The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states that
"all persons born or naturalized in the United States........are citizens".

Illegal aliens are taking full advantage of this right by having their children in
the United States. Their children, under the 14th Amendment, are citizens.

Question for debate:

Should the 14th Amendment be interpreted to allow citizenship only
to those children born to legal citizens of the U.S.?

NO- it is time to slam that loophole shut- those that invade our country illegally, no matter where they come from, do not deserve nor have earned our protection- want to come to America? No problem, do it within the scope of the law- I am all for legal immigration.

I agree that the influx of naturalized citizens via illegal immigrants has gotten out of control. Unfortunately, with the huge illegal alien population in the states, most members of the House would never vote in its favor. Even in the Senate, people will find it hard to get elected if they support such an amendment. Although they can't vote, legal minorities are rising dramatically and businesses drool over the cheap labor.

I guess I'll have to be in the minority on this issue. For one thing, the language of the Constitution is absolutely clear on this point. It would require a new amendment to change that, and seems like a rather mean-spirited thing to do. (From flag-burning to same-sex marriages, all the amendments I've heard proposed in the last few years seem to be about taking away rights. Not a good idea.)

In general, my ideas about immigration match pretty well with this old poem:

The Constitution says what it says and if a person is born in the United States, they are a citizen. I have argued in favor of immigrants here in a number of threads and I won't repeat those arguments here. The only way to change the status of people born in the US would be through a Constitutional amendment process and that would be something that I would vigorously oppose.

While I feel the whole illegal immigrant (or the more PC term, undocumented worker) issue is an awful mess, I can't see changing the Constitution to disallow any children born here from being American citizens--it's not the fault of the kids.

No. Children born to illegals should receive the status of citizen of the United States. The children born to illegals would have a better life here then they would in Cuba or Mexico and i think they deserve the best life possible

Anchor babies.

That's what they are called. And every year approximately 165,000 anchor babies are born (and automatically granted citizenship).

Children of illegals should absolutely not be given citizenship. If we know that the parent is illegal, the parent and the child should be sent back where they belong as soon as they leave the hospital. (after, of course, I have paid for their hospital stay.)

I think it's reasonable to say that those rights given in the Constitution should not be awarded to those who broke the law to get the right.

If I break into a gun dealer and steal a firearm, should my stealing the item be justified by my right to have it?

The problem with turning the hospital staff into snitches is that when the Illegal immigrants find out that they are being reported by them, then they will stop going. It'll force them to have their babies without medical attention if they need it. I'm pretty sure this can (and will) also be used as an excuse to deny them medical care too, because they are illegal. By the way, I too think that the 14 amendment should be amended to deny the children of illegal immigrants citizenship, but it's not the job of medical workers to police them.

I don't think that the 14th amendment should be changed, especially if it will TAKE rights away from people. it is clear, it says that anyone born here is a citizen. perhaps we should make it easier for the parents of such children to become citizens. perhaps when they are caught, before sending them home, give them a citizenship test. it costs money in order to legally immigrate to this country. the applications (for visas and such) cost money as does getting over here. many people can't afford to go through legal channels.

all people born here should be given citizenship status. the life they have a chance at here is usually infinitly better then it would be elsewhere.

What rights do the illegal immigrants have besides the usual right to remain silent....... Legal citizens of the country won't be effected.


True but there are alternatives, my uncle joined the US Army and received his citizenship. When he got out of the service, twenty years later, he went into the civilian world with military experience behind him. He actually earned his citizenship, and not by passing a a written test.

This is really sad. The conservative voice on this has gotten far from its roots of just the constitution and enumerated powers to "unless they are a group we don't like." Illegal aliens happen but their children are born here. Children of military personell not born on base when stationed abroad cannot be president. The constitution also says ALL PERSONS BORN IN THE US, reguardless of whom they have for parents, are citizens.

Howdy,


The constitution is quite clear on the matter. The are no astericks or fine print.

If one is born on US soil, then they are a US citizen.

Thankfully, our founding fathers had far more insight than those posting in this thread.

Perhaps you can go lobby against the 2nd amendment too.

Carry on...

I doubt the founding father's ever envisioned 10,000s of illegal immigrants crossing to boarders just to have their child and have that child be called a citizen. Then, getting public assistance for that child as well as themselves as the child's guardian. For that matter, the founding father's never envisioned a Welfare State Period.

