You are correct. Further research turned up wet feet,dry feet and Elian was intercepted at sea - so, bad example. I just feel that if the integrity of the family is to be given so much weight, but one does not wish to acquiesce to the 'anchor baby' strategem (which I do not), then deport the parents and keep the family intact. You are not, in the end, deporting the child citizen - you are keeping him/her with his/her family by recognizing their parental rights. If the child has relatives in the US legally with whom he can stay, fine. The parents can sign an agreement abrogating their parental rights and he/she can stay, but the illegals still go and the child is still with family
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
US citizenship thread
- Thread starter T.Lex
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Your teal is messing with me, so I can't separate quotes.
It's a 4817 Angstrom thing, you wouldn't understand
If it seems I am casting about for some way to set a higher bar for according special status to parent(s) than 'dive across the border and squirt one' while remaining within the bounds of the existing constitution, you would be correct
I see it from the legal angle (shocking, I'm sure) of deporting a legal citizen.
Deportation of a natural born citizen seems a perilously slippery slope, regardless of the age of the citizen.
And this isn't a situation where we can "repeal" without replacing. IMHO, this is appropriately a constitutional issue - it is part of what constitutes America and American laws.
There's an important starting point that I probably should've started with. At the time of the adoption of the constitution, it was decided to generally adopt British common law. That body of law (at that time) was squarely jus soli - nationality determined by place of birth. That was an issue for slavery, obviously, but it was commonly understood that people born in America, regardless of parentage, were Americans. That idea has literally been with us since the beginning.
(Interestingly, Britain itself backed off of pure jus soli over the years, vacillating between that and principles of jus sanguinis - citizenship by parentage - to different degrees.)
Deportation of a natural born citizen seems a perilously slippery slope, regardless of the age of the citizen.
And this isn't a situation where we can "repeal" without replacing. IMHO, this is appropriately a constitutional issue - it is part of what constitutes America and American laws.
There's an important starting point that I probably should've started with. At the time of the adoption of the constitution, it was decided to generally adopt British common law. That body of law (at that time) was squarely jus soli - nationality determined by place of birth. That was an issue for slavery, obviously, but it was commonly understood that people born in America, regardless of parentage, were Americans. That idea has literally been with us since the beginning.
(Interestingly, Britain itself backed off of pure jus soli over the years, vacillating between that and principles of jus sanguinis - citizenship by parentage - to different degrees.)
That is why I would set up a test of whether parental rights or citizenship rights would prevail. There is nothing compelling us to accommodate the parents. I don't believe there exists a legal framework for the child to become a ward of the state, so if the parents must go how would a court likely assign the disposition of the minor child
Since deportation in the modern sense usually means returning persona non gratae to country of origin, I don't think you could deport someone who is a citizen
Since deportation in the modern sense usually means returning persona non gratae to country of origin, I don't think you could deport someone who is a citizen
What I meant was if you're an American citizen by birthright, then we would have to deport you to ... America. I'm saying set up a court test to see if a child can be sent to live with deported parents - a test to see if citizenship rights or parental rights are paramount
Rather than allow the existence of the child to influence the parent's status, let the parent's status influence that of the child. If an intact family is of paramount importance (as plaintiff's lawyer will surely argue), then deport the parents and send the child to live with them until of majority. Interpret the situation in such a way that it discourages abuse of the system
Rather than allow the existence of the child to influence the parent's status, let the parent's status influence that of the child. If an intact family is of paramount importance (as plaintiff's lawyer will surely argue), then deport the parents and send the child to live with them until of majority. Interpret the situation in such a way that it discourages abuse of the system
They are discussing a bill in France that could strip a French citizen from his/her citizenship if convicted of a terrorist attack.
That could lead to the deportation of a citizen by birth.
It would only apply to citizens with a dual citizenship though, as not to create a situation of statelessness.
Should you be able to lose your citizenship in the US?
I think right know you can only renounce it but not be stripped of it against your will.
That could lead to the deportation of a citizen by birth.
It would only apply to citizens with a dual citizenship though, as not to create a situation of statelessness.
Should you be able to lose your citizenship in the US?
I think right know you can only renounce it but not be stripped of it against your will.
Kirk Freeman
Grandmaster
No issues if that is German law.
Not happening here because of the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Why would we change anything?
Not quite. I'm saying that once they are outside of their legal presence here, that is, expired visa but still within the US, not in the process of nor planning departure, buying a car, whatever the action or inaction is that makes clear that their intent is to remain, legality notwithstanding, there should be no available job, no available benefits, no one willing to rent to them, etc, as a matter of personal choice, not a constraint of law. I'm not saying this would happen easily, as it would require a paradigm shift on a societal level.
That's my goal in the exploration, to determine a workable method of identifying citizenship.
No blood, no foul. All is well. :-)You know what - now that you mention it - I'm kicking myself because I actually knew that. Apologies for that.
