ADVERTISEMENT

Texas’s war on birthright babies

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
79,502
62,701
113
THE 14TH Amendment, ratified in 1868, states plainly that citizenship is automatically conferred on anyone born in the United States. Lately the state of Texas, blinded to the law by its antipathy to illegal immigrants, has determined that it is somehow exempt from that provision of the Constitution.

In an act of stunning official arrogance, the state has been refusing to issue birth certificates to increasing numbers of Texas-born children whose parents are undocumented immigrants. Without birth certificates, the children face barriers to being enrolled in day care and school, receiving Medicaid benefits — even being baptized.

The children, who so far number in the hundreds and possibly the thousands, are U.S. citizens. Yet by refusing to issue them birth certificates, on the pretext that their parents’ documents — including passports and photo IDs issued by Mexican consulates — do not meet the state’s standards, Texas is in effect making them stateless non-persons, devoid of rights and privileges.

No other state has pursued such a pernicious campaign against the blameless American-born children of immigrants in this country illegally. While half a dozen Republican candidates have said they favor overturning the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship, only Texas has adopted policies whose effect is to overturn it unilaterally.

The state’s position is that it is enforcing long-standing rules governing the documents it will accept from parents seeking to obtain birth certificates from local registrars. Acceptable documents include driver’s licenses, U.S. visas and unexpired voter ID cards issued by Mexico and other countries.

Lacking those documents, many undocumented immigrants in the past presented local officials with photo IDs issued by the dozen or so Mexican consulates in Texas. But in the past couple of years, as Republicans took exception to President Obama’s moves to temporarily protect some unauthorized immigrants from deportation, Texas cracked down, declaring that registrars would no longer accept consular cards from parents seeking birth certificates for their children. Groups representing undocumented immigrants and their children are suing the state in federal court.

Texas officials say their interest is to fight fraud and identity theft, insisting that Mexican consulates issue the photo IDs without authenticating documents presented by immigrants — an allegation Mexican officials strongly deny. Many other states accept the consular cards as valid IDs.

In any event, if Texas will not accept the consular cards, it is obliged to find some other means of issuing birth certificates to children born in the state; their parents’ immigration status is irrelevant. On Friday, lawyers representing some 60 undocumented parents and their children asked a federal judge to compel the state to issue the birth certificates.

Texas’s position subjects children and their parents to a Kafkaesque hall of mirrors. Officially, the state acknowledges that the children are U.S. citizens. It says their birth certificates are in the state’s database. But without issuing those certificates, it leaves certain immigrants unable to prove that they are their children’s parents and children unable to prove that they exist in any official capacity. That’s not governance; it’s harassment and oppression.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...f02d16-693f-11e5-9ef3-fde182507eac_story.html
 
It seems like it's time to start prosecuting some of these clowns. If you don't want to live by the constitution then you should either leave the country or work to change the amendment. It's really pretty simple.
 
THE 14TH Amendment, ratified in 1868, states plainly that citizenship is automatically conferred on anyone born in the United States. Lately the state of Texas, blinded to the law by its antipathy to illegal immigrants, has determined that it is somehow exempt from that provision of the Constitution.

In an act of stunning official arrogance, the state has been refusing to issue birth certificates to increasing numbers of Texas-born children whose parents are undocumented immigrants. Without birth certificates, the children face barriers to being enrolled in day care and school, receiving Medicaid benefits — even being baptized.

The children, who so far number in the hundreds and possibly the thousands, are U.S. citizens. Yet by refusing to issue them birth certificates, on the pretext that their parents’ documents — including passports and photo IDs issued by Mexican consulates — do not meet the state’s standards, Texas is in effect making them stateless non-persons, devoid of rights and privileges.

No other state has pursued such a pernicious campaign against the blameless American-born children of immigrants in this country illegally. While half a dozen Republican candidates have said they favor overturning the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship, only Texas has adopted policies whose effect is to overturn it unilaterally.

