It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

49% of Americans support repealing birthright citizenship: CNN poll

page: 1
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   

As leading Republicans signal support for rescinding the Constitutional guarantee of US citizenship to those born in America, a new CNN poll finds that 49 percent of the American public would favor doing so.

Fifty-one percent of those surveyed opposed the idea when asked, "Would you favor or oppose a Constitutional amendment to prevent children born here from becoming U.S. citizens unless their parents are also U.S. citizens?"

The concept of birthright citizenship was enshrined in the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution in 1868 -- on the Republican Party's leadership -- during the aftermath of the Civil War, largely to ensure that slaves and their children attained citizenship. It has since served to preclude the government from granting citizenship on the basis of race or politics.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
Source: rawstory.com...

Considering that this poll was conducted by CNN, we can assume that it may have a bias towards amnesty, though regardless, that 2 percent should be well within the margin of error. Unfortunately, in order to repeal a Constitutional Amendment, you need much more support than that. I do however believe that the support is there. It seems clear that most American citizens do not buy into the whole amnesty issue or methods of helping illegals stay in country and take our jobs.

Sadly, as we have seen in the past, it doesn't matter what Americans want, don't want or what is in our best interests. All that really matters, is what corporate and special interests want or what's in their best interests.

If you think about it, the intent of the 14th Amendment, was not to aid illegal immigrants with staying in our country.

With that being said, I personally do not agree with repealing the whole 14th Amendment, as it does have some important attributes contained within it, however we do need to repeal the "citizenship clause", which allows illegal immigrants to use babies as tools to pry our sovereignty from our hands.

--airspoon



[edit on 11-8-2010 by airspoon]




posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


aint never gonna happen cause if it did happen they could kick mr obama out.

and noooooooooooo way will they ever let that happen



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


Your supposition that an amendment to disallow the anchor baby interpretation of the 14th amendment would require much more support is misleading. The fact is that the constitution allows for a pathway to amending the constitution that makes an end run around the Federal Government. It would only take a simple majority of the legislature of 34 states to vote to force the government to hold a constitutional convention in which the states can propose amendments. If the bodies of 34 states do this then the federal guys are REQUIRED to oblige. Given the growing power struggles between the states and the feds I believe this would not be as difficult as it may seem. The only obstacles I could see standing in the way are voter ignorance and apathy. But , if a public education campaign was to be undertook using both the internet and paid political ads from a PAC that would form to accomplish this it very well could be achievable.

Once a convention is under way an amendment like the above stated one could be proposed. It would still require a majority vote of 38 state legislatures to be ratified. Once again, if the public is sufficiently educated I would see no problem with that. It would require a major push leading up to an election year( perhaps starting the push in summer 2011 would be wise) , with the members of said legislatures in the respective states facing the prospects of being voted out if they would vote against it. I personally feel it would likely pass in my state easily. Not only could an anchor baby amendment be proposed, but a slew of other amendments with the design of strictly limiting Washington's power.

If all went according to plan then 2012 could hold a very distinctive place in US history...a year in which the freedoms promised us by our founders started along the pathway to restoration.



posted on Aug, 11 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by GREASEWORM
 


I'm not a lawyer, but civics 101 teaches us that Article Five of the United States Constitution requires either a supermajority vote (2/3, both houses) in Congress or a Constitutional Convention called by at least 2/3 of the States (38), as you have suggested.

If this pole is accurate, which I believe it is in the ball park with maybe a slight bias towards pro-illegal immigration, then that is nowhere near the supermajority votes needed by Congress and it is insufficient data to know whether enough States would support such a convention.

Furthermore, a National Convention has only been attempted twice, neither time successful. There is nothing to lead me to believe that it would be successful over this issue, though admittedly, I don't doubt that it could happen.

As far as counting on the education of the public on this issue, I wouldn't hold my breath. Just the other day, I met a woman who still believed that Saddam Hussein was hiding WMD in Iraq and that Mr. Saddam was involved with the attacks on 9/11.

Sadly, the vast majority of Americans couldn't care less about anything short of their favorite American Idol personality or what color shoes Paris Hilton is wearing to whatever night club. The priorities of most Americans simply aren't in line and they wouldn't know freedom or liberty if it was having dinner outside of their cell block.

In fact, most Americans can't even tell you at least four of the liberties protected by our Bill of Rights. Again, if it isn't on E News Weekly (or whatever that program is called), then they simply don't care. For instance, I heard someone say just a couple of months ago, that Obama ended the war just as promised and s/he knew this because CNN was no longer reporting on the war.

It's a sad, sad war and if it doesn't benefit corporate or elitist interests, then it isn't going to get done. What's better for the country seems to no longer matter, neither by the public itself or those ruling over her.