Actually, that's part and parcel of the issue. What is the "crime" committed? They crossed an arbitrary line on a map. Should that be a crime? IMHO, in and of itself, no. So why is it, and why would I, a self-described, small-L libertarian, support the law opposing immigration? Simple economics. The US is in the eyes of the world, scandalously wealthy. Yet even we can't fix poverty as it exists now. We certainly can't by bringing in more people to take more, successively smaller pieces of the pie, leaving less for you and me and all the others who actually fund the system. Remove the incentives that they come for, and if they continue coming, it is as our ancestors came, with the goal of starting a new life here, not as ____-Americans but as Americans, focused on improving their new country, not just themselves.Indeed, and as a policy matter (I know you keep saying you don't want to deal with policy, but that's really what we're talking about)
But let's save that for a different thread, eh?
I'm good with that. I'm also not opposed to deporting the parent and giving them the choice of leaving the citizen-child here or taking them back with them. I might oppose that after more thought.
o
Without a constitutional amendment, we cannot justify treating citizen-children of non-citizens different than citizen-children of citizen parents.
You keep saying that, but....
Seriously, part of what I'd hoped to prod is a discussion of alternatives and how they would work.
See above. We have similar goals, even if our approaches to them differ.
Blessings,
Bill
blackenedman
Marksman
- Apr 12, 2008
- 287
- 28
In the US, aren't the parents of a minor child, custodian of the rights of said minor?
If so, could parents use that in defense of being deported?
If so, could parents use that in defense of being deported?
That seems like a dangerous concept to me.
Removing a citizen from the country without any formal charges or prosecution... In the US anyway, I understand that we're unique in how we grant citizenship even though I disagree with it.
Not like that'd ever be abused...
What, pray tell, is the misinterpretation?
The language, and history, is pretty clear.
Yeah, I'm also interested in what some options would be.
Yes, and they do.
But that's not really the trigger for my post.
Tombs gets it.
We're not completely unique, there are other nations with varying degrees of birthright citizenship, but our collective history is pretty unique as a nation of immigrants.
The idea of stripping someone of citizenship is not really a new idea, but the problem is: once you do it, where do you send them? Germany, apparently, sends them to the country of their parents. But, usually, by treaty, those countries have the option of not accepting them back. You either need a colony to send them to, or a REALLY good ally willing to take your human refuse for that idea to work.
If you're a citizen, however it was legally determined that you're a citizen, there should be no mechanism to deport you. If you commit crimes, then you should be prosecuted and pay the penalty. If you renounce your citizenship, well, buh-bye.
As an attorney, I'm all about finding solutions.
I'm just here to help.Sometimes its helpful to look at problems from different perspectives. When it comes to terrorism here, we arguably DON'T have an immigration problem, we have a citizen problem. More attackers - terrorism or otherwise - are citizens than non-citizens. The immigrant issue is easier to deal with than the citizenship one, in some ways.
Other countries have different approaches to citizenship, so it makes sense to examine whether elements of those approaches would be useful for us.
Consider the case of serial killer. If a US citizen is so fond of killing other US citizens, perhaps we should be open to the idea of stripping him of citizenship and sending him somewhere else.
Not advocating for this, just being open to other ideas.
As an attorney, I'm all about finding solutions.
Sometimes its helpful to look at problems from different perspectives. When it comes to terrorism here, we arguably DON'T have an immigration problem, we have a citizen problem. More attackers - terrorism or otherwise - are citizens than non-citizens. The immigrant issue is easier to deal with than the citizenship one, in some ways.
Other countries have different approaches to citizenship, so it makes sense to examine whether elements of those approaches would be useful for us.
Consider the case of serial killer. If a US citizen is so fond of killing other US citizens, perhaps we should be open to the idea of stripping him of citizenship and sending him somewhere else. I have yet to see a convicted serial killer get anything but life or death.
Not advocating for this, just being open to other ideas.
Ah yes, FEAR. The driving force where all good ideas come from. Stripping a serial killer's citizenship? Why would it matter while they are in prison for the rest of their life? I guess I don't understand the problem here.
The original meaning of the 14th Amendment didn't give somebody citizenship automatically upon being born here.
"The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
"The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
Site Supporter
Staff online
-
d.kaufmanStill Here -
Cameramonkeywww.thechosen.tv
Members online
- tangleridgeslim
- nucular
- Bobby
- Malware
- MadBomber
- NHT3
- mbkintner
- deo62
- Lost Californian
- wesnellans
- bgcatty
- pokersamurai
- dustinfz6r
- littletommy
- klausm
- drgnrobo
- Andyccw
- blue2golf
- chef larry
- Knight Rider
- Zombie
- chadm
- gunsnrose
- Bennettjh
- Farmritch
- rodentcnc
- Trebor657
- DoggyDaddy
- gassprint1
- acss502
- jake 2000
- Brandon
- gmcman355
- tsm
- d.kaufman
- JRHawkins1118
- slims2002
- Cameramonkey
- Gabriel
- Nakatomi
- IndyPb
- piper
- Am-Pm farms
- Hoosier Carry
- jgill
- Glock22
- BD63
- FishersCPA
- ks4197
- bocefus78