NOT ALL ILLEGAL ALIENS THAT CROSS THE BORDER AND HAVE A CHILD IN AMERICA DO SO FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PURPOSES. However, many do, and I do not feel that I, or any other American should have to pay for that.

I have no problem with someone entering the country LEGALLY and then having a child that, since born on American soil becomes a citizen.

I do have a problem with rewarding people who break the law. And allowing those who enter the country illegally to stay, simply because they had a child here, not to mention pay for them to live here, is most definitely rewarding law breakers.



Operative word here being jurisdiction.



This amendment was Ratified on 7/9/1868. It came out of the Civil War. It would appear that the founding father's had nothing to do with it.

An interesting page discussion problems with the way this amendment came about can be found: link I'm on the fence on this one, but it is an interesting read.

It would appear to me that the language of this section of the 14th amendment is open to interpretation. Can someone be considered under the Jurisdiction of a place if they entered that place illegally? By our laws, this person should never have been here. If caught, prior to giving birth the mother should (but not necessarily would) be immediately deported just like any other illegal alien.

However, considering the fact that this provision of the 14th amendment is unclear the best solution would be an amendment specifically requiring that a mother be legally in the country for a child born here to be considered a citizen.

The founding father's were wise enough to know that they could not possibly envision every possible problem in the future. That is why the created the Amendment process.

I support the idea of a migrant worker program, and I support more open immigration because our economy needs laborers and most Americans will not take the jobs immigrants will. Immigrants also tend to be the largest group of people in the US who start small businesses. Considering that small businesses employ the majority of Americans these days it would seem that more open immigration would be a good thing.

However, I cannot support the "rights" of someone who violated the law to be here. The only "right" I feel is justified for an illegal alien is the right to a trip home. The only way to stem the tide of illegals who come here to have children in America and abuse & overtax the system is to remove this benefit.

Anchor Babies are costing states like California, Florida, New York, etc. BILLIONS. We need to be realistic, as the number of people who abuse the system like this increases annually, more and more states are pushed closer to bankruptcy. When is enough, enough?

If we truly are to live up to our Constitution then by all means, we have to acknowledge the 14th Amendment. To not do so would be much to the same effect of the fascists running our executive branch trying to do take away rights. People have to live somewhere, and if you don't like them choosing the U.S. then I would suggest moving rather than attempting a tyranny of the majority.

Why is it unacceptable to consider an amendment to address the problem? The system of amending the constitution was created by the founding fathers to address problems they might not have foreseen.

As for the "fascist executive branch" it is this same executive branch that proposed the quasi-amnesty policy recently. I happen to oppose it, but on this issue they hardly seem to be attempting to "take away rights".

People do have to live somewhere. And I welcome LEGAL immigrants. However, I do not want to pay to support people who come here ILLEGALLY to manipulate the system (Again, not all illegals do this, but many do).

Why is it a "tyranny of the majority" to suggest that people follow the law, and enter the country legally? What is wrong with suggesting that people who wish to come here be prepared to support themselves and not have join our ever growing welfare state?

We need immigrants, as I said before immigrants are great for the economy. But we need LEGAL immigrants. We need to control the borders so we can limit the costs immigration can put on our society.

Create a Migrant worker program.
Expand immigration to allow the numbers our country actually needs to legally enter the country.
Reform immigration. The nationality of an immigrant should have no bearing on if they can come here.

But lets stop illegal immigration. Lets get control of our borders for the security of our nation as well as our economy.

The current administrations choice to ignore the border problem is negligence IMHO.

And I think there was another kind of belittling going on here..I guess it isn't outlined in The Rules. My own personal rules prohibit me from thinking about or classifying others and then dehumanizing them with terms like anchor babies all based on their heritage.
Honestly you should be ashamed for "informing" us of this terminology. Calling American Citizens a term that is meant to belittle, question and devalue their standing in comparison to your own..how is this NOT slurring?

I think one of the most empowering pieces of American society is our citizenship laws and how it has made us think and feel as an entire nation on the issue. I have lived in a country where the citizenship is highly protected and must be obtained only through certain channels one of the main ones being your heritage and it not only effects who is a citizen in your country but how your citizens feel about it. Too much focus on one's historical origins causes the society to focus on this as if it not only defines one another but that that definition matters and that some matter more than others. Not something I would want to see being pursued by the federal gov. of America.

