How's that Hispanic outreach workin' out for ya, GOP?

My take on illegal immigrants is well-known. But just to repeat it: since my husband, father, and maternal grandparents were immigrants, clearly I don't have a problem with the idea.

I do, however, have a problem with uncontrolled population flows across our border.

EVEN WITH...

No, ESPECIALLY WITH, the best of intentions, this situation shouldn't persist. Let's get rid of the liberal notion that the only problem with illegal immigrants is lack of papers.

IF we had a humane, rational immigration policy, we would allow in a certain number of immigrants every year, limited by our ability to screen for criminals and communicable diseases like TB, and by our ability to TEACH ENGLISH to every immigrant and make them familiar with our laws and customs. The idea that all we need to do is let people in and give them papers is like feeding pigeons in the park: cheap charity. Besides, when I find myself on same side as corporations, I double check my arguments to see if they make sense.

As it is, in LA half of the people that I talk to don't know English. That doesn't work for them, OR for me.

In exchange for amnesty (because, really, this reform effort is like Reagan's amnesty, which was suppsed to fix the problem "once and for all"... nine million people ago!) let's do a real "once and for all" thing: let's amend the Consitution to get rid of the "anchor baby" provision. The 14th amendment has long outlived it's usefulness, and no other nation in the world.... not even in S and Central America... has that provision.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:


In exchange for amnesty (because, really, this reform effort is like Reagan's amnesty, which was suppsed to fix the problem "once and for all"... nine million people ago!) let's do a real "once and for all" thing: let's amend the Consitution to get rid of the "anchor baby" provision. The 14th amendment has long outlived it's usefulness, and no other nation in the world.... not even in S and Central America... has that provision.

---

Oh, you poor rational, intelligent, person.

I agree with you- that IS, if not THE, at least one of the major, solutions to the problem.

And you propose the correct method of fixing it: amending the Constitution. I'd sign a petition for that. I'd vote for that. I'd elect a Congressman or Senator who ran on that.

But it's an extremely high hurdle. Doesn't it take, like, a 3/4 super-majority in Congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states? You'll never find the votes.

But you're right. I wish you well.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

The Constitutional Amendment Process

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.

In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson s

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

It's not just the Fourteenth that gives citizenship to "anchor babies" as you call them; the Constitution itself, before any amendments, lists the same requirements for citizenship.


I have to ask: By what rights are YOU all citizens of the United States, those of you who are?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

OK. 2/3 of Congress , 3/4 of the states. Try to remember that one, NOBC.
Right up there after what you had for breakfast, and where you left your glasses, teeth, hearing aid and cane. You can do it, Old Timer... :<)

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

US 14th amendment

"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."

Canadian law

Canadian citizenship is typically obtained by birth in Canada, birth abroad when at least one parent is a Canadian citizen and was born or naturalized in Canada, or by adoption abroad by at least one Canadian citizen.

Australian law

Most children born in Australia before 20 August 1986 are Australian citizens by birth unless one parent was entitled to diplomatic privileges or was a consular officer of another country.
Children born after that date are only Australian citizens if at least one parent was an Australian citizen or permanent resident at the time of their birth.
Children born in Australia to parents who are not Australian citizens or permanent residents, automatically acquire Australian citizenship on their 10th birthday if they have lived most of their life in Australia.

French law

... children born in France of foreign parents remain foreign until obtaining legal majority.
Children born in France to tourists or short-term visitors do not acquire French citizenship by virtue of birth in France: residency must be proven.

German law

German citizenship is based primarily on the principle of jus sanguinis. In other words one usually acquires German citizenship if a parent is a German citizen, irrespective of place of birth.[citation needed]

A significant reform to the nationality law was passed by the Bundestag (the German parliament) in 1999, and came into force on 1 January 2000. The new law makes it somewhat easier for foreigners resident in Germany on a long-term basis, and especially their German-born children, to acquire German citizenship.



I was curious so I glanced at a few other countries. It does seem reasonable to restrict citizenship to children where at least one parent is a citizen.

I'm not sure that illegal immigrants come from 'south of the border' due to 'anchor baby' provisions. However, there's a thriving multi-million dollar birthing tourist trade for Chinese women who ARE coming here to get their babies birthed in the US specifically. They enter the US as tourists close to their due date, check into a private home that's been set up to accommodate many pregnant women, give birth under the auspices of a private doctor, and return home shortly afterward.

As for illegal immigrants, I read these figures a few weeks ago. Here they are quoted, but I haven't verified the information:

One in 10 Los Angeles County residents is an immigrant living in the country illegally, according to a study released Tuesday by the USC Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration.

Many of those immigrants have been in the country for more than a decade and are the parents of children who are American citizens, the study found. One in five children in Los Angeles County has at least one parent who is in the country without proper documentation.

One in four of the estimated 11 million people said to be in the United States without legal authorization lives in California. Statewide, the study estimates that about 7% of residents, or more than 2.6 million people, are in the country illegally.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME