Politics

[Jeff505]

So..Trump want to deport how many paperless immigrants... Tens of thousands..? Who will replace them to do jobs that the average americans dont want..?

No matter how you slice it they are a part of the american economy..

I think the USA should approach illegal immigration the way Norway does, what say you Pondoro.

 

[PARA45]

I am of two minds of this. Someone gets a work visa, gets married and finally gets his green card. In the meantime has a kid. The kid would not be a US citizen as the parents did not get their green cards until after the kid was born. The kid would be in limbo.

I agree on closing the loophole where people come in 5 months pregnant, have their kid and leave.

I believe that will not be the case. What I believe is going to happen is for those who come here to have a baby and they are not US citizens or residents. Also, I believe this will apply to those illegally in the country and have a baby in the US.

 

[Woodcarver]

I am of two minds of this. Someone gets a work visa, gets married and finally gets his green card. In the meantime has a kid. The kid would not be a US citizen as the parents did not get their green cards until after the kid was born. The kid would be in limbo.

I agree on closing the loophole where people come in 5 months pregnant, have their kid and leave.

Your first example would fall under the stipulation of the 14th "and under the jurisdiction thereof", which would give the child citizenship. The parents are under the jurisdiction of the laws of the state and the US when they are here legally. I have no issue with the child being a citizen.

The problem is your second example. They are not in the country legally and have no intent to stay. There should be no such thing as an "anchor baby". This would then make every foreign diplomat's child that was born in the US while they served here an American citizen. They are not. They are citizens of the country of their parents. Why are they held to a different status? Because the 14th amendment has the requirement of " and under the jurisdiction thereof". The child of the diplomat is under the jurisdiction of the home country of the parents, not the US, just as their parents are.

The 14th was specifically written to clarify that the children of former slaves were citizens of the US by right of being born here. They were also here permanently, and subject to the jurisdiction of the state of residence and the US. Huge difference to the illegal sneaking in, having their baby, and then returning home (or staying illegally). I do think if this gets to the USSC, we might finally get rid of the nonsense of an "anchor baby", as it was not the intent, nor in the words, of the 14th Amendment. What would help is if the House and Senate would pass legislation to that effect in the meantime, but I doubt that will happen. Btw, I do not think this has ever been court tested, but I could be wrong about that.

 

[Lone Star Bluegrass]

[emoji[emoji6][emoji6]][emoji6]" data-quote="flatwater bill" data-source="post: 0" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">

I see that former Secretary of State Antony Blinken.....the man who would be king.....has hired a DC law firm to help him retain his security clearance during the Trump administration. ........FWB

So Blinken joins the ranks of men that have been assured by their lawyer that they “have a good, winnable case.”

As Jesse said: “buzzards gotta eat, same as the worms.”

 

[John Wasmuth]

So Blinken joins the ranks of men that have been assured by their lawyer that they “have a good, winnable case.”

As Jesse said: “buzzards gotta eat, same as the worms.”

“Josie”

 

[Scott CWO]

I believe that will not be the case. What I believe is going to happen is for those who come here to have a baby and they are not US citizens or residents. Also, I believe this will apply to those illegally in the country and have a baby in the US.

If you read the order, it would not start for 30 days so it is not retroactive.

 

[Lone Star Bluegrass]

[emoji[emoji6]][emoji[emoji6][emoji6]]" data-quote="John Wasmuth" data-source="post: 0" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch">

“Josie”

Autocorrect—same thing that keeps saying I shut the bed!

Thank you for the correction.

 

[Scott CWO]

Correct. Though in CA when one says Carmel, that is understood. Beautiful place though if you ever get there in the summer make sure you bring a sweatshirt for use at the beach. It can be deceiving as there is a really, really cold breeze at the beach.

I used to love the Highlands Inn with wood burning fireplace and a huge jacuzzi in their spa suites, with great ocean view. Lots of memories with a number of companions. Then, Hyatt bought the place and screwed it up. Haven’t been back since then.

My father-in-law is a retired golf pro and his favorite place is Pebble Beach and Carmel. We will be there in April for a round and a couple nights. Beautiful place!

 

[CJW]

What exactly did he say???

 

[Tanks]

Your first example would fall under the stipulation of the 14th "and under the jurisdiction thereof", which would give the child citizenship. The parents are under the jurisdiction of the laws of the state and the US when they are here legally. I have no issue with the child being a citizen.

The EO specifically mentions that children of the people here on a student or work visa DO NOT get citizenship.

 

[PHOENIX PHIL]

“Josie”

Josey.......one of my favorites, couldn't help myself.