Yes, America actually has citizenship laws. And, they are being
disregarded, wholesale, by droves of illegal immigrants. We have specific
channels by which one can legally obtain citizenship. If we allow our laws to
broken in one way then we might as well disregard every other law that
doesn't suit our desires.

When an illegal alien takes residence here he has broken the law. If he has
a child, that child becomes like an anchor, giving him a stronghold in
a country that he illegally entered.

In Los Angeles alone it is the taxpayers who foot the bill for babies
of illegals. We are a bankrupt state because of illegal immigration.

Individuals must be held accountable for their actions. When someone
comes into this country illegally, and he "gets away with it", it gives him
the idea that he can continue to "get away with things." There must be
respect for our laws, by everyone attempting a life in this country.

I agree entirely, that is why I believe those of us (myself included) who support stopping the tide of illegal immigration should be 100% against a law to change the US constitution in this way.

It would simply be a PR band-aid (like the recent increase in security in Arizona). I like the fact that the 14th Amendment allows no loopholes. I think the worry of someone being denied rightful citizenship is much more dangerous that the child of an illegal alien being given citizenship.

Seal the border, but don't change the constitution to cover up our government's incompetence. It's bad policy...

Keeping in mind the topic of debate is "Babies of Illegal Aliens ".......


Exactly what law is being broken that you object to in regards to this debate..is it illegal for a mother who is not a citizen of the United States or not permitted residence in the United States to give birth to a baby in the United States? Or perhaps the baby is the criminal here..you use very interesting terminology and punctuation in your question you asked for us to debate..."Do children (of illegals) born on U.S. soil deserve citizenship?" Deserve? as if a child, a newborn baby could be anything but deserving. Or are you insinuating the idea that condemnation and hierarchy must follow us through the birth canal? Then the illegal bit in parentheses..because that is just additional and inconsequential information..it has no real place in the question ...accept to those who concern themselves with these things. The Real question is... "Do children born on U.S. soil deserve citizenship?" In America your heritage does not effect your rights.


Yes I know..one of them being place of birth.


Hmm your right that must be the obvious conclusion and uncontrollable outcome. A little bit of fear mongering perhaps? It was said here already by others ...much more effective measures to take than this.


I understand how the term came about thank you. I also have unfortunately heard it used before. Do you need me to explain to you how using words like these are in fact stigmatizing another person based on the sole factor of who their mother was?
What that child becomes is an AMERICAN CITIZEN and yes your right there are certain rights that we bestow on them because of this.


And do explain to us all why the Constitution of the United States of America needs to be amended because of what the gov. in Los Angeles is doing?


And apparently you advocate children being held accountable for someone else's actions too. Must be a pretty hefty crime one has committed to have to have the repercussions applied to even the spawn of the sinner. All sounds a wee bit vindictive to me...not to mention counterproductive. If they can live here without citizenship or permission themselves how is denying their children the rights of their birthplace ... for this newly founded original sin.... going to change anything? Illegal immigrants will just have illegal immigrant babies.



Well then let the respect be shown with you first. Why not treat these children like you would treat any other child..acknowledge that their rights to citizenship are no different than you own child's and stop referring to them with derogatory terms.

Here comes another surprise answer from the anti-immigration CP....Yes, children born of ileagal immigrants [who I refuse to call undocumented workers], should be given citizenship, however, I do think that there parents should be deported before they get the chance to have kids, but that's not going to happen...If you're an ileagal immigrant in this country and you have a kid, you should have to make a decision, either take the kid with you and hit the road, or leave the kid here, ensuring him/her a better life, then apply for citzenship the legal way, like the rest.

CP

I can't pass up a good topic in Constitutional Debate.

I voted no. Big surprise coming from someone who advocates English as a national language, the immediate deportation of all illegals (including the illegals who have permission to work here ), and a 2 year minimum moratorium on ALL immigration to the US, huh?

Let's look at the 14th:



If you ask me, I'd have to say that the 14th is flat-out unconstitutional. You have to violate it in order to enforce it.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

OK, so our privileges cannot be abridged. Got it.

As an American citizen, it is my privilege to seek and secure employment. Now, let's say I'm out of work, and looking for a job.