Finally, even if the vast majority of Americans do agree with repealing the Amendment, it wouldn't matter much as our government does what it wants, not accountable to anyone other than maybe an entity invisible to us. This was made clear with not only health care, but also the bail outs and some would even argue the 2000 and 2004 elections. It has become clear that the American public has absolutely no sway in the policy set down by her ruling regime.


--airspoon



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Oh here we go. The Neo Nazis (er I mean Cons) are gaining control.

So oh short sighted fools. Why on Earth would you want to destroy this amendment? You do know that this Amendment ALSO prevents states from stomping all over your other fundamental rights right? Like your precious 2nd Amendment right to bear arms? Get rid of the 14th Amendment, and States can legally and constitutionally outlaw GUNS! All this to get rid of the illegals babies?

What? To get the illegals? Really? You want to give up our freedoms to get at the illegals babies?

I mean what is a baby going to...



OMG! OMG! HITLER BABY! KILL IT, KILL IT WITH FIRE!

I now see what you neo cons mean, those Hitler babies are just awful, sprouting up everywhere. Thank god the Neo-Cons are here to strip us of our civil liberties in order to save us from the horrors that are the "Hitler Anchor Babies!" (DUNN DUNN DUNN!)



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 12:43 AM
link   
I think your blowing it up a bit chum... lol.. they want to alter it which isn't getting rid of it. hell shooting them would be nice there parants not the babies.. they can be used in the concentra...I mean happy camps. I don't see what all the fuss is about if we just round them up.. its no like they have rights or any thing. a non us. person cannot sue or challange the us in court. so there not even people right? screw them... end sarcasim



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 01:36 AM
link   
Only question I have is, How far back can we take this?


My family arrived on these shores in 1700.


I say anybody whose family wasn't in the U.S. by the time the U.S. became the U.S. should get the hell out of the U.S.!


[/sarcasm and /rant]


[edit on 12-8-2010 by Bhadhidar]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Bhadhidar
 

YOU ALIEN. My family came here in 1650, go back where you came from. Besides, I'm part Indian too so I can stay regardless.




posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 


thats crap if you ask me ,

if a baby is born in ANY country it has a a foundimental right to automatic citizenship of that country .

denying that just because the parents are not citizens is BS .



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 06:01 AM
link   
When have polls meant much? That would mean that the other 51% does not support the repeal of birthright citizenship. What is it that the tea party folks want? The return of majority rule? Well, there you have it. The majority does not want the repeal.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by alysha.angel
 


That doesn't really make sense. What on Earth makes you think that a baby born in a particular country gives him/her a fundamental right to be a citizen of that country? Tell me, what law of nature is that? What is the reasoning and logic behind it?

If you break into my home and have a baby on my dining room floor, does that mean that the baby then has a right to stay in my home? Now, I'm not suggesting that an illegal alien is a criminal , per se, at least of the same caliber of a burglar but from the baby's stand point, it's the same kind of thing.

Also, I don't having anything against an illegal alien giving birth here in the United States and I certainly don't have anything against the baby his/herself. I'm not even completely against giving citizenship to a baby born here, though my problem lies with the parents, when they use these children as tools... As anchor babies.

You can't tell me that this doesn't happen. I don't know how many times I have heard pro-amnesty advocates use the whole "anchor baby" argument against the deportation of illegal immigrants. If you come into this country illegally and give birth to a child, you should not be able to use this child as a tool or a sympathy ballad for staying in country. They should either find a legal resident to care for the child or they should take the child back with them to their country of origin. Nobody is forcing parent-child separation when they order someone deported, as there is nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, to stop that child from returning to the country of their parent's origin, with their parent/s.

As far as the illegal immigration debate, we are probably the only country that allows people to migrate and cross the border illegally. If we tried to go to their countries illegally, we would be deported. Now, I have nothing against the illegals themselves, as I understand why they want to come. However, that doesn't make the situation any less dire, nor is it an viable excuse. I'm not a big fan of punishing the illegals so much as I am of punishing the corporations and businesses that hire them, though something needs to be done.

We have far too many Americans out of work and by having millions of people crossing the border who can afford to work for much cheaper than we can, it only helps to put even more Americans out of work. You see, many or most of these illegals come from countries with a much lower cost of living, which allows them to support their families on such cheap labor. Americans don't have that luxury, and thus can't compete. While they can feed their families on those low wages, we can't. This gives them an advantage over us.

furthermore, the excuse that they take the jobs that we don't want, is null and void because that is wholly untrue. They take the jobs that Americans don't want, for the wages that they are willing to work for. I bet that the vast majority of out of work Americans would be willing to do every job that illegals take, so long as the wage is enough to put food in the mouths of their children and a roof over their heads.