The state’s position is that it is enforcing long-standing rules governing the documents it will accept from parents seeking to obtain birth certificates from local registrars. Acceptable documents include driver’s licenses, U.S. visas and unexpired voter ID cards issued by Mexico and other countries.

Lacking those documents, many undocumented immigrants in the past presented local officials with photo IDs issued by the dozen or so Mexican consulates in Texas. But in the past couple of years, as Republicans took exception to President Obama’s moves to temporarily protect some unauthorized immigrants from deportation, Texas cracked down, declaring that registrars would no longer accept consular cards from parents seeking birth certificates for their children. Groups representing undocumented immigrants and their children are suing the state in federal court.

Texas officials say their interest is to fight fraud and identity theft, insisting that Mexican consulates issue the photo IDs without authenticating documents presented by immigrants — an allegation Mexican officials strongly deny. Many other states accept the consular cards as valid IDs.

In any event, if Texas will not accept the consular cards, it is obliged to find some other means of issuing birth certificates to children born in the state; their parents’ immigration status is irrelevant. On Friday, lawyers representing some 60 undocumented parents and their children asked a federal judge to compel the state to issue the birth certificates.

Texas’s position subjects children and their parents to a Kafkaesque hall of mirrors. Officially, the state acknowledges that the children are U.S. citizens. It says their birth certificates are in the state’s database. But without issuing those certificates, it leaves certain immigrants unable to prove that they are their children’s parents and children unable to prove that they exist in any official capacity. That’s not governance; it’s harassment and oppression.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...f02d16-693f-11e5-9ef3-fde182507eac_story.html
Even though the senator who proposed the amendment said this wasn't the case
 
Good for Texas. The 14th is a good amendment if other laws are enforced. Unfortunately this administration doesn't believe in laws thus states are forced to act. The US has over 62 million non English speaking people living in it. Unbelievable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClarindaA's
the issue is with the parents of said babies, who are not showing good enough ID to apply for the birth certificate. how does a state official know the folks saying they are the parents actually are the parents? it could be a neighbor or something. it could be an abductor. exact issue barak had, he never did come up with good ID
 
someone explain why this is a good law (the 14th amendment that is) and why it is even necessary. If your parent/parents are citizens you should be too.

For those constitutional purists who are for changing this. Why was this amendment ok to change but not others. Why is it ok that our forerunners couldn't have foreseen immigration issues but they surely knew what would happen with weapons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Good for Texas. The 14th is a good amendment if other laws are enforced. Unfortunately this administration doesn't believe in laws thus states are forced to act. The US has over 62 million non English speaking people living in it. Unbelievable.

Your issue is with their spoken language? What the f?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Certainly, as long as it's appropriately interpreted within its stated context of a well regulated militia, as the founding fathers intended.
So is there anything wrong with tweaking the 14th? Why is there a need to cover non-citizens of the U.S. , who by coincidence have a baby in the U.S., are automatically considered citizens.? That's just an odd law.
 
I guess I fail to see how it is odd to call these people citizens:

Born on US soil
Intention to remain (usually through custodian)

I'm sure everyone on this board falls in to the above category. I do not understand adding this qualifier to remove citizenship:

Parents non-citizens.

I mean, I know we love the model of parents passing down wealth/place, but it seems unnecessary to do otherwise, especially when the Amendment was so clear. We, more than most other nations, are a government of location and ideas, not lineage. We flooded here, to the location, for the ideas, not our parentage and place in society.

But, I am a big proponent of amending the Constitution, so get at it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
I guess I fail to see how it is odd to call these people citizens:

Born on US soil
Intention to remain (usually through custodian)

I'm sure everyone on this board falls in to the above category. I do not understand adding this qualifier to remove citizenship:

Parents non-citizens.

I mean, I know we love the model of parents passing down wealth/place, but it seems unnecessary to do otherwise, especially when the Amendment was so clear. We, more than most other nations, are a government of location and ideas, not lineage. We flooded here, to the location, for the ideas, not our parentage and place in society.