Now, let's say that an illegal immigrant has a job in this country. That illegal immigrant has an illegal immigrant "wife" who then gives birth to a child within our borders.

As that child, under the 14th, is a citizen, that child is entitled to the same privileges as me. BUT, the parents are not.

Our government is not in the habit of sending back the illegal parents and placing the child with a legal family. At least one of the parents would likely be granted permission to stay.

Well, if the government grants permission for the parents to stay, and the state passively enforces the 14th amendment by not arresting and detaining the illegal immigrants, the state is effectively enforcing a law which abridges the privileges of American citizens.

As I said, it is my privilege to seek and maintain employment in the United States. However, if an illegal immigrant is already working the job I want, well, my privilege has been abridged.

Yes, it's a round-about read on the 14th, so let's look at the actual Constitution, shall we? We need to look no further than the first sentence:

The Preamble:


Provide for the common defense. I see no other interpretation of "common defense" than "keep America safe for Americans." In order to keep America safe for Americans, we need to keep those who do not have permission to be here out. For those who disagree, please leave all your doors and windows open and unlocked from now on, wait a few months, and tell me you are safe.

It is wholly unreasonable to expect that the government is fulfilling their Constitutional obligation if they allow non-citizens to illegally gain access to our country.

It is wholly reasonable and logical that granting privileges to illegal immigrants denies opportunity and privileges to those who are here legally.

And that, my friends, is a violation of the 14th. It defeats itself.

If the government were truly providing for the common defense, this would be a non-issue. Those who are not citizens would not have an opportunity to give birth within our borders unless they were here on vacation.

Mike

Yeah, yeah. It's not my best post, but I'm a bit frazzled today with all this server stuff going on..

It would be quite a stretch to assume that our forefathers could foresee
the massive influx of illegal immigration that would occur in the 20/21
centuries.

It all boils down to personal responsibility. I take personal
responsibility for my actions, which would include my choice to have
children and not burden society in doing so.

It adds insult to injury when illegal residents bear children they are
ill-equiped to rear. Society is then left with the burden of their irresponsible
choices. As a responsible human being I cannot condone or accept such
behavior.

And, when we grant citizenship to the children of illegals we are, in
essence, rewarding and perpetuating irresponisble (and illegal) actions.

All very well, Mike, but in the real world, how many illegal immigrants are actually doing jobs that any native born American wants to do for the same money that the illegal is being paid, and how many American citizens want to pay the inflated prices for goods and services that would have to be charged across whole swathes of the economy if they weren't kept down by using illegal labour?

Free markets are causing this problem - there are more jobs in America than there are Americans willing to do them (for whatever reasons), so their is demand for cheaper foreign labour. Either that labour is supplied within America through immigration (legal or not), or the jobs move to where the people willing to do them are.

The American (and more generally, the Western) consumer expects low prices, then ties themselves up in legal, moral and constitutional knots trying to deal with the conseqeunces. But nobody is allowed to posit that free trade itself perhaps needs moderating without being seen as some kind of anti-capitalist.

The constitutional status of the children of illegal immigrants would be a fit subject for this kind of hypothesising if we addressed ourselves to the reasons why anyone wants to enter the US illegally in the first place and ameliorated them. Treat the cause, not the symptoms.

As it is, I'm with the "how can anyone seriously consider whether or not a newborn infant does or does not deserve a particular set of privileges" line. And I'm stunned that people here are arguing that the constitutional and legal position is most cleanly solved by taking away the child from their parents and then deporting those parents.

Side note - California isn't bankrupt "because of illegal immigrants". It is bankrupt because of poor financial management of the whole Califronia government and economy, not just one area, at the root of which is the desire for lots of services from government but unwillingness to pay for any of them through taxes, so government got into huge debt to pay for them. Either you get the services and pay for them, or you don't get them and keep "your money" - a lesson Californians are going to have to learnt he hard way. Blaming immigrants for such problems is not remotely productive. For sure, they are taking advantage of the situation, but they did not create it - California did.

You make some good points. However, not every American is willing
to sacrifice the integrity of our immigration laws to get the lowest price
on goods. I would much rather we treat the cause, and if that means
paying $1 more for lettuce to be picked by actual citizens, so be it.

Furthermore, the concentration of illegal workers is in 15 states.
That means that in the other 35 states there are legal citizens
filling all the jobs.

