GOP Rep. Mark Sanford: Haitian babies born in US don’t deserve birthrights because they are not ‘former slaves’

[phands]

More gop filthiness....

Outgoing South Carolina Republican Rep. Mark Sanford on Wednesday insisted that some babies born in the U.S. — from places like Haiti — do not deserve to be citizens because they are not descendants of slaves.


During a discussion on MSNBC about President Donald Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship, Sanford argued that the constitution did not apply to immigrants when it said all “persons” born in the U.S. have the right to be citizens.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/go...s-dont-deserve-birthrights-not-former-slaves/

 

[Gun Nut]

More gop filthiness....

Outgoing South Carolina Republican Rep. Mark Sanford on Wednesday insisted that some babies born in the U.S. — from places like Haiti — do not deserve to be citizens because they are not descendants of slaves.


During a discussion on MSNBC about President Donald Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship, Sanford argued that the constitution did not apply to immigrants when it said all “persons” born in the U.S. have the right to be citizens.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/go...s-dont-deserve-birthrights-not-former-slaves/

There is a small problem for which this big change creates far too many more problems... That small problem is people who come to America pregnant, on a 30 day temporary "tourist" visa, and stay in a hotel next to a hospital, specifically expecting to give birth on American soil, for the explicit purpose of getting a US birth certificate for their newborn child.
Any such birth certificate should not be issued to a mother that is not a US citizen (assuming neither the DNA-confirmed father is), in my opinion.

But, just because someone legally migrated to the US, is no reason not to grant their newborn a US birth certificate, also in my opinion.

That said, I also have no problem raising the bar on immigration parameters to be more inline with what our allies do in their own countries, and greatly regulate asylum seekers. Maybe a work camp in south Texas until your papers are processed... a nice safe one where you work 8 hours a day for wages that are held in escrow until you are cleared. If not cleared, deported without the pay.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

More gop filthiness....

Outgoing South Carolina Republican Rep. Mark Sanford on Wednesday insisted that some babies born in the U.S. — from places like Haiti — do not deserve to be citizens because they are not descendants of slaves.


During a discussion on MSNBC about President Donald Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship, Sanford argued that the constitution did not apply to immigrants when it said all “persons” born in the U.S. have the right to be citizens.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/go...s-dont-deserve-birthrights-not-former-slaves/

There is a small problem for which this big change creates far too many more problems... That small problem is people who come to America pregnant, on a 30 day temporary "tourist" visa, and stay in a hotel next to a hospital, specifically expecting to give birth on American soil, for the explicit purpose of getting a US birth certificate for their newborn child.
Any such birth certificate should not be issued to a mother that is not a US citizen (assuming neither the DNA-confirmed father is), in my opinion.

But, just because someone legally migrated to the US, is no reason not to grant their newborn a US birth certificate, also in my opinion.

That said, I also have no problem raising the bar on immigration parameters to be more inline with what our allies do in their own countries, and greatly regulate asylum seekers. Maybe a work camp in south Texas until your papers are processed... a nice safe one where you work 8 hours a day for wages that are held in escrow until you are cleared. If not cleared, deported without the pay.

What is the legal status if they illegal enter the US and have that baby on US soil? Is the baby a US citizen then too under the law as it now is?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is a small problem for which this big change creates far too many more problems... That small problem is people who come to America pregnant, on a 30 day temporary "tourist" visa, and stay in a hotel next to a hospital, specifically expecting to give birth on American soil, for the explicit purpose of getting a US birth certificate for their newborn child.
Any such birth certificate should not be issued to a mother that is not a US citizen (assuming neither the DNA-confirmed father is), in my opinion.

But, just because someone legally migrated to the US, is no reason not to grant their newborn a US birth certificate, also in my opinion.

That said, I also have no problem raising the bar on immigration parameters to be more inline with what our allies do in their own countries, and greatly regulate asylum seekers. Maybe a work camp in south Texas until your papers are processed... a nice safe one where you work 8 hours a day for wages that are held in escrow until you are cleared. If not cleared, deported without the pay.