But, I am a big proponent of amending the Constitution, so get at it!
Why should this matter? If you are not here legally and not a citizen why should it matter where you gave birth.
Inheritance?? If inheritance was important than the children would take their citizenship from the place their parents did.
 
Why should this matter? If you are not here legally and not a citizen why should it matter where you gave birth.
Inheritance?? If inheritance was important than the children would take their citizenship from the place their parents did.

Well, A) the child is not here illegally, the child, by the Constitution (and logic) is here legally.

B) Why should it matter? Citizenship is largely a product of intent. You become a citizen voluntarily, it isn't something you must have forced upon you, which is why you can renounce it. If the "child's" intent is to remain in America, why would they be beholden to a place they've never lived, and apparently don't want to go back to?

I'm not sure where you are going with inheritance, I was arguing against inheritance, not for it. I'm saying USAmerica was NOT built on "inheritance" (your word) or passing down wealth/place in society, the US was built on "forging our own way"....you know, when we had no laws stopping immigration.

Try some scenarios:

1) Child X is born in Picadilly, Idaho to two parents. Child is a citizen.
2) Child Y is born in Picadilly, Idaho to two parents. Child is not a citizen.

The distinction? Where the parents were born (or to some, the language they speak, apparently). Now follow those scenarios through. Both X and Y never leaves Idaho, attends public school, grads from college, enlists in the army, raises a family. Those are likely, realistic scenarios. "Returning" to their parents homeland (for either X or Y) is not a realistic scenario.

So, what, logically, is the purpose in differentiating between X and Y? That the parents were illegal? How does that affect what the child does/doesn't do while they grow up?
 
Well, A) the child is not here illegally, the child, by the Constitution (and logic) is here legally.

B) Why should it matter? Citizenship is largely a product of intent. You become a citizen voluntarily, it isn't something you must have forced upon you, which is why you can renounce it. If the "child's" intent is to remain in America, why would they be beholden to a place they've never lived, and apparently don't want to go back to?

I'm not sure where you are going with inheritance, I was arguing against inheritance, not for it. I'm saying USAmerica was NOT built on "inheritance" (your word) or passing down wealth/place in society, the US was built on "forging our own way"....you know, when we had no laws stopping immigration.

Try some scenarios:

1) Child X is born in Picadilly, Idaho to two parents. Child is a citizen.
2) Child Y is born in Picadilly, Idaho to two parents. Child is not a citizen.

The distinction? Where the parents were born (or to some, the language they speak, apparently). Now follow those scenarios through. Both X and Y never leaves Idaho, attends public school, grads from college, enlists in the army, raises a family. Those are likely, realistic scenarios. "Returning" to their parents homeland (for either X or Y) is not a realistic scenario.

So, what, logically, is the purpose in differentiating between X and Y? That the parents were illegal? How does that affect what the child does/doesn't do while they grow up?
This isn't scrabble, you shouldn't get a bonus for where you exited a vagina. You should be a citizen in the same country as your parents, regardless of where you popped out.
 
This isn't scrabble, you shouldn't get a bonus for where you exited a vagina. You should be a citizen in the same country as your parents, regardless of where you popped out.

At least you admit it is a bonus.

You got that credit, as did, likely, your parents grandparents and great-great grandparents, glad to see you are wanting to stop everyone else.

But you say that last part as a conclusion, which is pointless without the reasoning. You have now given one dumb reason why you shouldn't (because it isn't scrabble?), got any others?

I mean, shit, we are talking about imaginary/arbitrary lines here, right?
 
Among developed nations only the United States and Canada have birthright citizenship.

The following developed nations do not have it:
Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, China, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Faroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Holy See, Hong Kong, Iceland, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Liechtenstein,Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal,
Russia, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. https://www.numbersusa.com/content/.../nations-granting-birthright-citizenship.html
We should amend the constitution, if necessary, and get rid of it. In the last 40 years, Australia (2007),
New Zealand (2005), Ireland (2005), France (1993), India (1987), Malta (1989), the United Kingdom (1983), and
Portugal (1981) have repealed birthright citizenship.
 
