Oklahoma Lawmaker wants to stop citizenship of children of illegal aliens

• Mooney44Cards

  

  Oklahoma upping the ante in the "we are the most backwards state in the union" contest.
  
  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127093634&ft=1&f=1001
  

  If you're born in the U.S.A., you're an American citizen. Some lawmakers, however, plan to challenge that basic assumption.
  
  In what might be the next great flash point in the nation's ongoing debate about immigration policy, legislation has been introduced in Congress and a pair of states to deny birth certificates to babies born of illegal-immigrant parents.
  
  "Currently, if you have a child born to two alien parents, that person is believed to be a U.S. citizen," says Randy Terrill, a Republican state representative in Oklahoma who is working on an anti-birthright bill. "When taken to its logical extreme, that would produce the absurd result that children of invading armies would be considered citizens of the U.S."

  This is completely outrageous. When taken to its logical extreme?!
  
  If we have an invading army on American soil, we got bigger problems to worry about. Also...wouldn't the invading army declare martial law and thereby nullify any laws that would or wouldn't make a child born on U.S. soil a citizen?
  
  We have a terrible economy and a war still going on, soldiers dying.....this guys worried about the citizenship of children.
  
  Oklahoma: The Sooner we take away all their rights, the sooner all the mexicans and gays go away State.
• bigkahuna

  So they want to repeal an amendment that has been around for 150 years?
  
  I agree, I don't like the idea of a lady coming across the border as her water breaks, but is it really the child's fault that their parents are POS?
• IggyPride00

  

  I would totally support the idea in theory, but it would take either an activist court to re-interpret the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment (which conservatives would abhor considering they detest activist judges legislating from the bench), or a constitutional amendment which explicitly changed the citizenship clause itself.
  
  Congress could try and set up a constituational crisis by passing a law like that under the guess that U.S born children to foreign nationals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S, and thus not entitled to citizenship from the 14th ammendment unless one parent was U.S citizen or legal resident. Some Congressmen have introduecd bills like that, but they never go anywhere because of fear of the constitutionality issue.
  
  Assuming they ever even did pass such a statute, to eliminate anchor babies this court would have to overturn 150 years of settled case law. That would be a prime example of judicial activism, and we don't want that.
  
  If Latinos continue trending towards Democrats as they have been in recent years and become a voting block for them like blacks are you can guarantee there will never be action taken on anchor babies as they would represent future Democrat party voters once the next round of amnesty we have every 30 years or so happens.
  
  I think it is ridiculous and encourages illegal immigration, but unfortunately the Constitution is a tough thing to deal with when it is pretty clear about its intentions about who is to be considered a citizen.
• iclfan2

  

  I think babies born to illegal immigrants should not be considered citizens as well.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  I'm not liking that proposed bill, however, I'm also not 100% against it either. Simply because I understand the backround and reasoning for it. That's where the catch is for me.
  I understand why the state is trying to get some of its power back, I just don't think this is the right crusade to use.
• cbus4life

  The "when taken to its logical extreme" comment is one of the most idiotic politics-related comments of the year, but...not at all shocked that people are starting to mention this.
• sherm03

  

  "When taken to its logical extreme, that would produce the absurd result that children of invading armies would be considered citizens of the U.S."

  Wrong!
  
  The "logical extreme" here would be when the gates of hell open up and the demons begin to walk the earth again to signal the end of days...the demon spawn would result in that spawn being considered a citizen of the U.S.
  
  THAT is the "logical extreme" that people need to think about when weighing in on this case...and it is completely unacceptable!
• Little Danny

  

  Anyone else wonder if aliens from outer space invaded the earth whether people would be clamoring for their citizenship or declaring their attack on us was justrified due to the US policy in space? I know that is ridiculous, but I have seriously thought about this lately. Picture the movie "Independence Day"; people would be booing Will Smith and declaring the President was violating the rights of the locusts from outer space.
  
  Speaking of locusts, this Oklahoma policy is a good start to a measure to deter illegals coming to their state. When you couple the fact they also have policy that requires people to show proof of citizenship before entering schools or receiving other government benefits, Oklahoma has seen a decrease in illegals entering the state. The illegals thus go on to other states that do not have such a strict policy. If other states would pick up the same measures, the illegal problem would not be so much a problem anymore.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  I like the idea. Just like people say "it isn't the babies fault that their parents are turds". Well, it isn't our fault either and it costs us money.
  
  I'm all for the immigrant and citizenship laws in this country being reevaluated. Some people think they're set in stone because they've been around for 150+ years--but that's exactly why they don't hold water. They need to be updated for the times. We DON'T need more people moving in here the way we used to. There are a lot of examples of how we have too many damn people anyways. There becomes a tipping point when certain resources aren't plentiful enough for the size of the population.
• Belly35

  

  I will hold my opinion for now ..... Its like spliting hairs
• Writerbuckeye

  

  If they can do away with the whole "anchor baby" thing, it would be a step in the right direction.
  
  As noted above, all these immigration laws need to be revisited and made current to meet the times in which we live.
  
  Let me be clear, though: I am totally in favor of LEGAL immigration and hope it continues. This country was built by bringing together the proverbial melting pot, and I don't want to see that eliminated. I just want the borders secured and the free rides eliminated.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  Agreed. I support legal immigration.
• cbus4life

  I think the U.S. should reevauluate this just as pretty much the rest of the world has.
  
  Hell, i've known United States citizens who, when pregnant, have waited until the last possible moment that they were able to fly while pregnant, flown to an EU country as if they were simply on "holiday", and then poof! Had their baby there, therefore ensuring citizenship for that child, and the possibility for dual citizenship in both the U.S. and EU, which is a huge advantage for the child.
  
  However, most countries have done away with the "birthright" policy, and i think the U.S. should consider it as well.
• tk421

  

  cbus4life wrote: I think the U.S. should reevauluate this just as pretty much the rest of the world has.
  
  Hell, i've known United States citizens who, when pregnant, have waited until the last possible moment that they were able to fly while pregnant, flown to an EU country as if they were simply on "holiday", and then poof! Had their baby there, therefore ensuring citizenship for that child, and the possibility for dual citizenship in both the U.S. and EU, which is a huge advantage for the child.
  
  However, most countries have done away with the "birthright" policy, and i think the U.S. should consider it as well.

  Agreed. It's time for the U.S. to get with the times and do something about our immigration laws, but I seriously doubt anything like this will ever happen in my lifetime. The truth is there aren't any politicians in D.C. who have the balls to ever try to do anything about our illegal immigration problem. I don't see it every getting fixed.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  tk421 wrote:

  cbus4life wrote: I think the U.S. should reevauluate this just as pretty much the rest of the world has.
  
  Hell, i've known United States citizens who, when pregnant, have waited until the last possible moment that they were able to fly while pregnant, flown to an EU country as if they were simply on "holiday", and then poof! Had their baby there, therefore ensuring citizenship for that child, and the possibility for dual citizenship in both the U.S. and EU, which is a huge advantage for the child.
  
  However, most countries have done away with the "birthright" policy, and i think the U.S. should consider it as well.

  Agreed. It's time for the U.S. to get with the times and do something about our immigration laws, but I seriously doubt anything like this will ever happen in my lifetime. The truth is there aren't any politicians in D.C. who have the balls to ever try to do anything about our illegal immigration problem. I don't see it every getting fixed.

  
  The fact is, that governors and their states (agreeing not at federal level) are now taking steps to manage problematic issues within their states to customize laws that best serve the troubleshooting that is needed; and therefore, the citizens of said states.
  And look at how their getting dragged through the moreass of name calling, political profiling, derision of state choices, etc.
  These states are called... ummm...let's see: backward, racist, wingnuts, neocons and such.
  The name calling and all that is usually done by people who have never spent enough time in a state that has to deal with being overwhelmed by illegal immigrants (of all kinds) and the financial burdens that come with it. Or, it is done by people with political skin in the game.
  
  It's absolutely ignorant, IMO, based on the true definition of the word.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  Exactly why we're trying to vote them all out. Fuck our politicians. Fuck politicians period, that's the whole problem. We need public servants, not politicians.
• IggyPride00

  

  Agreed. It's time for the U.S. to get with the times and do something about our immigration laws, but I seriously doubt anything like this will ever happen in my lifetime.

  The fact that it will take a constitutional amendment to do anything truly substantive on the issue (eliminate anchor babies) really makes this a tough problem to solve as those are nearly impossible to get done considering the size of the majorities in the states and Congress needed to accomplish a goal.
  It makes all the sense in the world in 2010 to do away with the citizenship clause, but the nature of our Constitution makes it a tall mountain.
  
  As I said, the other option is to have the Supreme Court serve as Judicial activists and reinterpret the citizenship clause after a 150 years, but that would make Conservatives irate as well as enormous hypocrites considering the way they have railed against activist courts for doing this very thing for decades now to suit their political agenda.
  
  Anyway you look at it there are no real good options or quick fixes.
• cbus4life

  I agree, no quick fixes, unfortunately.
  
  However, i'm pretty much entirely for doing away with this clause. The rest of the world pretty much has, we might as well do the same.
  
  Just makes sense.
• IggyPride00

  

  cbus4life wrote: I agree, no quick fixes, unfortunately.
  
  However, i'm pretty much entirely for doing away with this clause. The rest of the world pretty much has, we might as well do the same.
  
  Just makes sense.

  Congress could at some point muster enough votes to pass a law revoking the clause were it that easy, but I see no scenario in which the numbers are ever there for a constitutional amendment sadly and that is what it is ultimately going to take.
• cbus4life

  Yea, what i was trying to get at.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  cbus4life wrote: I agree, no quick fixes, unfortunately.
  
  However, i'm pretty much entirely for doing away with this clause. The rest of the world pretty much has, we might as well do the same.
  Just makes sense.

  
  Just like every other "social" issue, right?
  
  One great big UNION!!!!
• FatHobbit

  

  CenterBHSFan wrote:

  cbus4life wrote: I agree, no quick fixes, unfortunately.
  
  However, i'm pretty much entirely for doing away with this clause. The rest of the world pretty much has, we might as well do the same.
  Just makes sense.

  
  Just like every other "social" issue, right?
  
  One great big UNION!!!!

  oops!
• SQ_Crazies

  

  No, this issue is different.
• FatHobbit

  

  SQ_Crazies wrote: No, this issue is different.

  I can't tell if that's sarcasm or not.
• SQ_Crazies

  

  It's not. I agree, fuck what the rest of the world is doing. We should do this because it'd be good for us, not because the rest of the world has done it. Pretty sure that isn't what cbus meant either, he was just using that as an example.