As far as amnesty goes, if these illegals become legal, then even they won't stay with those jobs that are alleged to be unwanted. What's to make them stay with those jobs? Absolutely nothing. This will only allow them to move into better jobs while creating another gap that will only be filled with a new batch of illegals. Then, you have to start the whole process over again and this new batch will be screaming for amnesty. Where then do you draw the line? When they take your job? Do you just keep going 'round and 'round until the majority of Americans are out of work due to amnesty-legals? Remember the advantage they have of supporting their families for much less money? The only people who will then lose, are Americans.

Again, I feel for these illegal immigrants and I certainly understand their position but I can't condone it. Society as a whole is benefitting by allowing illegals to make a life here because it only hurts American families. So, by helping one family, you are hurting one, two, three, four American families already here, possibly more. These illegals maybe need to change the situation in their own countries instead of coming here, the easy route. Nobody is saying that it will be easy for them to change the situation in their countries of origin, however Americans should not pay the price for this. In fact, I would even go as far as to suggest that it is their duty to change the situation in their homelands. They can't simply take the easy way out by shifting their problems to Americans, people who have no say in the operation or direction of the countries of those who displace them.

--airspoon

 
 
 


reply to post by Bhadhidar
 



Only question I have is, How far back can we take this?


You don't take it back past a future date, whenever the repeal would take affect. So, you make it valid from the day that a law is passed. The repeal itself would not create a law. The repeal would only allow a law to be passed to enforce or outline the people's will.

If sarcasm defined your intent, or if your point was that we were all immigrants at one point in time (even the Native Americans), then the difference is that most of our ancestors were legal immigrants. There is a huge difference between the right way of doing something and the wrong way of doing something.

When your family arrived on these shores back in 1700, then they probably came legally, especially seeing how we weren't even a country then. In fact, most American citizens did not break US immigration laws when immigrating here.

 
 
 


Most people seem to forget that this country would fail if we just allowed everyone to come over. In fact, our country, the United States of America, has some of the most relaxed immigration laws and we are, by far, the easiest nation to immigrate to legally. What more can you possibly ask of us? Are we to take food out of the mouths of our children so that they may put food in the mouths of theirs? If there was a way to share and make everyone happy, then I'm all for it, though that's not possible. We already share the best way that we can and this is why we have such a relaxed and easy immigration procedure, relatively speaking.

When families come illegally, they are basically taking by force, more than we can afford to share with our current circumstances. These illegal immigrants are basically applying force to the many American families they displace and the initiation of force against another human being is wrong, as it is against the fundamental laws of nature.

Again, I'm sorry that these people have it so rough in their countries of origin, but I ask them not to apply force against my family and put us in their stead, as I have no recourse and no influence on their homeland, as they do. I'll share what I can but that's all I can do because anything more and it will be my family to suffer, instead of theirs. To get in on what I'm willing and can afford to share, all you have to do is legally enter this country and go through the relatively easy process of becoming a legal resident of this once great nation. If they don't do it the right way, then they over extending what we have allotted to share and thus only drag the system down, eventually getting to a point where we won't be able to share at all.

--airspoon








[edit on 12-8-2010 by airspoon]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by alysha.angel
thats crap if you ask me ,

if a baby is born in ANY country it has a a foundimental right to automatic citizenship of that country .

denying that just because the parents are not citizens is BS .


You're not automatically a citizen by birth in Switzerland. I think there are other countries that have similar rules.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by airspoon
 



If you think about it, the intent of the 14th Amendment, was not to aid illegal immigrants with staying in our country.


How does it aid illegal immigrants stay in this country?

The parents don't get to apply for legal status for quite some time.

The illegal parents will have to wait till the child is 21 years old.


U.S. citizens must be age 21 or older to file petitions for siblings or parents. There is no minimum age for a sponsor to file petitions for all other categories of family based immigrant visas. However, you must be 18 years of age and have a residence (domicile) in the U.S. before you can sign the Affidavit of Support, Form I-864 or I-864-EZ. This form is required for an immigrant visa for spouses and other relatives of U.S. sponsors.


So far, the illegal parents have to wait 21 years.

Then immigration fees have to paid, need a medical examination and updated on vaccinations, have to go before an interview.

Of course, all of this takes more time.


Many approved immigrant petitions take additional time because they are in numerically limited categories. The length of time varies from case to case according to its circumstances, and cannot be predicted for individual cases with any accuracy. Some cases are delayed because the applicants do not follow instructions carefully. Sometimes the petitioner cannot meet Affidavit of Support requirements. Some visa applications require further administrative processing, which takes additional time after the visa applicant’s interview by a Consular Officer.


And of course, none of this is a guarantee.


Certain conditions and activities may make you, the applicant, ineligible for a visa.


Furthermore, after a wait of about 25 years or more the illegal parents may have died, changed their mind about coming to the US, or just get frustrated with the system among other possible reasons.


Here is the source for the quotes above with all the requirements for bring relatives to the US.

travel.state.gov...

As for the welfare aspect of it; well, I personally believe an American is entilted to what other Americans get.

But that aside, all Congress has to do is pass a law stating that at least one parent has to be legal citizen of the US in order to qualify for assistance.

They did something similiar with the earned income credit on the tax form. Why not on this issue?



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   
I'm not from the USA, so this idea raises a question for me.

If the US constitution and Bill of Rights can be changed, altered or worked around, then what is the point of having them in the first place ?



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by airspoon
 



If you think about it, the intent of the 14th Amendment, was not to aid illegal immigrants with staying in our country.


How does it aid illegal immigrants stay in this country?

The parents don't get to apply for legal status for quite some time.

The illegal parents will have to wait till the child is 21 years old.


U.S. citizens must be age 21 or older to file petitions for siblings or parents. There is no minimum age for a sponsor to file petitions for all other categories of family based immigrant visas. However, you must be 18 years of age and have a residence (domicile) in the U.S. before you can sign the Affidavit of Support, Form I-864 or I-864-EZ. This form is required for an immigrant visa for spouses and other relatives of U.S. sponsors.


So far, the illegal parents have to wait 21 years.

Then immigration fees have to paid, need a medical examination and updated on vaccinations, have to go before an interview.

Of course, all of this takes more time.


Many approved immigrant petitions take additional time because they are in numerically limited categories. The length of time varies from case to case according to its circumstances, and cannot be predicted for individual cases with any accuracy. Some cases are delayed because the applicants do not follow instructions carefully. Sometimes the petitioner cannot meet Affidavit of Support requirements. Some visa applications require further administrative processing, which takes additional time after the visa applicant’s interview by a Consular Officer.


And of course, none of this is a guarantee.


Certain conditions and activities may make you, the applicant, ineligible for a visa.


Furthermore, after a wait of about 25 years or more the illegal parents may have died, changed their mind about coming to the US, or just get frustrated with the system among other possible reasons.


Here is the source for the quotes above with all the requirements for bring relatives to the US.

travel.state.gov...

As for the welfare aspect of it; well, I personally believe an American is entilted to what other Americans get.

But that aside, all Congress has to do is pass a law stating that at least one parent has to be legal citizen of the US in order to qualify for assistance.

They did something similiar with the earned income credit on the tax form. Why not on this issue?







so what do they do while waiting?

for 25years?

how do they live while being illegal as the kid(s) are growing up?



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by fooks
 



how do they live while being illegal as the kid(s) are growing up?



Some get deported, some go back home because they come for seasonal jobs or give up hope.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

What would be wrong with amending the law to add a clause that birthright citizenship shall apply to any child born of a mother who is LEGALLY in the country, whether she's a citizen or not? I'd support that.

I'd also support removing the requirement that any candidate for president be a natural born citizen, since there's never been a definitive ruling about what that means, anyway. And especially since it's completely irrelevant, in my opinion.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   

how do they live while being illegal as the kid(s) are growing up


Quietly.

As others have said the whole anchor baby thing is a MYTH.

My sister was deported, she has two American born children.

My mother was deported, she has two American born sons.

I was deported, my two American Born, Activley serving the members of the armed forces brothers weren't 21 yet.

I grew up in America, as an illegal for 25 years. I was 4 when my parents brought me illegaly. Hell I didn't even know I was illegal until I was in my late teen years

Now that my brothers are legally able to sponser me , and I've lived in Europe for a few years ( moved to the UK eventually as just couldn't get the language of my native country down pat), I've realized that America ain't all that so can't be bothered to try. Besides, as my brothers have moved up in life they've both been given security clearences that would be out in danger were it to be discovreed that most of their family lived in the States as illegals for a quarter of a century, I wouldn't want to ruin their military careers with that kind of baggage.

The UK will happily give me a passport in about 14 months when I have lived here as a citizen of good standing for five years. I'm happy about that, it's nice to feel wanted.

ANCHOR BABIES ARE A MYTH!



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Merigold
 


Once again, I proudly salute my fellow 2 anchor babies AMERICANS

Sure there are many more just like them who are defending this country night and day.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
...."I've realized that America ain't all that so can't be bothered to try.."

i wish other illegals would realize that then we wouldnt have nothing to talk bout:p




top topics



 
18
<<   2 >>

log in

join