This isn't scrabble, you shouldn't get a bonus for where you exited a vagina. You should be a citizen in the same country as your parents, regardless of where you popped out.
I may not agree with your substance, but I really appreciate your style. Nice turn of phrase.
 
Well, A) the child is not here illegally, the child, by the Constitution (and logic) is here legally.

B) Why should it matter? Citizenship is largely a product of intent. You become a citizen voluntarily, it isn't something you must have forced upon you, which is why you can renounce it. If the "child's" intent is to remain in America, why would they be beholden to a place they've never lived, and apparently don't want to go back to?

I'm not sure where you are going with inheritance, I was arguing against inheritance, not for it. I'm saying USAmerica was NOT built on "inheritance" (your word) or passing down wealth/place in society, the US was built on "forging our own way"....you know, when we had no laws stopping immigration.

Try some scenarios:

1) Child X is born in Picadilly, Idaho to two parents. Child is a citizen.
2) Child Y is born in Picadilly, Idaho to two parents. Child is not a citizen.

The distinction? Where the parents were born (or to some, the language they speak, apparently). Now follow those scenarios through. Both X and Y never leaves Idaho, attends public school, grads from college, enlists in the army, raises a family. Those are likely, realistic scenarios. "Returning" to their parents homeland (for either X or Y) is not a realistic scenario.

So, what, logically, is the purpose in differentiating between X and Y? That the parents were illegal? How does that affect what the child does/doesn't do while they grow up?

A pretty large portion of immigrants to the US who are here illegally do not stay here.

If they are here legally, then they have the option to go through the naturalization process.
 
At least you admit it is a bonus.

You got that credit, as did, likely, your parents grandparents and great-great grandparents, glad to see you are wanting to stop everyone else.

But you say that last part as a conclusion, which is pointless without the reasoning. You have now given one dumb reason why you shouldn't (because it isn't scrabble?), got any others?

I mean, shit, we are talking about imaginary/arbitrary lines here, right?
Difference is they were legal. pretty simple. we also live in a different time. I don't think the founding fathers foresaw what weapons would look like today. 1860 is not the same as today.
We are not talking about arbitrary/imaginary lines. They are real and plotted on maps. Try to fly out of the imaginary arbitrary lines of the united states without a passport see how well that goes.

Pointless. do you proofread your crap.
I mean hell, why not be a citizen of the country of conception. That makes as much sense as the 14th amendment in these instances.
Arbitrary would be considering a person a citizen of the country they were born in simply as a matter of timing. Reason would dictate that if two Canadians that had a baby in Los Angeles, that there baby would be Canadian and not American. It would be completely arbitrary to suggest that just because they were born here that they are americans.
You can make no distinction as to why and how long they are here. If they are here illegally they shouldn't be given special status.
 
Difference is they were legal. pretty simple.

This has, largely, been my point in all of these threads. What did your ancestors do to eventually make you a "legal" citizen? Popped you out of their vagina. They didn't do anything special, there weren't immigration laws.

So the only difference, now, is that the parents can't obtain legal citizenship that same way. That doesn't say WHY a child shouldn't obtain citizenship the exact same way you did.
 
Of course they are imaginary and arbitrary. You don't have to deny that to keep arguing your point.

What did I need to proofread? You made a conclusion: "You should be a citizen in the same country as your parents, regardless of where you popped out." Which is pointless without the reasoning, as I said. Conclusions don't further discussion.

According to your "arbitrary" and considering a person's citizenship due to timing, only a very small percentage of Americans would, in fact, be Americans. As it would be impossible to be a child of an American when they weren't, in fact, American.......................except for the lack of immigration laws.

Again, and last time before utter redundancy: The children are NOT here illegally. They couldn't enter illegally, they weren't born. They were born here, legally.

Still you don't give policy/societal reasons WHY/WHY NOT, you just keep repeating this same thing: "They came here illegally, therefore they don't count." Brilliant conclusion, but again, means nothing in itself.
 