In regards to California's bankrupt status: Yes, the illegals are
taking full advantage of the situation, and we seem to be letting
them. What gets me is the attitude of many people I
encounter on this very subject. They act as though it is discrimination
to be upset about the illegals having numerous children, at the taxpayers
expense. It's not PC for me to say, "Hey wait a minute! Do not
have children that America has to pay for!"
Never mind the fact that these people have disregarded our immigration
laws. Unfortunately, things will not get better in California because it
has become a mob mentality on the subject of illegal immigration.
The majority here are Mexican - the majority rules.

Mike just because you have the belief that their are illegal immigrants living here stealing jobs from you and taking away your privileges as an American citizen does not mean that every American feels this way or is effected as such. Some Americans feel that their privileges as an American to seek employment and make a living and enjoy quality of life is dependent on the ability to find affordable labor or affordable goods. It is no where near as simple and straight forward as many of you like to portray. There is not just one singular direct cause and effect scenario taking place.

The reality is there is a far heavier and stronger influencer in all this..it is the anchor of capitalism. (take note: it is ok to dehumanize the concept of capitalism...but doing so to babies is highly patronizing.)



Your right...our forefathers could never of imagined the alleged crisis you seem to feel is happening in Los Angeles or even California and how it would effect our country especially considering California at the time was not even a part of our country.
If your argument is this kind of immigration is eventually going to lead us to destruction than the past mass immigration of the 20th century is not a very wise one to quote as an example of this...because it shows quite the opposite result.

Besides during our forefather's time in America people immigrated to America in the exact same means to which you have such a horrid repulsion to. Our current border patrols were not put into place until the 1920s.



So be it so be it ..need I remind you that we are an open society which practices open and free trade. Your wrong... a lot of people in America would have a problem paying a dollar more for their lettuce because that would make life that much more difficult to provide. Over 2 dollars for lettuce is obscene...and it would not happen...what would happen is the people would remain in Mexico and farm lettuce far far cheaper and we would be importing lettuce from Mexico not workers..and then our lettuce farmers would have ACTUAL LEGITIMATE complaints about the loss of the right to work...other than these make believe ones we hear of instead. Yet I am sure many of you would not care...you don't farm, you don't live in the rural farming areas and who can tell the difference from a piece of lettuce from Mexico? Well personally I care. I want my lettuce being grown in my country and I don't want to have to pay exorbitant prices for it. That is my little interpretation of the 14th amend. I think the privilege to work is already granted in this nation BETTER than any other in the world and I also feel it is my privilege as an American to be able to feed and house my kids and provide for them a decent standard of life.



As if it is all that simple. We have some states that have a lot larger agriculture ind. than others who also at the same time have a lot of other attractive and far more lucrative employment opportunities. Some states have only farming to really sustain themselves so if you live in that state it is pretty likely you will farm and if you don't want to farm you will move. Some states are a lot more urban than others. Some states have very few employment opportunities and so they attract very few new residents...legal or not. Many factors involved in how and why our state's economies and workforces are interacting and sustaining themselves.



Um no it is discrimination to call people and classify them with less than kind terms based on some wrong you personally find with their birth.

The wrong here is with their parents actions. Their parents actions are motivated by the current immigration laws. Change the law, requiring that a child born in America is only a citizen if their parent(s) are here legally (Tourist, immigrant, student visa, whatever) and the motivation for this is gone and with it goes the problem.

Immigration needs to be addressed. But it needs to be addressed with the good of the country in mind. Do we need cheap labor in some sectors, yes. Do we need more people on public assistance? no.

Creating a migrant worker program, expanding the numbers of legal immigrants allowed each year, and streamlining the immigration process are all necessary steps for the good of the country as a whole.

Allowing people to manipulate the system so that all Americans, including LEGAL immigrants have to pay to support them is terrible for everyone.

Well said, overlandsailor.

I would like to add a couple of points.

First of all, to give citizenship status to children of illegals
is rewarding illegal actions. That is unacceptable.
Society is adversely affected by the massive population
growth created by illegal aliens. Overcrowded schools,
over-burdened (free) medical care, increases in crime,
etc.

