Thread: UT: change to birthright citizenship debated

SALT LAKE CITY --

"Days after a resolution was introduced to the U.S. Senate that would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, the University of Utah Law school hosted a debate to explore whether the 14th Amendment should be changed.

Both Peter Schuck, a law professor at Yale University, and Margaret Stock, an Alaskan attorney and adjunct professor at the University Alaska Anchorage, said immigration reform is needed, but Stock argued strongly against changes to the 14th Amendment.

"I think Congress needs to fix the immigration laws and enforce them, not change the Constitution," Stock said.


Under the resolution proposed by Sens. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and David Vitter, R-La., citizenship would be denied to U.S.-born children of refugees, asylum residents, American Samoan U.S. nationals serving in the military and illegal immigrants.

"I assume they just made some drafting errors," Stock joked.

Denying citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants would create a bureaucratic nightmare by augmenting the number of illegal immigrants, Stock said.

For example, if the 14th Amendment was changed, a child born to a mother a few hours before she was scheduled to naturalize would not be considered a U.S. citizen, Stock added.

About 8 percent of military recruits are birthright citizens, or citizens born to illegal immigrants, Stock said. Changing the 14th Amendment would mean those recruits would no longer be eligible for military service, and many more would no longer be eligible for a draft."

Source:
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=14213612

Reading this article just make me want to throw up these kids are not U.S. citizens at birth. as long as both parent's are Hispanic from what ever country they come from, well that does in no way make them U.S. citizens it wouldn't be that big of a deal to do away with not granting birthright citizenship to these babies.

They hosted a debate? Wheres the debate? The entire commentary listed is pro illegal immigration ignoring what a law school debate should have concluded that there is indeed a big reason to look at possible misinterpretation.

They also say crap that isn't even true. Those about to get their naturalization would still have citizenship for their children as to get naturalization one must first be in the US legally which would qualify. As well as those who served in the military from Somoa along with legal asylum seekers as long as they were granted green cards to stay rather then just a short term asylum... same for legal refugee's. The key part is basically anyone legal would be eligible while those who are illegal wouldn't be.

Also far as 8% of the US Military being birthright citizens.... I'd think its safe to say we have the military forces already to cover the loss. Plus if we took those liberal cry babies out maybe the military would mean something again as far as disipline and attract more real Americans again as the liberal babying of the military has put many patriots off.

Originally Posted by LadyStClaire

Reading this article just make me want to throw up these kids are not U.S. citizens at birth. as long as both parent's are Hispanic from what ever country they come from, well that does in no way make them U.S. citizens it wouldn't be that big of a deal to do away with not granting birthright citizenship to these babies.

you right Lady St Claire
this is all OBama doing he want them to have every thing all for the vote in my book

Originally Posted by LadyStClaire

Reading this article just make me want to throw up these kids are not U.S. citizens at birth. as long as both parent's are Hispanic from what ever country they come from, well that does in no way make them U.S. citizens it wouldn't be that big of a deal to do away with not granting birthright citizenship to these babies.

Perhaps I'm reading yr comment incorrectly, but if these young adults were not U.S. citizens, they couldn't join the military and we would not need to revise our present "birth right" citizen law. Many people believe their parents have taken advantage of our present law, but anyone born here, is automatically a citizen, with all the rights afforded by the Constitution.

A number of these young citizens have served proudly in the military and few have made the supreme sacrifice.

Let's focus on improving the immigration process and enforcing our laws. Until a change is implemented, birth right citizenship is "the law" of our USA.

Originally Posted by magyart

Originally Posted by LadyStClaire

Reading this article just make me want to throw up these kids are not U.S. citizens at birth. as long as both parent's are Hispanic from what ever country they come from, well that does in no way make them U.S. citizens it wouldn't be that big of a deal to do away with not granting birthright citizenship to these babies.

Perhaps I'm reading yr comment incorrectly, but if these young adults were not U.S. citizens, they couldn't join the military and we would not need to revise our present "birth right" citizen law. Many people believe their parents have taken advantage of our present law, but anyone born here, is automatically a citizen, with all the rights afforded by the Constitution.

A number of these young citizens have served proudly in the military and few have made the supreme sacrifice.

Let's focus on improving the immigration process and enforcing our laws. Until a change is implemented, birth right citizenship is "the law" of our USA.

Just because it's "the law" doesn't mean I have to agree with it, which I don't. These anchors born to illegal parents in this country will never be considered U.S. citizens by me. In the end their loyality will always be their parents home country.

Utah is full of anchor and non-anchor children of illegal immigrants, mostly from Mexico, which costs the state an estimated $85,000,000 per year, while the state depresses and cuts teachers wages. Utah even has programs where Hispanics travel to other schools to teach English to other Hispanics. Utah continues to be a safe haven for illegal immigrants in large part because many businesses can't function without the cheaper labor and the revenues illegals bring to certain types of stores. Plus, illegals seem to count on the support of the predominant churches in Utah. It would be a huge surprise to see Utah actually enforce the laws of the land or solve the illegal immigration problem which is conveniently addresses as a federal problem. Restaurant kitchens, hotels, cleaning companies, warehouses, slaughter houses, meat plants, farms, motels, construction companies, etc. are likely staffed by people who could be illegal immigrants and chances are most are. IMO.
Getting anchor babies into the U.S. military usually strengthens the illegals cause because they can claim their anchor kids are fighting for this country. Plus the pay is good to help support their families and even put them through school, etc. The key is to get that baby to be born on U.S. soil to get U.S. citizenship.

Originally Posted by OneNationUnderGod

Originally Posted by magyart

Originally Posted by LadyStClaire

Reading this article just make me want to throw up these kids are not U.S. citizens at birth. as long as both parent's are Hispanic from what ever country they come from, well that does in no way make them U.S. citizens it wouldn't be that big of a deal to do away with not granting birthright citizenship to these babies.

Perhaps I'm reading yr comment incorrectly, but if these young adults were not U.S. citizens, they couldn't join the military and we would not need to revise our present "birth right" citizen law. Many people believe their parents have taken advantage of our present law, but anyone born here, is automatically a citizen, with all the rights afforded by the Constitution.

A number of these young citizens have served proudly in the military and few have made the supreme sacrifice.

Let's focus on improving the immigration process and enforcing our laws. Until a change is implemented, birth right citizenship is "the law" of our USA.

Just because it's "the law" doesn't mean I have to agree with it, which I don't. These anchors born to illegal parents in this country will never be considered U.S. citizens by me. In the end their loyality will always be their parents home country.

I agree, I won't support it.

Also tell me how exactly its the law? What precedents where set saying illegal aliens deserved citizenship for their children? When was a ruling done in favor of illegals? Where is the law that says its there right?

Not abiding by a law and ignoring a law does not create a defacto law. We have a law and it was ignored and not enforced as intended. But ignorance of the law does not equate a new acceptance law. If it was the law we wouldn't be going to the SC path to challenge it as it would be already established.

The Truth is it isn't law. Just because politicians ignored it for a long time and *winked* at its misuse doesn't mean its a law. The law is clear and solid. There is no legit arguement against it other then pity and sob stories.

The following link clarifying the 14th ammendment is lengthy, but extremely informative and it is worthy of printing and retaining. IMHO, when correct definition and clarification of the 14th ammendment is finally legislatively enforced, the conversation, judicial opinions, etc. surrounding this ammendment at the time of its origin will surface. These arguments are presented in this link.

http://www.originalintent.org/edu/citizenship.php

Due to the emphasis it puts on the rights of each state....it may be why the state of Arizona has introduced new birthrights legislation on and of its own.