Two-Thirds of Americans Favor Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants

[Fargo]

This plus hospitals no longer required to give medical attention to those without insurance unless its a life threatening emergency
No educational benefits for non citizens including anchor babies

Anchor babies are by definition citizens...

 

[JTScribe]

I think Reason is cherry-picking numbers because there are different aspects to the issue that may not be properly addressed by the poll.

I think the title of the post is probably a reasonably accurate number. But in addition, per Rasmussen, Americans also believe:

60% of Likely U.S. Voters think the U.S. government is not aggressive enough in deporting those who are in this country illegally

The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on July 30 and August 2, 2015 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/immigration_update

Personally, while it bothers me that people are crossing the border illegally, I can understand and even admire their reasoning. They are showing more drive and determination than 90% of American teenagers from the get-go.

I don't know if you'd call it 'amnesty', but I think jamil makes a good point. Secure the border, then once that's done, let things work themselves out. Give the people who are already here a chance to submit their applications. For those who are here illegally who are convicted of felonies, send them back to their country of origin.

Oh, BTW. Also in that Rasmussen poll? A near-unanimous view of benefits for illegals:

An overwhelming 83% of voters think someone should be required to prove they are legally allowed in the United States before receiving local, state or federal government services. Just 12% disagree. These findings have changed little over the past four years.

 

[Super Bee]

Drag off 11 million? You don't have to. Most are economic migrants. A few changes and many will remove themselves;
- no government assistance of any kind (SNAP/Medicare/school/housing)
- no driving license
- no government ID
- expand the I-9 program
- heavy penalties ($10,000 per illegal immigrant working for you, any more than 6 = 6 months Federal prison)
- withdrawing Federal aid for any municipality that does not cooperate with ICE

And there ya go bringing common sense into the discussion.

 

[AA&E]

Anchor babies are by definition citizens...

Fine, as soon as the placenta clears the birth canal send mom packing.

 

[HoughMade]

My

This is an area where I differ from many conservatives. It's just not practical to deport them all. I don't think "self deportation" will have the effect that people want either. What worse condition could we impose on them here that would be worse than where they'd supposedly self-deport to?

At this point, eventual citizenship should be on the table only for those are not felons, who are employable. And they should have to apply for citizenship, and go through the process like everyone else. No magic wands proclaiming them all citizens, like the moonbeams want. And they go to the end of the line. But I don't see how any of that works unless we stop the flow of illegal immigrants across the border.

Your 2 and mine are essentially the same.

 

[spencer rifle]

“Or if we must meddle, as we have always done, let us meddle for a change in a constructive way. Stop every campesino at our southern border, give him a handgun, a good rifle, and a case of ammunition, and send him home. He will know what to do with our gifts and good wishes. The people know who their enemies are.” – Edward Abbey, 1988

 

[Peter Potamus]

Anchor babies are by definition citizens...

Maybe and maybe not. Study the 14th Amendment carefully, in particular this caveat: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

The Founding Fathers added this qualifier for a reason. What that reason is lies at the heart of whether "anchor babies" are citizens. A child born to parents (both) who are in the country illegally may well not past this test.

 

[Dead Duck]

All these criminals need to crawl back through the rathole that they used to infest us originally...............and take their illegal spawn with them.


...........and MrJarrell.












Open borders my ass - Traitors, every one of ya.
Unless you've spent any amount of time living in southern California, you have no clue what you're talking about.

And I'm not even a racist.

 

[cobber]

Anchor babies are by definition citizens...

That can change...

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Maybe and maybe not. Study the 14th Amendment carefully, in particular this caveat: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

The Founding Fathers added this qualifier for a reason. What that reason is lies at the heart of whether "anchor babies" are citizens. A child born to parents (both) who are in the country illegally may well not past this test.

What did "subject to the jurisdiction" mean?

 

[cobber]

Forget the study, what do you think happens when you remove the vast majority of the cheap labor from our economy? US citizens are a sub replacement growth rate population, who exactly do you think is going to do all that work?

Sounds like a rationale for Gastarbeiter. Or maybe drop the minimum wage and cut disability and welfare programs so people have an incentive to work and better themselves?

 

[HoughMade]

What did "subject to the jurisdiction" mean?