On top of that, for all the folks who take pity on the
millions of illegals having children in the U.S., the ones who
are most adversely affected by this phenomenon are
the illegals themselves. They enter this country
to do cheap labor. This puts them in the very low
income strata. Having a child, under such circumstances,
pretty much guarantees they will not be moving up
in the world.

I would echo the above, plus add that these "babies" also take resources that we simply are running out of. Medical care and educational costs for the children of "illegals" are bankrupting the health care and public education sectors.

The Founding Fathers never intended that citizenship was to be extended to someone who broke the law to enter our country, nor their offspring.

From FoxNews:

I read this article this morning and had to throw some fuel on this fire. It seems that now you do not even have to be born on American soil to be considered a citizen, just being on American soil illegally is enough.

Bogus argument. Completely.

You have no way of knowing what the companies hiring illegals can pay while remaining competitive and profitable. Maybe than can pay competitive wages, but don't because they don't have to. Do you have valid and substantiated data that shows they can't be profitable with more competitive wages? Simply saying they can't is hardly enough.

My point is, you're basing your stance on a simple assumption.

Anyhow, no amendment to the Constitution is required to deny citizenship to babies born to illegals here because the law was broken to achieve that. The Constitution is the law of the land and breaking the law to get to it is counter to it's entire premise.

For example, let's say I break into Elmer Fudd's printing press supply house and clean him out. I set his equipment up in a building and let my son run the place. The Feds come in and lock me up, but they can't take the equipment. Why? Because my son has freedom of the press and it's not his fault I was the one that broke the law to achieve that. I don't see how this argument is much different. Obviously, my son could continue to publish whatever he wants with equipment not stolen, but babies born to illegals have the same opportunity as anyone else to enter here legally.

It makes no sense to allow someone to break the law to gain protection by the Constitution even if it by proxy. If we're going to stick to the letter of the language, americasdebate.com should not be protected by the first amendment because the Constitution clearly implies printing press equipment and verbal statements (what speech actually was - there was no recording equipment then). So, be consistent if you're going to use that argument.

(This is an untimely and off-topic reply from the general discussion in this thread but I thought it worthwhile to clear up this misconception.)

Long ago, Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 in which "natural born" was defined to include children born abroad to citizen parents. It was intended to provide reassurance and certainty to members of the military and foreign services, as well as expatriate families, that their children were eligible to run for the presidency.

Yes. While not a student of constitutional law (or any other law for that matter), I think the following statement (posted by Belladonna, I think) is pretty darned clear that illegal immigrants, whether on foot or in utero are not entitled to automatic citizenship:

I live in Southern California, so the impact of illegal aliens (or whatever current PC term) is considerable. For a state that:

• Leads the country in hospital closures Hospital closures
• The Los Angeles county health department estimated that it spends $340 million annually to treat illegal immigrants who seek emergency or follow-up care in county hospitals. Health Dept[
• Has a crippling budget deficit, fully one-quarter of which is due to illegal immigration and immigrants in California who receive about $9.3 billion more in state expenditures than they pay in state taxes. Immigration And The State Budget Deficit
• Faces prisons so crowded we let criminals out to get more in…and between 1999 and 2003, the prison population of illegals, based on inmate days in prison, grew by 31%. (see previous URL)
• Faces gigantic costs every time the feds decide to up the “security threat” (like the guy who called in a terrorist threat on a Westside shopping mall…turns out he was mad at his girlfriend). Mall Terrorist
  Security Costs
  More Security Costs
  Even More Security Costs
• Made the incredibly stupid decision to run a gubernatorial recall election (cost: $70 million) Recall Cost
• Has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, and the financial well is running dry for unemployment benefit payments to the jobless (this is money law-abiding US citizens PAY INTO). CA Budget Project
• Has the 2nd highest housing cost in the nation (behind Massachusetts, I think) and a housing shortage to boot, some of the highest gasoline prices in the country.... (see CA Budget Project URL)

I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

We can’t possibly welcome every border-runner with open arms. It’s insanity, and it isn’t racist or insensitive to consider stricter controls on immigrants. It's a matter of common sense.

i, like the above post, am very affected by illegal aliens. i live in texas, go to a school of 2400, 60% of which is hispanic (i am white). from the evidence ive seen, ive concluded (this is not "exactly" how it is, but, from my own experiences) that children born in america through illegal parents does not necessarily entitle them to a "better life". now, most will say...."mexico is awful", "they get our protections", "theyll have so much better of a life here". now, well sometimes this might be true, but from my experiences, it dosent necessarily mean that. the hispanic population, descenting from mexico within 1 generation lives in poverty, has high rates of teenage pregnancy, and an even higher rate of drop outs. in my senior class, we are graduating with 455, even though we started with 1000+. if i remember the demographics correctly, i believe 90% of the dropouts were hispanic. and to what life do they drop out to? young parents...low paying jobs...alcoholism...complete poverty. now, of course, this isnt "always" the case.

on the direct subject of the aliens, i have friends who live on the southern tip of texas, very near the mexico border. this clause in the constitution is being exploited to the greatest extent. there have been reports of women, actually in labor, running across the border so that their children can become US citizens once born. now, you cant blame them for the desire of a better life, but like previously stated, do it legally. this amendment is being completely exploited, and for what? federal funding is being spent on these illegal aliens and their children, but for what purpose? to ensure them the protection of OUR country that they are illegally in? so that they can (not always) be a detriment to our society, economically and socially (gangs and drug trafficking/use are in high percentages in these cultures). true, it is in the constituion for OUR citizens. i dont recall when our Constitution has ever been applied to other country's citizens.

so, my vote, obviously, is no, they should not become legal residents.

Quite frankly, I'm a bit surprised that (so far) this issue seems to be
split 50/50. My only assumption would be that many people voting here
are not directly (or do not feel they are) affected by this huge problem,
known as "illegal immigration."

To make matters worse, we are now living in a social climate that is
extremely hyper-sensitive. We cannot call a spade a spade, so to speak.
In essence, language is controlling our thoughts, and that is not good.

Illegal aliens are a detriment to our future. Their offspring should not
be granted citizenship status, and I would vote for any candidate who
would make "stopping the growing problem of illegal immigration"
his top priority.

If illegal immigration is not stopped it will be the downfall of America.

My take... give all illegal aliens one year to get the process rolling for citizenship. After that... deport 'em all.

I think the 14th Amendment has to be reviewed because of the times we live in. I don't think the founding fathers' foresight included Mexicans (and mind you they aren't the only ones, Chinese are close behind them, ask any port in LA or Long Beach) coming here ILLEGALLY (remember that word folks...it means against the law!), draining state resources, contributing to crime, and at the expense of American's tax dollars.

Two things that need to be pointed out.

Illegal = Against the law...

Other immigrants go through the process which can be rather long. Is this fair to them?

Also, there are between six to eight million illegal aliens in the US. Two million of them live in my state, California.

This article shows one way that illegals are draining state and federal resources.



Now this article/link is for all the John & Ken (KFI AM 640) fans out there who will know that this issue has been brought up before...

http://www.kfi640.com/davidmarch.html




What many do is commit violent crimes then flee back to Mexico, a country that will not extridite criminals back here if their crimes can warrant the death penalty, change their aliases, and then return to start again.

Their should be an amendment that should call for immeadiate deportation of all illegal aliens after the one year timeframe I mentioned. They don't have to have their green cards in hand, but the ball damn well better be rolling. Those who don't, and those caught illegaly entering after will be deported a.s.a.p. to country of origin.




And yet, my sister had to have an english tutor because her class was taught entirely in spanish. The rights of families to seek justice are ripped away because illegals we let in commit crimes and return to Mexico where we can't get to them.

Our children's right to a good education is being hampered because their parents chose to brak the law.

Funny, it seems as if the only rights being taken away, are from Americans.

Oh and one last thing.

I may lean to the right, and for the lack of a better choice vote for Bush, but this amnesty program (a.k.a. No Illegal Left Behind) is very distressing. I hope he reconsiders that.

I say that the child is an American citizen and is entitled to all of the rights carried with it. But the parents are still illegal aliens. What did they do that suddenly grants them citizenship rights? I see nothing in the Constitution about the parents of someone born on U.S. soil getting citizenship. They have no right to remain here, and should still be deported. They can leave the child with legal family here or in a foster home or they can take the child with them. I don't mean to be cold, but I did not create the situation they find themselves in, they did. They would have to make that decision, and it would be because of their actions, nobody elses. It's a difficult situation, but allowing a loop hole that grants pseudo-citizenship to a large chunk of illegal immigrants to exist any longer is a horrible idea.