Should the US change citizenship rules for babies born in the US?
Only a few European countries still grant automatic citizenship at birth. The United Kingdom and Australia repealed their U.S.-style policies in the 1980s after witnessing abuses similar to those plaguing the U.S. today.
Should the illegal parents of US born babies be allowed to stay? Why or why not.
Answer:
The birth laws in the US cannot be changed unless Congress repeal or amend the existing birth procedure involving citizenship.
No they should no be allowed to stay. They came here illegally and do not pay taxes. They steal other people`s identity and social security numbers. It is a slap in the face to the immigrants who are here legally. As for the children born here, congress needs to pass a bill that does not automatically make an illegal immigrant`s baby a citizen if they are here illegally.
Nope.. it shouldn't matter where you are popped out. You should be your parents nationality.. however their native countries deal with it.
ABSLOUTELY NOT! We have enough bloody problems without adding to the mix!
Yes, especially if parents are illegal. Have you heard of breaking the law. Why should they not pay for law-breaking like anyone else?
Read the series called "The Next 100 Million Americans" on Rense.com, and you will have your answer.
This country is on the brink of overpopulation disaster, and most people don't care because they are too busy buying things, watching sports or partying.
Yes - they need to change the law. The law was written for legal immigrants in the US. It is being taken advantage of by illegals. No - they should not be allowed to stay. If they don't want to take their baby with them back to their home country, then they should give up parental rights and let the baby be adopted.
I'm tired of supporting all of the illegals here. They need to come here legally if they want to live in this country.
if parent's are not legal then the child or children should not be citizens. it only opens the door for more illegals to come here and have their kids. and then they bring the rest of their family members here. we have to many stealing from are system already.
Yes that rule does suck, if you are born you are automatically granted citizenship, no wonder america is the land of refugees and immigrants. all want a piece of the american dream. it sucks that your tax dollars are paying for them. where i come from citizenship is based on your father's citizenship. if you were born here and your mom is citizen but your that is not, you would not be a citizen.
I would agree only legal immigrants can stay in america and have a baby. It easier to keep an eye on them.
I mean its just to easy it reeks, all of the tax dollars goes to people who come to have babies there.
Yes, babies born here should not be granted automatic citizenship. No, parents must go back home with the child and apply for entry to the US.
Yes, the law is outdated and needs to be revoked. It now acts only as yet another incentive to encourage illegal immigration. A child born in the USA should only receive whatever legal citizenship the parents have, therefore, in order to receive US citizenship, the child should have at least one legal US citizen parent.
No, illegal parents of US born babies should be deported. Until the anchor baby law is revoked, the illegal parents should have the choice to either leave the baby in the US or take the baby with them when they are deported.
I agree with everyone, they absolutely should not be automatic citizens. And whose tax dollars pay for those babies to be born here? Yep, ours. Because illegal immigrants aren't known for their great insurance policies.
''Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.''
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO just because you crawl, swim or fly across a border and drop your kid, that should NOT make you a citizen. At least one parent needs to be a citizen. The resources PILLAGED by these people is astronomical. Why should regular citizens have to PAY for these peoples kids? Aren't tax payers tired of this yet?
I think somebody took over vegas girls computer,
I'm not sure the Supreme Court has ever ruled that children of those illegally here are citizens just by virtue of birth. However, I think they should not be. People are gaming our laws to pull an end run around immigration limits and to make us pay for them to raise their families when we never even agreed to let them in.
It has to stop.
yes they should change it, it makes no sense and it is not what the constitution intended.
if u vote democrat u can only blame yourself. they will DO NOTHING about illegal immigration
The law has to be changed.It is being abused.Why wouldn't they come here to drop their baby if they know they will get welfare and housing because of that child.We are being taken advantage of.The sad part is,that if an American citizen needs some help,you have to jump through hoops to get anyone to help you.
The illegal parents should not be allowed to stay just because of their anchor baby.
No.
We are the USA, the melting pot of the world. There have to be some sort of implement in line to allow for passage into this great country.
WE DON'T NEED ILLEGALS NOR THEIR BABIES IN THIS COUNTRY. WE DIDN'T INVITE THEM HERE WHY SHOULD WE MAINTAIN THEM HERE?
no more anchor babies, change the law, make it retro back about 30 years,
as for the guy that posted the statue of liberty plaque, well, try this on for size, that is intended for people that want to become American citizens, learn the laws, the language, the history, take the test to become citizens as described by law not sneak in here and spit out babies like a Pez dispenser for our tax dollars to educate and provide medical coverage for, look around folks, enough is enough, time to take our country back from the liberal lying politicians, all of them.
