send them back try again, get on Line.
2007-07-02 09:22:53 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
nice speech now remember you are wrong, Diplomats and stuff are not if they give birth here the kid is NOT
2007-07-02 09:27:45 · update #1
sangria YOU DO look drunk.
2007-07-02 09:43:33 · update #2
Anchor babies are a sham. It makes no sense because their parents use their births as an excuse to stay here illegally.
Send parents and baby back from whence they came!
2007-07-02 09:26:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 5⤋
14th Amendment of the United States Constitution:
"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."
The people who ratifed that were not criminals. It was ratified in 1868. At that time there was no such thing as an "illegal alien" because the first immigration law, the Chinese Exclusion Act, wasn't passed until 1881. Immigration laws do not supercede the Constitution.
Criminals can and do make legally-binding contracts. If a shop-lifter or a speeder contracts to buy a car on credit, his conviction doesn't void the contract. He still keeps the car as long as he makes the payments.
Here's something that was written by a criminal (according to the British government): "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
2007-07-02 17:05:18 · answer #2 · answered by Ray Eston Smith Jr 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because the 14 Amendment to the Constitution says that they are.
"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."
The Supreme Court upheld, in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, upheld that children of non-citizens born in the US were citizens by birth. I think this is more broad of an interpretation of the 14th Amendment than was intended, but since US vs Ark was in 1898, I think it's too late to change the precedent.
However, the child's citizenship in no way transfers to the parents, so you can still deport the parents. I'm betting they would take their child with them.
2007-07-02 17:21:38 · answer #3 · answered by Chredon 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I'm still trying to figure out the logic of that question. Oh wait, there isn't any. If you're born in the good ol' U.S.of A you are considered an American citizen. It's in the constitution. Get over it.
2007-07-02 16:31:57 · answer #4 · answered by Spirish_1 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
should we piss on the Constitution while we are at it? If you have a problem with illegals being here then fine, that's a fair argument.. lets debate it. Those born on American soil are citizens legally.. when we start deporting LEGAL citizens is a day I hope I never live to see... for that is a day that America has failed.
EDIT: In retrospect I have to add.. you just likened the birth of a child to a contract by criminals. So punish the child.. a legal US citizen for their parents crimes?
2007-07-02 16:29:22 · answer #5 · answered by pip 7 · 7⤊ 2⤋
Awwww! How have they affected you personally, though? You rail about immigration enough so I just have to wonder... Anyways, guess what? Sorry to say it, but you're not really accomplishing anything by constantly whining about it. But please continue, and let the adults vote how they will... that is, to continue to allow illegals to cross the border and reward them with amnesty. =)
WoW! Haven't heard that one before! ---> Sarcasm
Obviously, I can make a damn good argument if that's all you can come back with... Try again.
2007-07-02 16:34:56 · answer #6 · answered by Sangria 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
because they were born on american soil. that's the reasoning behind the laws regarding this.
2007-07-02 19:23:49 · answer #7 · answered by ὀκτάπους 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that is a GREAT question! The fact that they are illegal should trump naturalization. It probably does, but when you are talking about human beings (and not just contracts) it gets a little stickier...anyhow, I give you a star for most thoughful question today! See, beauty AND brains is key...;)
2007-07-02 16:50:15 · answer #8 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Because of a liberal interpretation of the 14th amendment. I believe we need to change the wording by adding an another amendment. Does anyone else out there have the guts to vote in a manner that could create an impact in 2008?
2007-07-02 16:30:54 · answer #9 · answered by The Real America 4 · 0⤊ 6⤋
Poor phrasing of the 14th Amendment that allowed it. So are you going to do something constructive about it, or just shoot off your mouth and vent your spleen?
2007-07-02 16:26:50 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 3⤋