President is really winding up the anti-immigrant crowd - order to end birthright citizenship

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Viper1j

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2018
4,193
3,697
136
Yeah i can get behind the original intent for sure, but maybe a revamp could be in order lol. It is kind of silly to let someone have full citizenship rights just because they happened to be plopped out here and maybe were in country a whole week or so before their parents took them back home to their actual country.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

Constitutional Amendment Process
The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or the state calls for a convention, depending on what Congress has specified. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist's certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.

In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.


Good luck with that.
 

rvborgh

Member
Apr 16, 2014
195
94
101
When i was a kid growing as a US citizen expat in Taiwan... we had local women that would get pregnant, then fly to the US early as tourists if only to give birth to their child in the US so that they would be citizens. i am not sure that the 14th amendment was meant/intended to be applied to such people.

Now many years later the parent was able to become a citizen due to the child.

They had no historical links to the US other than being a tourist.

i think at least one of the parents of a child "born on the soil" (jus soli) should be a citizen at least for a child to inherit US citizen ship. So basically i think both jus soli and Jus sanguinis should be in operation and not just jus soli.

btw, Trump looks at problems from a "is it working" perspective then proceeds from there. Maybe that kind of approach drivers liberal/progressives crazy. It makes sense to me.

That's my $0.02 worth... but this will go to SCOTUS and they'll have to decide this Should be interesting for sure.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,774
49,427
136
When i was a kid growing as a US citizen expat in Taiwan... we had local women that would get pregnant, then fly to the US early as tourists if only to give birth to their child in the US so that they would be citizens. i am not sure that the 14th amendment was meant/intended to be applied to such people.

Yes, the 14th amendment was intended to be applied to those people. That much is abundantly clear from the statements of those who wrote and passed the 14th amendment.

Now many years later the parent was able to become a citizen due to the child.

They had no historical links to the US other than being a tourist.

i think at least one of the parents of a child "born on the soil" (jus soli) should be a citizen at least for a child to inherit US citizen ship. So basically i think both jus soli and Jus sanguinis should be in operation and not just jus soli.

btw, Trump looks at problems from a "is it working" perspective then proceeds from there. Maybe that kind of approach drivers liberal/progressives crazy. It makes sense to me.

That's my $0.02 worth... but this will go to SCOTUS and they'll have to decide this Should be interesting for sure.


As for Trump's perspective, there's little indication that he looks at something and asks if it is working or not. He rarely has sufficient grasp of what is even going on to make those kind of judgments anyway. While I greatly dislike Trump I'm not saying that to slam him, it's just a statement of fact that he doesn't really know what's going on for any given day.

A good example would be trade policy. He appeared to look at the issue and decide it 'wasn't working' but the problem is he didn't even know how to determine if our trade relationships worked because he thought trade deficits were money leaving the country.
 
Feb 4, 2009
34,703
15,950
136
When i was a kid growing as a US citizen expat in Taiwan... we had local women that would get pregnant, then fly to the US early as tourists if only to give birth to their child in the US so that they would be citizens. i am not sure that the 14th amendment was meant/intended to be applied to such people.

Now many years later the parent was able to become a citizen due to the child.

They had no historical links to the US other than being a tourist.

i think at least one of the parents of a child "born on the soil" (jus soli) should be a citizen at least for a child to inherit US citizen ship. So basically i think both jus soli and Jus sanguinis should be in operation and not just jus soli.

btw, Trump looks at problems from a "is it working" perspective then proceeds from there. Maybe that kind of approach drivers liberal/progressives crazy. It makes sense to me.

That's my $0.02 worth... but this will go to SCOTUS and they'll have to decide this Should be interesting for sure.

Or the President could negotiate & compromise (you know art of the deal stuff) and get the 14th amended.

Again I don’t know if birthright citizenship is helpful or detrimental but executive order is certainly not the way to handle it.
I’m not even sure if there is a real birth tourism problem. I’m sure it happens but I have been hearing about it since the late 70s but never met one.
 
Reactions: Meghan54

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
When i was a kid growing as a US citizen expat in Taiwan... we had local women that would get pregnant, then fly to the US early as tourists if only to give birth to their child in the US so that they would be citizens. i am not sure that the 14th amendment was meant/intended to be applied to such people.

Now many years later the parent was able to become a citizen due to the child.

They had no historical links to the US other than being a tourist.

i think at least one of the parents of a child "born on the soil" (jus soli) should be a citizen at least for a child to inherit US citizen ship. So basically i think both jus soli and Jus sanguinis should be in operation and not just jus soli.

btw, Trump looks at problems from a "is it working" perspective then proceeds from there. Maybe that kind of approach drivers liberal/progressives crazy. It makes sense to me.

That's my $0.02 worth... but this will go to SCOTUS and they'll have to decide this Should be interesting for sure.

So what? There were no airplanes when the 14th amendment was ratified. Trying to overturn the plain language & judicial history of it thru executive order usurps the Constitutional powers of Congress, the States & the federal judiciary.

To even entertain such a notion is to entertain dictatorship.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,774
49,427
136
Or the President could negotiate & compromise (you know art of the deal stuff) and get the 14th amended.

Again I don’t know if birthright citizenship is helpful or detrimental but executive order is certainly not the way to handle it.
I’m not even sure if there is a real birth tourism problem. I’m sure it happens but I have been hearing about it since the late 70s but never met one.

I'm not sure why birth tourism is considered a problem. The people who engage in it are overwhelmingly wealthy, meaning if their children do end up coming to the US as citizens later we've gotten high wealth, high productivity citizens without having to educate them. It's kind of the greatest deal ever for us.

Also the idea that people are having babies here to gain citizenship is kind of nonsense as well. You can't apply to bring your family over as a US citizen until you're 21, meaning they are planning to move their family two decades in advance? If their goal is to move to the US there are way, way faster ways to do that, haha.
 
Nov 29, 2006
15,657
4,130
136
Good luck with that.

Just because its hard doesn't mean it should be avoided. I would fully support the removal of instances i specified. It's not a huge deal and i wouldnt put much effort into it, but if it had support, id back it.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
I'm not sure why birth tourism is considered a problem. The people who engage in it are overwhelmingly wealthy, meaning if their children do end up coming to the US as citizens later we've gotten high wealth, high productivity citizens without having to educate them. It's kind of the greatest deal ever for us.
What you end up with are entitled affluenza afflicted kids that get sent to America to attend college.

Also the idea that people are having babies here to gain citizenship is kind of nonsense as well. You can't apply to bring your family over as a US citizen until you're 21, meaning they are planning to move their family two decades in advance? If their goal is to move to the US there are way, way faster ways to do that, haha.
It’s an insurance policy, used extensively by wealthy Chinese. Right before I left California, authorities struggled to contain the birth tourism industry:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-birth-tourism-persists-20161220-story.html
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,774
49,427
136
What you end up with are entitled affluenza afflicted kids that get sent to America to attend college.

And then who often stay. A huge percentage of the most successful American companies founded in recent years came from immigrants who went to college here. If anything we should be encouraging more of it as the payoff is stratospheric.

It’s an insurance policy, used extensively by wealthy Chinese. Right before I left California, authorities struggled to contain the birth tourism industry:

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-birth-tourism-persists-20161220-story.html

Of all the problems the US may have with immigration I find a large influx of wealthy people to be low on the list.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
Oh look, our dictator wannabe got legal advise that he can change the Constitution with an executive order.
 

khon

Golden Member
Jun 8, 2010
1,319
124
106

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,726
2,501
126
When i was a kid growing as a US citizen expat in Taiwan... we had local women that would get pregnant, then fly to the US early as tourists if only to give birth to their child in the US so that they would be citizens. i am not sure that the 14th amendment was meant/intended to be applied to such people.

Now many years later the parent was able to become a citizen due to the child.

They had no historical links to the US other than being a tourist.

i think at least one of the parents of a child "born on the soil" (jus soli) should be a citizen at least for a child to inherit US citizen ship. So basically i think both jus soli and Jus sanguinis should be in operation and not just jus soli.

btw, Trump looks at problems from a "is it working" perspective then proceeds from there. Maybe that kind of approach drivers liberal/progressives crazy. It makes sense to me.

That's my $0.02 worth... but this will go to SCOTUS and they'll have to decide this Should be interesting for sure.

I'm too lazy to try to find it again, but a news story came out a while back about a Russian company that had a similar scheme for pregnant Russian tourists. They stayed in Miami in either a Trump hotel or condo project until they gave birth.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,612
3,458
136
When i was a kid growing as a US citizen expat in Taiwan... we had local women that would get pregnant, then fly to the US early as tourists if only to give birth to their child in the US so that they would be citizens. i am not sure that the 14th amendment was meant/intended to be applied to such people.

Now many years later the parent was able to become a citizen due to the child.

They had no historical links to the US other than being a tourist.

i think at least one of the parents of a child "born on the soil" (jus soli) should be a citizen at least for a child to inherit US citizen ship. So basically i think both jus soli and Jus sanguinis should be in operation and not just jus soli.

btw, Trump looks at problems from a "is it working" perspective then proceeds from there. Maybe that kind of approach drivers liberal/progressives crazy. It makes sense to me.

That's my $0.02 worth... but this will go to SCOTUS and they'll have to decide this Should be interesting for sure.

That's a cool story, but we have children getting gunned down in churches and schools and there's no great debate about repealing the second amendment.

Apparently brown people are scarier than guns.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
And then who often stay. A huge percentage of the most successful American companies founded in recent years came from immigrants who went to college here. If anything we should be encouraging more of it as the payoff is stratospheric.
Far easier to start a company when you gain access to the best universities in the world and exit them without any student debt. If our universities extended to American citizens even a fraction of the attention afforded to attracting affluent foreign students, perhaps the ground wouldn’t have been quite so fertile for Trumpism. There was certainly a payoff.

Of all the problems the US may have with immigration I find a large influx of wealthy people to be low on the list.
Given the wealth disparity in this country, and the corrupting influence of wealth on our government, the last thing we need is more wealthy people.
 
Last edited:
Nov 25, 2013
32,083
11,718
136
Nope, anchor babies need to be stopped.

"But the anchor baby, while potent politically, is a largely mythical idea.

Here's the basic concept: People, namely women, come to the United States illegally and give birth to children, generally for the specific purpose of bolstering legal attempts of the child's parents remain in the United States or even become citizens themselves.

Looser definitions suggest "anchor babies" can simply be intended to help illegal-immigrant parents access taxpayer-financed public education and/or social services through their citizen children -- another political hot button, to be sure. (Even here, the law limits those benefits to the children themselves.)

But usually the debate has been about the residency of the parents, who after all are supposed to be using the child as their "anchor."

This is the definition that has little legal underpinning. For illegal immigrant parents, being the parent of a U.S. citizen child almost never forms the core of a successful defense in an immigration court. In short, if the undocumented parent of a U.S.-born child is caught in the United States, he or she legally faces the very same risk of deportation as any other immigrant.

The only thing that a so-called anchor baby can do to assist either of their undocumented parents involves such a long game that it's not a practical immigration strategy, said Greg Chen, an immigration law expert and director of The American Immigration Lawyers Association, a trade group that also advocates for immigrant-friendly reforms. That long game is this: If and when a U.S. citizen reaches the age of 21, he or she can then apply for a parent to obtain a visa and green card and eventually enter the United States legally.

In order to apply for such an option, the parent of a so-called anchor baby would need to do all of the following.

  • Wait for his or her child to reach the age of 21.
  • Leave the United States.
  • Return to their home country.
  • Have their child begin the lengthy process of applying for a family reunification immigration request.
  • Clear consular interviews and a U.S. State Department background check. (One or both would very likely provide evidence that said parent, at some point, lived in the United States illegally -- long enough for that "anchor baby" to be conceived or born. And despite widespread belief to the contrary, there is indeed a penalty for that.)
If a person has lived in the United States unlawfully for a period of more than 180 days but less than one year, there is an automatic three-year bar on that person ever reentering the United States -- and that's before any wait time for a visa. So that's a minimum of 21 years for the child to mature, plus the three-year wait.

And, for the vast majority of these parents, a longer wait also applies. If a person has lived in the United States illegally for a year or more, there is a 10-year ban on that person reentering the United States. So, in that case, there would be the 21-year wait for the child to mature to adulthood, plus the 10-year wait.

All told, the parents of the so-called anchor baby face a 24-to-31-year wait to even enter the United States, much less obtain a visa and green card or become a citizen.

Immigration courts routinely reject claims that an undocumented parent must remain in the United States to care for a U.S. citizen child. The main but rare legal exceptions are for children who are so seriously ill or profoundly disabled that one parent must care for them full-time, or for a child in need of medical care unavailable in their parents' home country.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...defense/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fbf638339619
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
There is no daylight between the GOP and Synagogue shooter's political position. Only tactics.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,195
126
Good news, Republicans, no need to vote in Congressional elections, Trump can do it all by executive order.
 

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,725
1,342
136
It is obviously just his opinion. Like I said, hopefully Trump has the judges he needs. Anchor babies are not a good thing, just another example of how today's left of common sense left has abandoned reason just to be anti-anything-the-right-is-for, even if they're for common sense.

Look, I agree with you that anchor babies aren't ideal and encourage bad behaviour, but legislating from the bench is bad, period. It is the duty of congress, and not the courts, to pass laws. Morally, the ends don't justify the means. And pragmatically, people in your shoes should want to foster a culture that supports originalistic interpretations of the constitution seeing as it's a largely conservative document. There are far more ways to wilfully misinterpret the constitution towards liberal causes than conservative ones, so why give support to this "living document" bullshit that almost always works against you?
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |