In Need of an Enemy?

[cam elle toe]

I saw a bit about this on Jon Stewart last night...and he was saying that there is thought that they are Al Qeada "plants" and are being born there so you have your own little home grown terrorists?


Are ya's really THAT paranoid?:willy_nilly:

 

[Zorak]

Here is the problem that nobody seems to address in this debate.

If a child is born here in the states to illegal immigrants and is not considered a citizen. Then what happens to that child when it goes back to it's parents country of origin? Whether it be through deportation or if the parents just decide to go back home. The child will not be a citizen of the parents home country and it won't be a citizen of the US, so what happens to the child?

Those that want to amend the 14th amendment to not include citizenship for children born here to illegals don't realize that when they send the parents and child back to that country they will not recognize that child as a citizen... So what happens to that child?

That was one of the first things I wondered. But...

Why wouldn't the child be a citizen of the parent's country? (S)he would be if an American woman gave birth overseas.

...then I realised this. Nationless citizens I'm sure could exist, but for the most part they're just part of a characters background in spy novels.

 

[Tim]

Why wouldn't the child be a citizen of the parent's country? (S)he would be if an American woman gave birth overseas.

That's not true. If you and your wife went on vacation and she gave birth there, your baby would be a citizen of that country. When you came home, you would need to fill out paperwork, provide two passport photos of the baby and provide the birth certificate. After a fee and some more paperwork, the baby can gain citizenship, actually dual citizenship since they would also be a citizen of the country they were born in.

But being American and having a baby in another country does not mean the baby is an American citizen. You need to apply for citizenship for your baby. And just because it works like this here, it doesn't mean that it works like this in other countries.

 

[Minor Axis]

Ah, the good old constitution which is always right and many Americans feel cannot be questioned.

This is how it works- if there is something in the Constitution you like, you don't want to change it. If you don't like it, you do. I think this aspect of the Constitution needs updating.

Here's the thing... criminals are going to find a way to acquire guns regardless of restrictions. All the restrictions do is prevent people from being able to buy a gun legally. How many criminal organizations go to their local Wal-Mart or gun store to buy weapons? I'm willing to bet almost none... at least not ones with any brains whatsoever. They get their guns from other criminal organizations... most of which are smuggled in from Mexico. Hmm, which brings us back to the whole immigration and border enforcement issue.

In the entire world, why is it that the U.S. has the most deaths by gun? Why do we have this problem? :humm:

Originally Posted by Tim
Here is the problem that nobody seems to address in this debate.

If a child is born here in the states to illegal immigrants and is not considered a citizen. Then what happens to that child when it goes back to it's parents country of origin? Whether it be through deportation or if the parents just decide to go back home. The child will not be a citizen of the parents home country and it won't be a citizen of the US, so what happens to the child?

The way is should work is that the child should be a citizen of the same country as the parent. She was here illegally. Without any documentation, as far as Mexico is concerned she is still within the homeland border. When she gets sent home, neither she nor the kid will have any kind of a passport.

 

[Accountable]

That's not true. If you and your wife went on vacation and she gave birth there, your baby would be a citizen of that country. When you came home, you would need to fill out paperwork, provide two passport photos of the baby and provide the birth certificate. After a fee and some more paperwork, the baby can gain citizenship, actually dual citizenship since they would also be a citizen of the country they were born in.

But being American and having a baby in another country does not mean the baby is an American citizen. You need to apply for citizenship for your baby. And just because it works like this here, it doesn't mean that it works like this in other countries.

Tim, you know I love ya like a stranger, but I'm going to need more than just your say-so to believe this.

 

[Francis]

That's not true. If you and your wife went on vacation and she gave birth there, your baby would be a citizen of that country. When you came home, you would need to fill out paperwork, provide two passport photos of the baby and provide the birth certificate. After a fee and some more paperwork, the baby can gain citizenship, actually dual citizenship since they would also be a citizen of the country they were born in.

Seems we don't have that issue.. If I would have had my kid while visiting the US ( or any other country ) my kid would have been Canadian automatically..

Every person born outside Canada after 15 February 1977, who has a Canadian parent at the time of birth, is automatically a Canadian citizen by descent. Every such person whose Canadian parent or parents were also not born in Canada and obtained their citizenship at birth by descent (i.e. second generation born abroad) must have successfully applied to maintain their Canadian citizenship before their 28th birthday, that is, if their 28th birthday took place before 17 April 2009. People falling into that category who did not take steps to maintain their citizenship lost their citizenship on that birthday. With Bill C-37[4] coming into effect on 17 April 2009, there is no longer a requirement nor any allowance to apply to maintain citizenship.

Bill C-37[4] came into effect on 17 April 2009, which changed the rules for Canadian citizenship. Individuals can now become Canadian citizens by descent only if one of their parents was either a native-born citizen of Canada or a foreign-born but naturalized citizen of Canada. The new law limits citizenship by descent to one generation born outside Canada.

All individuals born outside Canada but within one generation of the native-born or naturalized citizen parent are automatically recognized as Canadian citizens (retroactive to date of birth or date citizenship was lost).[4] The second generation born abroad, however, are not citizens of Canada at birth. Such an individual might even be stateless if he or she has no claim to any other citizenship. The second generation born abroad can only gain Canadian citizenship by immigrating to Canada; this can be done by their Canadian citizen parents sponsoring them as dependent children, a category with fewer requirements, which would also take less time than most other immigration application categories.

Under new rules introduced in 2009, foreign nationals being adopted by Canadian citizens can now acquire Canadian citizenship immediately upon completion of the adoption, without first entering Canada as a permanent resident under the previous rules.

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

I wonder how many other countries have adjusted their laws for such situations..

 

[Peter Parka]

British nationality law is fucking complicated due to all the dependencies we used to have around the world!:willy_nilly:

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

 

[Accountable]

But being American and having a baby in another country does not mean the baby is an American citizen. You need to apply for citizenship for your baby. And just because it works like this here, it doesn't mean that it works like this in other countries.

Tim, you know I love ya like a stranger, but I'm going to need more than just your say-so to believe this.

http://travel.state.gov/law/family_issues/birth/birth_593.html

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The birth of a child abroad to U.S. citizen parent(s) should be reported as soon as possible to the nearest American consular office for the purpose of establishing an official record of the child’s claim to U.S. citizenship at birth. [/FONT]

 

[Codrus]

Ah, the good old constitution which is always right and many Americans feel cannot be questioned. If you start breaking it for that, you also invite good reasons to change your stupid gun laws.

Peter, believe it or not the "founding Fathers" thought about stuff way in advance,...ill admit..they couldn't have thought of all of this underhanded and dirty politics that we are dealing with today, ..but the Constitution as it was written and intended to be used covers just about everything. as far as gun laws..those were put in that document for a reason.

 

[Peter Parka]

Peter, believe it or not the "founding Fathers" thought about stuff way in advance,...ill admit..they couldn't have thought of all of this underhanded and dirty politics that we are dealing with today, ..but the Constitution as it was written and intended to be used covers just about everything. as far as gun laws..those were put in that document for a reason.

It just gets better, the founding fathers were fortune tellers now!:24::24::24:

 

[Codrus]

It just gets better, the founding fathers were fortune tellers now!:24::24::24:

you know what i mean

 

[Accountable]

Peter, believe it or not the "founding Fathers" thought about stuff way in advance,...ill admit..they couldn't have thought of all of this underhanded and dirty politics that we are dealing with today, ..but the Constitution as it was written and intended to be used covers just about everything. as far as gun laws..those were put in that document for a reason.

When it comes to threads on America, Pete's a troll.

 

[Codrus]

When it comes to threads on America, Pete's a troll.

i thought that was Kelvins gig

 

[Peter Parka]

I'm a troll just because I don't think the constitution is unquestionably perfect? I guess Alien Allen was also trolling in this thread too when he said that it should be changed.

 

[Codrus]

i never said it was unquestionably perfect..i cant think of anyone who would say that,...about anything....what i said is that " it covers just about everything"...

 

[Peter Parka]

It covers just about everything? Really? What part of the constitution, for example covers the use and control of nuclear weapons?

 

[Accountable]

i thought that was Kelvins gig

Kelvin's a generalist. Pete's more specialized. He tries to drag any thread on the Constitution into a gun debate.

Now see? You've got me helping to derail the thread.

Was the subject legal citizenship or politicians using wedge issues to keep people distracted?

 

[Peter Parka]

I just used the gun thing as an example to make a point in this thread. Dont blame me because Americans are so uptight about their right to own guns that they want to jump all over me and make a big deal just because I mentioned them.:thumbup

 

[Tim]

Tim, you know I love ya like a stranger, but I'm going to need more than just your say-so to believe this.

http://travel.state.gov/law/family_issues/birth/birth_593.html

So I stand by my original assessment. If you have a child abroad, they are not a citizen of the US unless you follow the proper procedure. Until then, they are not a citizen of the US

 

[Codrus]

It covers just about everything? Really? What part of the constitution, for example covers the use and control of nuclear weapons?

lol..your funny..i believe the term "just about everything" is not all inclusive and certainly The Constitution does not go into detail about nuclear anything considering X-rays werent discovered untill 1895 by Wilhelm Roentgen and within five years the British Army is using a mobile x-ray unit to locate bullets and shrapnel in wounded soldiers in the Sudan, ...but it does cover war..which the use of nuclear weapons against another country would fall under

sorry to derail the thread