14th Amendment

[PochoPatriot]

Interesting thoughts. I thought that it would require a Constitutional amendment to change things to a more sane approach to the anchor baby problem. I am glad I was wrong. I realize that there may be one or two on this and other boards that will say, "I told you so." To them I retort, "Perhaps if you had been less offensive and abrasive in your interactions with me over this issue, then you could have swayed me."

Anyway, one thing that could be a problem with changing the law, is that it could cause an increase of pregnant illegal invaders wanting to drop an anchor baby prior to the change of the law. Therefore, an increased presence at the border would be absolutely necessary.

On other issue, are the liberals that control the public social services at the state and local level. This area must be controlled somehow. This segment of government must be controlled because they will brazenly refuse to enforce the law.

[ilbegone]

Originally Posted by PochoPatriot

Interesting thoughts. I thought that it would require a Constitutional amendment to change things to a more sane approach to the anchor baby problem. I am glad I was wrong. I realize that there may be one or two on this and other boards that will say, "I told you so." To them I retort, "Perhaps if you had been less offensive and abrasive in your interactions with me over this issue, then you could have swayed me."

Anyway, one thing that could be a problem with changing the law, is that it could cause an increase of pregnant illegal invaders wanting to drop an anchor baby prior to the change of the law. Therefore, an increased presence at the border would be absolutely necessary.

On other issue, are the liberals that control the public social services at the state and local level. This area must be controlled somehow. This segment of government must be controlled because they will brazenly refuse to enforce the law.

I didn't think it could be changed - I still think it would be a difficult prospect due to the general thought process concerning the 14th amendment.

Nor do I believe that US citizenship should be stripped from those who have benefited from misinterpretation of the 14th amendment. That would serve only to open a can of worms which would lead to to willy - nilly disenfranchisement of anyone out of favor with the the power to be at the particular moment.

As far as addressing the abuse of social services, there still needs to be a strategy for identifying operative managers who instruct that a blind eye be turned or even active recruitment of illegal aliens engaged in by by low echelon public employees.

[Twoller]

This is great. It could be real progress.

We need to go back and correctly establish that only when the parents are both US citizens and the birth is in the US, only then is the offspring a US citizen.

Once we can set this right, it is only a formality to remove the citizenship of the anchor babies. This is like amnesty. Amnesty does not work because it does not do anything to confront illegal immigration and, in fact, has the opposite effect. Everybody on the other side of the US border wants in before amnesty is posted with the limitations. Where you have amnesty, so also you have people who are unqualified after a certain date.

We cannot set some kind of bounderies for who and who is not a citizen based on birth right. The best that the anchor babies should be able to hope for is that they can line up to be naturalized like anybody else. But meanwhile, no voting at least. Naturalization would be the place to determine exactly who and what we have in terms of anchor babies. Those from English speaking countries would have less of a problem, but anchor babies who grew up with no English would have to be removed.

[Patriotic Army Mom]

Ted Hayes is great on explaining this situation.