What is the legal status if they illegal enter the US and have that baby on US soil? Is the baby a US citizen then too under the law as it now is?

One would need to wonder how a person could think the Baby wasn't a citizen if the President was threatening to issue an EO to make it the reverse.

 

[Elixir]

There is a small problem for which this big change creates far too many more problems... That small problem is people who come to America pregnant, on a 30 day temporary "tourist" visa, and stay in a hotel next to a hospital, specifically expecting to give birth on American soil, for the explicit purpose of getting a US birth certificate for their newborn child.
Any such birth certificate should not be issued to a mother that is not a US citizen (assuming neither the DNA-confirmed father is), in my opinion.

But, just because someone legally migrated to the US, is no reason not to grant their newborn a US birth certificate, also in my opinion.

That said, I also have no problem raising the bar on immigration parameters to be more inline with what our allies do in their own countries, and greatly regulate asylum seekers. Maybe a work camp in south Texas until your papers are processed... a nice safe one where you work 8 hours a day for wages that are held in escrow until you are cleared. If not cleared, deported without the pay.

What is the legal status if they illegal enter the US and have that baby on US soil? Is the baby a US citizen then too under the law as it now is?

One would need to wonder how a person could think the Baby wasn't a citizen if the President was threatening to issue an EO to make it the reverse.

If the Prezidunce can do that, he can simply declare the entire Constitution null and void and proceed to institute the autocracy he so desires.
Ain't gonna happen. Unless I am gravely mistaken, that's a bridge too far even for this Rethuglican Congress.

 

[Worldtraveller]

One would need to wonder how a person could think the Baby wasn't a citizen if the President was threatening to issue an EO to make it the reverse.

If the Prezidunce can do that, he can simply declare the entire Constitution null and void and proceed to institute the autocracy he so desires.
Ain't gonna happen. Unless I am gravely mistaken, that's a bridge too far even for this Rethuglican Congress.

I think some of them would be willing to go along, which is a really frightening prospect in itself. But there are enough that might buck the dumbass in chief. Even more sad is that fact that half of the ones that might resist would do it not out of principle or actual respect for the constitution, but because they don't want a democrat to do the same to them. :/

 

[southernhybrid]

There are very few women who come here to give birth so that their infant can gain US citizenship. Most of the women that do that are affluent women from Russian or China. They are the ones that can afford to come here for several months, and then give birth. They then return to their countries of origin. The infant has the option of returning as US citizenship has been established.

Infants who are born to undocumented immigrants are automatically given US citizenship, but under current rules, they can't apply for citizenship for their parents until they reach the age of 21. These children grow up here, so this is the only country they have ever known.

I don't have a problem with either of those. Plus, according to a recent PEW study, the number of infants being born to undocumented immigrants has been dropping over the past three years. ( you can easily find this information online if you want to know the actual statistics ) Trump has lied about the numbers, as usual. In a country the size of the US, why should we care if a small number of immigrants, when compared to our population, are getting birth right citizenship? I don't understand the fear, and hatred toward these women and children. We need them to build a stronger, more diverse country. Do you people who object realize how much immigrants have given to our country? And, our neighbors in Canada and Mexico offer the same thing to infants born in their countries. Why do we have to be such xenophobic assholes!!!!!

Trump always makes me think of the line, "Who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes? Sad.

 

[Gun Nut]

There is a small problem for which this big change creates far too many more problems... That small problem is people who come to America pregnant, on a 30 day temporary "tourist" visa, and stay in a hotel next to a hospital, specifically expecting to give birth on American soil, for the explicit purpose of getting a US birth certificate for their newborn child.
Any such birth certificate should not be issued to a mother that is not a US citizen (assuming neither the DNA-confirmed father is), in my opinion.

But, just because someone legally migrated to the US, is no reason not to grant their newborn a US birth certificate, also in my opinion.

That said, I also have no problem raising the bar on immigration parameters to be more inline with what our allies do in their own countries, and greatly regulate asylum seekers. Maybe a work camp in south Texas until your papers are processed... a nice safe one where you work 8 hours a day for wages that are held in escrow until you are cleared. If not cleared, deported without the pay.