The law should be changed IMMEDIATELY. I am so tired of them coming over here illegally and being rewarded for it.
By the way, I am very liberal and I know I am not the only one who feels this way.
I love that retro-active idea from above. Awesome!
If it were to be changed it should be retroactive to 1600's.
Yes! All of those who did not have legal permission to be here when they were born, or who's parents or grandparents were here illegally, or great grandparents. Hey did those people on the Mayflower have the current inhabitant's legal authority to settle here? I think we should round up all their descendants too and send them back to where they came from. God, my grandparents came from a bunch of countries, would they have to chop me up and send me back to each?
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. A million times yes. If an illegal alien can sneak over the border, all they have to do is have a baby to become legal. And, if you didn't already guess this, they do just that. They have their babies, for free mind you, and then they become legal. It's too easy and the law needs to be changed. Especially under these circumstances.
No, parents should not be allowed to stay. Why should they? They aren't legal.
The U.S. Constitution -Amendment 14- 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.......”
In 1866, Congress proposed the 14th amendment to prevent recently emancipated slaves (already residing in the U.S.) from being denied “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (section 1). It also prevented some southern states from denying state citizenship to their black population of freed slaves.
Notice the phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the first sentence. In what manner is an illegal alien (who broke the law to get here) subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. or any state thereof? The phrase, “wherein they reside”, implies a legal residence in a given state. (see clarification below)
In section 2, an exclusion to those who may covered by the amendment is made for insurrectionists and lawbreakers, “...except for participation in rebellion, or other crime...”
Clearly, the original intent was not to include those who “jurisdiction” might be questioned (as in a foreign national giving birth on U.S. soil) and not to include lawbreakers and criminals (i.e. illegal aliens).
As if if weren’t clear enough for whom the amendment was intended, here are the words of Senator Jacob Howard (co-author of the amendment’s citizenship clause) in 1866,
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
How did this clear meaning of Senator’s Howard’s elucidation come to be so twisted in its meaning so as to include automatic citizenship to the offspring of illegal foreigners who give birth on American soil? It happened as a result of activist judges. Not interested in the original intent of the amendment writers, they freely change the meaning of our constitution so as to create their own legislation and social agenda without any constitutional authority to do so.
In 1994, Californian voters overwhelmingly passed state initiative #187. It called for an end to taxpayer funded support of illegal aliens. What happened to that law? It was struck down by activist judges who determined that schools, hospitals, and public aid agencies could not, by law, even inquiry as to the nationality of the benefit recipient. Thanks again to judicial activism- illegally usurping congressional and voter rights to create their own social policies at whim.
Facts:
-approximately 165,000 anchor babies are born in America each year (subject to all the aid benefits of a U.S. citizen)
-60% of the babies born in Los Angeles community hospitals are born to illegal aliens (at taxpayer expense).
-when the “anchor baby” reaches 21 years of age he may apply to legally bring his entire family to the U.S. acquiring even more tax payer supported benefits.
-parents of anchor babies are rarely, if ever deported, hence the term, "anchor baby".
-all European countries who maintained similar ‘automatic citizenship rights’ policies, abandoned such policies in the 1980’s when subjected to the same abuse that the U.S. is currently experiencing. The Republic of Ireland was the last to do so.
look around you theyre all pregnant looks like damn cockroaches running around everywhere. they dont care our goverment will take care of them and cast your *** to the curb.
Well this is a pretty sticky situation but I think that if the parents didn't have permission to be here then I think citizenship should not be given to the child despite the fact they were born here.
While I agree there is a problem, I would hesitate to break a rite of passage which has been extended for so long.
As for the mother- no. I don't think she should be allowed to become a citizen any faster just because her child is. It may sound harsh, but if she thinks enough of her child's future that she would sacrifice separating from him so that he/she could have that better life, then we as Americans should continue the tradition of offering him automatic citizenship. But as soon as is safe for the infant, the mother should be escorted to the border with or without her child. That part should be her choice.
of course they should be allowed to stay. the native americans let your ancestors stay. you should extend the courtesy to others.
The immigration information post by website user , MyTend.com not guarantee correctness