A pretty large portion of immigrants to the US who are here illegally do not stay here.

If they are here legally, then they have the option to go through the naturalization process.

I'm not sure what you are saying with the first part. We have been talking about children born here. What percentage, according to you, do not remain here once born here? I'll read your statistics.

As to the second part, obviously the children are here legally....that is what some posters are wanting to change.
 
Among developed nations only the United States and Canada have birthright citizenship.

The following developed nations do not have it:
Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bermuda, China, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Faroe Islands, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Holy See, Hong Kong, Iceland, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Lebanon, Liechtenstein,Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal,
Russia, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. https://www.numbersusa.com/content/.../nations-granting-birthright-citizenship.html
We should amend the constitution, if necessary, and get rid of it. In the last 40 years, Australia (2007),
New Zealand (2005), Ireland (2005), France (1993), India (1987), Malta (1989), the United Kingdom (1983), and
Portugal (1981) have repealed birthright citizenship.

But, WHY? Because these governments do? Why is it good policy to say we should simply be like other nations (when we want to) sometimes, but not others?

Many of those countries have strict gun control laws, one of them has decriminalized drugs, one of them is Communist, others a theocracy, etc.

But, as I said earlier, I am all for people pushing for a Constitutional amendment. Stop fighting over what it "says" and work to amend it. It has been too damn long.
 
I'm not sure what you are saying with the first part. We have been talking about children born here. What percentage, according to you, do not remain here once born here? I'll read your statistics.

As to the second part, obviously the children are here legally....that is what some posters are wanting to change.

I was addressing the issue you raised about the citizenship of the parents. If birthright citizenship was ended (and I think it should be) then parents who come here and have children can simply go through the naturalization process. Obviously I know the naturalization process is a nightmare and needs to be reformed, but that is another debate.

Regarding my first point, I was only trying to point out that a large number of illegal immigrants are simply migrant workers, who have no desire to actually stay here in the US.
 
someone explain why this is a good law (the 14th amendment that is) and why it is even necessary. If your parent/parents are citizens you should be too.

For those constitutional purists who are for changing this. Why was this amendment ok to change but not others. Why is it ok that our forerunners couldn't have foreseen immigration issues but they surely knew what would happen with weapons.
Someone explains the situation when this amendment was passed and why.
 
Regarding my first point, I was only trying to point out that a large number of illegal immigrants are simply migrant workers, who have no desire to actually stay here in the US.

I'm not sure that is true, within the context of this thread. Do migrant workers have children in the US and then take them back to their native country? I wouldn't think so, but I don't know the answer to that.
 
Because millions of undocumented immigrants are abusing the system?

....................................................................................................................

At least it is a start of reasoning. And by "abusing the system", in this context, I presume you mean utilizing the Constitution to allow their children to be US citizens?
 
1. If Obama had issued orders for an amendment to be ignored the usual suspects would be splitting at the spleen over his abuse of power. The Governor of Texas does it and it's a calm, measured action.
2. It really scares the powers that be in Texas that the demographics are against them. Texas is turning brown, and all the racially divisive actions Republicans can think up won't stop it.
 
Of course they are imaginary and arbitrary. You don't have to deny that to keep arguing your point.

What did I need to proofread? You made a conclusion: "You should be a citizen in the same country as your parents, regardless of where you popped out." Which is pointless without the reasoning, as I said. Conclusions don't further discussion.

According to your "arbitrary" and considering a person's citizenship due to timing, only a very small percentage of Americans would, in fact, be Americans. As it would be impossible to be a child of an American when they weren't, in fact, American.......................except for the lack of immigration laws.

Again, and last time before utter redundancy: The children are NOT here illegally. They couldn't enter illegally, they weren't born. They were born here, legally.

Still you don't give policy/societal reasons WHY/WHY NOT, you just keep repeating this same thing: "They came here illegally, therefore they don't count." Brilliant conclusion, but again, means nothing in itself.
OIT????is that you??
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT