rights. Gets kind of sticky.

Except that those same babies are not allowed to own firearms until they reach a certain age. Aren't allowed to vote until they are 18, either. So the argument could be made that their rights under the 2A and other parts of the Constitution are not being protected, already. In other words, fine - when the kid hits 18 then he/she becomes a full citizen and at that time or any time thereafter he/she can choose to come to America with full citizenship rights with no restrictions and no red tape (except there are still some restrictions on their buying handguns, etc. - right?) If he/she is married and/or has children then his/her spouse and kids are viewed the same as if a lifelong U.S. citizen went to another country, met someone, was married and had kids. Until they are 18, however, their parents' citizenship is what counts and they can all go back to the parents' country of origin.

IMO, that would actually be more in line with the way other Constitutional rights seem to work than the current, "The kid gets to stay and his illegal parents can stay, too."

Another idea (and I have thought about this for a while but have seen it suggested elsewhere, too) is that the child, as a U.S. citizen, gets to stay as a ward of the state and the parents get sent home. That way, at least we are only paying government benefits to one person and not the whole famn damily. Of course, the parents are free to choose to take the kid back to their country of origin with them - and the kid is free to come back with full citizenship rights when he/she hits 18.

Edited June 24, 2010 by JAB

[G27]

The thing is that we are not abusing our 2A rights. The illegals are abusing the 14th as an end around to gaining legal citizenship. It was foreseen that the people would have need to be armed to protect country, home, and family and thus it was written into the Constitution. What was not foreseen was wagon trains of pregnant illegals hopping the border while in labor and rushing to the nearest US hospital. The 2nd is being followed as intended, the 14th is not.....

The point is if we treat the Constitution as the liberals do, as a 'living document' that changes over time, we are second guessing what the writers intended rather than what they stated. It's a slippery slope, which is why may of us are originalists.

We should do EXACTLY what the Constitution says unless we wish to change it. Luckily, the founding fathers left us an avenue by which we can amend the Constitution when things like this arise. Until that time, they're legal if born here.

Whether or not the parents should be allowed to stay is a different matter. I'm a hard-liner about this and say that the baby can stay if they put it up for adoption, otherwise it goes with them back to their homeland.

[Guest Boogieman]

The point is if we treat the Constitution as the liberals do, as a 'living document' that changes over time, we are second guessing what the writers intended rather than what they stated. It's a slippery slope, which is why may of us are originalists.

We should do EXACTLY what the Constitution says unless we wish to change it. Luckily, the founding fathers left us an avenue by which we can amend the Constitution when things like this arise. Until that time, they're legal if born here.

Whether or not the parents should be allowed to stay is a different matter. I'm a hard-liner about this and say that the baby can stay if they put it up for adoption, otherwise it goes with them back to their homeland.

+1

[MCSCOTT]

The point is if we treat the Constitution as the liberals do, as a 'living document' that changes over time, we are second guessing what the writers intended rather than what they stated. It's a slippery slope, which is why may of us are originalists.

We should do EXACTLY what the Constitution says unless we wish to change it. Luckily, the founding fathers left us an avenue by which we can amend the Constitution when things like this arise. Until that time, they're legal if born here.

Whether or not the parents should be allowed to stay is a different matter. I'm a hard-liner about this and say that the baby can stay if they put it up for adoption, otherwise it goes with them back to their homeland.

I guess this is really the only way we can look at this subject with the current state of the Constitution. I also think that it is becoming clearer that there needs to be some updating to it to cover abuses of rights such as this. I also think way too many people abuse the 1st as well, and there should be more clarification to that. It's definately risky to our 2A rights if they start making changes, and I definately don't think any changes should be made by our current POTUS.

I also agree that if the illegal parents do not want to put the baby up for adoption then the child should be sent back home with the parents. Either that, or execute the parents shortly after the child is born.....I bet that would slow down some of this abuse to what our country stands for.

[Mike.357]

The thing is that we are not abusing our 2A rights. The illegals are abusing the 14th as an end around to gaining legal citizenship. It was foreseen that the people would have need to be armed to protect country, home, and family and thus it was written into the Constitution. What was not foreseen was wagon trains of pregnant illegals hopping the border while in labor and rushing to the nearest US hospital. The 2nd is being followed as intended, the 14th is not.....

in your eyes and mine we are not abusing 2A, in a lot of other eyes we are. Anti gun folk always want to use the BoR as if it fluctuates depending on circumstances. I can't follow that line of thought. The BoR is what it says in words. It was not forseen that our border would be invaded, or was it?

And it was not forseen that there might be high capacity automatic rifles, but we don't want to let people make that play against us. Can't have it both ways.

Except that those same babies are not allowed to own firearms until they reach a certain age. Aren't allowed to vote until they are 18, either. So the argument could be made that their rights under the 2A and other parts of the Constitution are not being protected, already. In other words, fine - when the kid hits 18 then he/she becomes a full citizen and at that time or any time thereafter he/she can choose to come to America with full citizenship rights with no restrictions and no red tape (except there are still some restrictions on their buying handguns, etc. - right?) If he/she is married and/or has children then his/her spouse and kids are viewed the same as if a lifelong U.S. citizen went to another country, met someone, was married and had kids. Until they are 18, however, their parents' citizenship is what counts and they can all go back to the parents' country of origin.

IMO, that would actually be more in line with the way other Constitutional rights seem to work than the current, "The kid gets to stay and his illegal parents can stay, too."

Another idea (and I have thought about this for a while but have seen it suggested elsewhere, too) is that the child, as a U.S. citizen, gets to stay as a ward of the state and the parents get sent home. That way, at least we are only paying government benefits to one person and not the whole famn damily. Of course, the parents are free to choose to take the kid back to their country of origin with them - and the kid is free to come back with full citizenship rights when he/she hits 18.

you missed my point, and taking kids away from parents is not the answer. Nothing good comes of parentless children.

The point is if we treat the Constitution as the liberals do, as a 'living document' that changes over time, we are second guessing what the writers intended rather than what they stated. It's a slippery slope, which is why may of us are originalists.

We should do EXACTLY what the Constitution says unless we wish to change it. Luckily, the founding fathers left us an avenue by which we can amend the Constitution when things like this arise. Until that time, they're legal if born here.

Whether or not the parents should be allowed to stay is a different matter. I'm a hard-liner about this and say that the baby can stay if they put it up for adoption, otherwise it goes with them back to their homeland.

Bingo, this post is a winner.

[Guest Caveman]

This whole poll/discussion is a byproduct of the real problem. If we controlled and protected our borders and policies against illegal immigrants we would not have to worry about illegals procreating in our country and thus have to figure out what to do about their offspring. The Constitution does not need to change, the government's stance on the border and illegal immigration needs to change.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'll go with the "Originalist" argument, also, and stay away from

second guessing.

In the 14th Amendment:

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.

Is a baby born in the US, born of a man and a woman, illegally in this country, a citizen, because they are subject to

the jurisdiction of the US? If that's the case, it doesn't make any sense to me. I'm not blaming the baby, but it's not about

blame, and is about legality. There is probably a ruling that allows it, but it isn't right. The parents, not being citizens,

and having no rights here, and being the citizens of another country, should make the baby a citizen of the country of

origin. If my wife and I visit Mexico while she is pregnant, has the baby in Mexico, does that make our baby a Mexican?

[Daniel]

It makes the baby a dual citizen if you so chose. My sister was born in the UK. My parents turned down British citizenship.

[Guest jackdm3]

Because Great http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/general-off-topic/34381-britain-sucks.html