Son of Deported Immigration Activist Urges Congress to Bring Mom Back to America

[bhsup]

Yep, there is. It really should be modified to at the very least require that the foreign nationals be in the country legally - but anyone who suggested such a thing would probably be met with calls of "racist!"

I am certainly not going to call you a racist for holding that belief. I don't personally agree with you on changing the birthright citizenship, but I've been accused of racism plenty because of my immigration stance that I'd certainly not subject you to the same ridiculous accusation just because I disagree with you.

 

[Shadylookin]

His parents are both Mexican citizens so he would also be considered a Mexican citizen.

And nobody here is saying he should be deported. Just saying that if its so bad to be separated from his mother then he should live with her.

i wasn't sure if he would be considered one or not. However my point was that his mother is back in Mexico because she was sent back on the taxpayer dime. presumably since the kid is a citizen and we cannot kick him out of the country his mother would have to pay for his return which she might not be able to afford. More than likely however she wants her son to remain in the US because he'll have a better shot at life here.

Yep, there is. It really should be modified to at the very least require that the foreign nationals be in the country legally - but anyone who suggested such a thing would probably be met with calls of "racist!"

well if the other country wouldn't recognize them as citizens if they were born outside of their territory and the US wouldn't recognize them because there parents aren't citizens then you could come up with some situations where childing would be born without any citizenship.

not necessarily racists, but probably xenophobic. since the US doesn't really have a specific ethnic identity I think it is best to keep it the way it is.

 

[Ecofarm]

Yes, anyone born with the territory of the US is guaranteed "birthright" citizenship. Most countries have this I think.

No other country has this. Not a single one. As a US citizen, all I can say is - your welcome (puns intended).

All countries have FAR more stringent requirements for citizenship than the US, even for people not born in country. Many countries require fluency in the native tongue.

 

[Elrohir]

I am certainly not going to call you a racist for holding that belief. I don't personally agree with you on changing the birthright citizenship, but I've been accused of racism plenty because of my immigration stance that I'd certainly not subject you to the same ridiculous accusation just because I disagree with you.

While I appreciate your fair mindedness, why are you opposed to changing it? Do you just not like the idea of changing the original US Constitution's text on this matter?

well if the other country wouldn't recognize them as citizens if they were born outside of their territory and the US wouldn't recognize them because there parents aren't citizens then you could come up with some situations where childing would be born without any citizenship.

not necessarily racists, but probably xenophobic. since the US doesn't really have a specific ethnic identity I think it is best to keep it the way it is.

Is there any existing country which doesn't recognize someone as one of their citizens if he or she is the child of one or more of their citizens, no matter where they are born? If a child is born to US parents, then he is a US citizen, whether they are in the USA or Zimbabwe.

Why is it xenophobic to demand that only people who follow the rules of the United States of America should get the benefit of being a part of the United States of America?

 

[Bugfatty300]

No other country has this. Not a single one. As a US citizen, all I can say is - your welcome (pun intended).

Well I know for a fact that Canada and Mexico both have it.

 

[Ecofarm]

They do not.

 

[Bugfatty300]

http://www.mexicanlaws.com/SRE/nationality.htm

"MEXICANS BY BIRTH ARE:

Those that are born in the territory of the Republic, whatever the nationality of their parents.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_nationality_law

In general, anyone born in Canada from 1947 onwards acquired Canadian citizenship at birth. The only exceptions concern children born to diplomats, where additional requirements apply.

 

[Ecofarm]

Although I have seen contradicting evidence (regarding technicalities), for the timebeing, I stand corrected. The countries that observe Jus soli are:

Argentina
Barbados
Brazil
Canada
Colombia
Jamaica
Mexico
Pakistan
Peru
United States
Uruguay

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship


Notice the complete absense of european countries (a remnant of monarchy's attachment to bloodlines).

 

[Shadylookin]

Is there any existing country which doesn't recognize someone as one of their citizens if he or she is the child of one or more of their citizens, no matter where they are born? If a child is born to US parents, then he is a US citizen, whether they are in the USA or Zimbabwe.

Why is it xenophobic to demand that only people who follow the rules of the United States of America should get the benefit of being a part of the United States of America?

I'm not sure if there is a country that doesn't accept citizenship based upon parents citizenship. I do know however that there are several countries that accept citizenship based upon being born in their country. My niece has dual citizenship as an American and Cuban because she was born when my brother was in the navy at Guantanamo despite having 2 American parents.

How is it against the rules? if you're born here you're a citizen. To deny them citizenship just because there parents are not supposed to be here is punishing a child for the crimes of their parents.

Since all of us have citizenship based solely on the fact that we are born here to deny someone else that right because their parents committed a crime goes against the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Notice a total lack of european countries.

That list only includes "new world" countries that have enacted birthright laws through legislation. I wouldn't expect to see many European countries on it. Wikipedia neglects to list them all.

 

[Ecofarm]

Algeria (No) Father must be Algerian or stateless
Argentina (Yes)
Australia (No) Children of legal immigrants born in Australia are citizens
Belgium (No) One parent must be a citizen of Belgium
Brazil (Yes)
Cameroon (Yes)
Canada (Yes) Children born to foreign parents after February 1977 are citizens at birth
Colombia (No) One parent must be a legal resident
Czech Republic (No) One parent must be a citizen of the Czech Republic
Egypt (No) Father must be an Egyptian citizen
France (No) Child of foreign-born parents must apply and be approved for citizenship
Germany (No) Those born in Germany acquire the citizenship status of their mother
India (Yes)
Israel (No) If Jewish, a child is automatically a citizen - otherwise must be the child of an Israeli national to be a citizen
Italy (No) One parent must be Italian
Jamaica (Yes)
Japan (No) One parent must be a citizen of Japan
Kenya (No) One parent must be a citizen of Kenya
Kuwait (No) Father must be a citizen of Kuwait
Mexico (Yes)
New Zealand (Yes)
Nigeria (No) One parent must be a Nigerian citizen
Norway (No) One parent must be Norwegian
Pakistan (Yes)
Philippines (No) One parent must be Filipino
Poland (No) One parent must be Polish
Republic of Korea (No) One parent must be a citizen of Korea
Saudi Arabia (No) Father must be a citizen - child is added to father's passport
Spain (Yes) However, the child needs one year of residence to become a citizen if the parents are foreigners
Sweden (No) If mother is Swedish, the child acquires citizenship at birth - if parents are resident aliens, children acquire the citizenship of their parents
Switzerland (No) If child was born before June 1, 1985, the father must be Swiss for the child tio be a Swiss citizen - if the child is born after June 1, 1985, the child will be a Swiss citizen if either parent is Swiss
Syria (No) One parent must be a citizen of Syria
Taiwan (No) One parent must be a citizen of Taiwan
Turkey (No) One parent must be a citizen of Turkey
United Kingdom (No) One parent must be a citizen or legal resident of the UK
United States (Yes)
Venezuela (Yes)
Zaire (No) Mother must be a citizen of Zaire

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/cgi-bin/showarticle.pl?articleID=353&terms

Care to prove that a european country has birthright citizenship?

 

[Elrohir]

I'm not sure if there is a country that doesn't accept citizenship based upon parents citizenship. I do know however that there are several countries that accept citizenship based upon being born in their country. My niece has dual citizenship as an American and Cuban because she was born when my brother was in the navy at Guantanamo despite having 2 American parents.

How is it against the rules? if you're born here you're a citizen. To deny them citizenship just because there parents are not supposed to be here is punishing a child for the crimes of their parents.

So you're basically saying that your fear of having some people be effectively without a home country is totally warrentless?

I take issue with the idea that if you are born here, that is enough to make you a citizen - that may have worked fine when we had effectively unregulated borders, and anyone could come into the US with any cargo for any reason and stay here if they wanted effectively without permission. We can hardly allow such open borders today, in a modern world which is vastly different from what it was.

Since all of us have citizenship based solely on the fact that we are born here to deny someone else that right because their parents committed a crime goes against the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Which is why we change the Constitution so that you are only a citizen if you are born of American parentage (Just one is fine) or you are born on American soil with at least one parent in the US legally. Is that really so much to ask?

 

[Bugfatty300]

I take issue with the idea that if you are born here, that is enough to make you a citizen - that may have worked fine when we had effectively unregulated borders, and anyone could come into the US with any cargo for any reason and stay here if they wanted effectively without permission. We can hardly allow such open borders today, in a modern world which is vastly different from what it was.

I don't see a problem with birthright citizenship. Its not the kid's fault that his parents were illegals and its not like the parents get any special privileges because their kid is an US citizen. Its not as if the kid is any less "American" than a baby born to American parents.

 

[The Yankee]

and its not like the parents get any special privileges because their kid is an US citizen.

That's why there's the argument. The fear is, making sure the family is kept together would ensure that the parents would be able to stay with no consequences for coming here illegally.

 

[Bugfatty300]

That's why there's the argument. The fear is, making sure the family is kept together would ensure that the parents would be able to stay with no consequences for coming here illegally.

Probably won't happen. But then again there is practically no consequences for coming here illegally to begin with despite birthright laws.

 

[Ecofarm]

I don't see a problem with birthright citizenship. Its not the kid's fault that his parents were illegals and its not like the parents get any special privileges because their kid is an US citizen. Its not as if the kid is any less "American" than a baby born to American parents.

x-post with Yankee (perhaps for my own clarity)

That is EXACTLY what we are discussing here. She wants special privilage because her kid is a US citizen. She "preached" (politically) from the pulpit of a Universal Unitarian church [centralist overtones, anyone?] (and perhaps with the support of democrat officials) for months before she was finally arrested and deported. Then she asked the Mexican government to appoint her "peace ambassador" so that she could re-enter the US (and was denied). Now she is appealing to the international court of "family values". The fact that she expects special privilages is hardly relevant; she has become an (illegal) tool of career/lifetime politicians, which is probably a more evil fate and more damaging to the US.

 

[Shadylookin]

So you're basically saying that your fear of having some people be effectively without a home country is totally warrentless?

I take issue with the idea that if you are born here, that is enough to make you a citizen - that may have worked fine when we had effectively unregulated borders, and anyone could come into the US with any cargo for any reason and stay here if they wanted effectively without permission. We can hardly allow such open borders today, in a modern world which is vastly different from what it was.


Which is why we change the Constitution so that you are only a citizen if you are born of American parentage (Just one is fine) or you are born on American soil with at least one parent in the US legally. Is that really so much to ask?

there are people in the world that do not have citizenship to any country.

why should we change it when it's not broken? unless you think there's something inherently superior about someone whose parents that have a longer lineage in the country?

 

[bhsup]

While I appreciate your fair mindedness, why are you opposed to changing it? Do you just not like the idea of changing the original US Constitution's text on this matter?

The bolded part. I have no issue with amendments in general, but I just don't want to muck with what the requirements are for citizenship. It's served us well for over 200 years, and I honestly see no need to change it now. It's really one thing I like about America. If you're born to this land, you're entitled to stay with the land.

 

[Elrohir]

there are people in the world that do not have citizenship to any country.

why should we change it when it's not broken? unless you think there's something inherently superior about someone whose parents that have a longer lineage in the country?

Who? A few political refugees from oppressive regimes? They can be dealt with separately - unless we're classifying Mexico as an oppressive dictatorship, and we're saying this woman fled in fear of her life with her unborn child, then those kinds of citizenless people are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Because I think it is broken. (Or at least a little cracked ) What we have here are families being broken up, and people expecting, and sometimes getting away with breaking US law just because their child was born on US soil. I don't mind letting them be US citizens if there is any ambiguity as to whether their parents are here legally, like if they're trying to figure this out a long time later. (And obviously this wouldn't apply retroactively - that would be nuts) But I do mind having people openly flaunt US law and expect to get away with it just because they had timed it right and had a baby here before they got deported.

And no, I don't think people who have many American ancestors are necessarily "better" people, or even better citizens. (Some recent immigrants are great citizens, some are terrible citizens, some fifth generation citizens are wonderful, some suck, etc....) This isn't a racial thing, it's a "let's make enforcing our laws and apply some common sense rules" thing.

The bolded part. I have no issue with amendments in general, but I just don't want to muck with what the requirements are for citizenship. It's served us well for over 200 years, and I honestly see no need to change it now. It's really one thing I like about America. If you're born to this land, you're entitled to stay with the land.

But is the it the land that makes the Union? Or the People?

 

[bhsup]

But is the it the land that makes the Union? Or the People?

Personally? I feel attached to the land, and would never want to deprive someone from being kept away from the land of their birth.