Not born to diplomatic personnel who have immunity from U.S. law.

 

[Peter Potamus]

What did "subject to the jurisdiction" mean?

What ?Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof? Really Means

There is some great analysis and conclusion in this piece. In summary, the Founders never intended for there to be a 100% blanket statement that children born in the U.S. would automatically have citizenship. In fact, there is undeniable evidence to the contrary. The linked piece is very long but it needs to be read in its entirety to get the full flavor of what is being explained. I believe the qualifier was added to allow for situations (visiting diplomats, native populace, and, yes, those in the country inappropriately (for any number of reasons)) where it was not the intent of the Amendment to grant citizenship.

 

[indiucky]

“Or if we must meddle, as we have always done, let us meddle for a change in a constructive way. Stop every campesino at our southern border, give him a handgun, a good rifle, and a case of ammunition, and send him home. He will know what to do with our gifts and good wishes. The people know who their enemies are.” – Edward Abbey, 1988

I have read everything Edward Abbey wrote..."Desert Solitaire" was a constant companion on back country solo overnighters....I had forgotten that quote...Thanks for pulling it up....

I am married to a woman whose parents immigrated here from Argentina back in the 1960's...Her cousin wants to move here but can't...The process is too difficult for her to pull off...It's frustrating that folks are having a difficult time coming here legally but coming here illegally is (apparently) pretty darn easy...She stays with us a couple of weeks every winter, has a successful small business in Buenos Aires, is educated, attractive, and smart...She would be a great asset to our Nation but she can't seem to figure out a way to come here legally...

The system is broken and needs to be fixed IMHO...Amnesty should not part of that but a path to citizenship for those willing to jump through the hoops should be..IMHO....

 

[HoughMade]

What ?Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof? Really Means

There is some great analysis and conclusion in this piece. In summary, the Founders never intended for there to be a 100% blanket statement that children born in the U.S. would automatically have citizenship. In fact, there is undeniable evidence to the contrary. The linked piece is very long but it needs to be read in its entirety to get the full flavor of what is being explained.

My questions for the writers, and these is not a trick questions, but ones I am interested in knowing the answers to:

1. Since the 14th Amendment does not mention the citizenship or loyalties of the parents of a child born in the U.S., or even the parents at all in any way, isn't it fairly clear that "subject to the jurisdiction" refers to the "person born or naturalized in the United States"? Wouldn't this mean that "subject to the jurisdiction" refers to the person "born in the United States" only and not to that person's parents?

2. What laws are the children of foreign nationals who are born in the U.S. and who are not covered by an immunity, NOT subject to? In other words, these children born on U.S. soil, what U.S. laws do not apply to them or can not be enforced as to them?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

42 million....

Assuming the population of the US is around 340M, that's almost 1 in 8... and 8/10 are from Mexico or south.

Census: Record 42.1 million immigrants in U.S., Mexicans drive latest surge | Washington Examiner

 

[Fred78]

Horsehockey

 

[BugI02]

"Why should we care what people think when so many are so dumb?


The debates over global warming, abortion, and offshore drilling are habitually buttressed with what percent of the public believes this or that, as if the majority should rule on such issues. Would you consider a poll to determine how many people believe in ghosts, UFOs, astrology, evolution, lucky numbers, black cats, knocking on wood, WMDs in Iraq, Jews control America, Africa is a country, afterlife, reincarnation, etc.? Then after reporting that such and such a percent of Americans believe we should do X, you might add that this is the same percentage of Americans that believe in, say, flying saucers. By no means am I making the case that polls are useless or harmful. I just believe that we should view public opinion for what it is, not a way to find truth or the right answer necessarily."

 

[OakRiver]

And there ya go bringing common sense into the discussion.

I'm boringly practical like that

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

As I remember,RR made a path for mabye 12 million 35 years ago,and now we have the same problem...(MRJ,you are welcome to correct my numbers if they do not meet your EXACT documented figures.)

RR DID NOT do any such thing. What was done in California was a "Guest Worker" program that made a LEGAL path for folks to come North of the Border to work during the times when they were needed , then go home. I lived in the Central Valley of California. It was a legal path for workers , that much is correct. BUT it was not designed as a legal path for 12 Million _citizens_.