What is the legal status if they illegal enter the US and have that baby on US soil? Is the baby a US citizen then too under the law as it now is?

the current law is (as I understand it) the baby is automatically a US citizen in that case. That seems to be what should change. In what other country in the world can you get away with that? Whether the person is visiting here legally, or has moved here illegally, the child born here should not have any elevated status beyond the parent's status (visitor, or illegal alien).

 

[Tom Sawyer]

There is a small problem for which this big change creates far too many more problems... That small problem is people who come to America pregnant, on a 30 day temporary "tourist" visa, and stay in a hotel next to a hospital, specifically expecting to give birth on American soil, for the explicit purpose of getting a US birth certificate for their newborn child.
Any such birth certificate should not be issued to a mother that is not a US citizen (assuming neither the DNA-confirmed father is), in my opinion.

But, just because someone legally migrated to the US, is no reason not to grant their newborn a US birth certificate, also in my opinion.

That said, I also have no problem raising the bar on immigration parameters to be more inline with what our allies do in their own countries, and greatly regulate asylum seekers. Maybe a work camp in south Texas until your papers are processed... a nice safe one where you work 8 hours a day for wages that are held in escrow until you are cleared. If not cleared, deported without the pay.

What is the legal status if they illegal enter the US and have that baby on US soil? Is the baby a US citizen then too under the law as it now is?

the current law is (as I understand it) the baby is automatically a US citizen in that case. That seems to be what should change. In what other country in the world can you get away with that? Whether the person is visiting here legally, or has moved here illegally, the child born here should not have any elevated status beyond the parent's status (visitor, or illegal alien).

A quick google search showed that it's the same in Canada and France, but not Britain. Then I got bored and didn't search for any other countries. It doesn't seem to be an uncommon law, though.

 

[phands]

About 35 countries have unrestricted Jus Soli. 25 others have modified Jus Soli where there are additional criteria around the parents of the newborn. Only 2 countries have abolished an existing Jus Soli law.

It's thought by economists that modifying or abolishing Jus Soli leads to worsening inequality. The US should not remove or modify it. Fortunately, even the scumbags at faux news have realized that the tangerine shitgibbon can't do this, and certainly not be executive order.

 

[Gun Nut]

the current law is (as I understand it) the baby is automatically a US citizen in that case. That seems to be what should change. In what other country in the world can you get away with that? Whether the person is visiting here legally, or has moved here illegally, the child born here should not have any elevated status beyond the parent's status (visitor, or illegal alien).

A quick google search showed that it's the same in Canada and France, but not Britain. Then I got bored and didn't search for any other countries. It doesn't seem to be an uncommon law, though.

a more extensive google search indicates you are wrong. The only countries in the world with "advanced economies" (IOW, non-shitholes), are the US and Canada. The term, apparently, is "Jus soli" (right of the soil). as opposed to "Jus sanguinis" (right of the blood). Besides France being a shithole country (well, I never been there personally, but 100% of the french people I have met in my life were complete pieces of shit), it in fact does not have Jus Soli.

 

[Gun Nut]

About 35 countries have unrestricted Jus Soli. 25 others have modified Jus Soli where there are additional criteria around the parents of the newborn. Only 2 countries have abolished an existing Jus Soli law.

It's thought by economists that modifying or abolishing Jus Soli leads to worsening inequality. The US should not remove or modify it. Fortunately, even the scumbags at faux news have realized that the tangerine shitgibbon can't do this, and certainly not be executive order.

my research conflicts with yours, regarding jus soli.

Certainly, an EO can't impact the language of the Constitution. That's just stupid.
An EO may be able to define babies born here of non-US citizens as not "persons", though. He can issue an EO that basically says babies are not subject to US law until their first birthday. He can refer it to the Supreme court that has just turned political. Criminals have many rights that are guaranteed by the constitution removed.
There are lots of ways I can imagine something like this can be done...

 

[phands]

...

 

[Gun Nut]

...

 

[Max Rockatansky]

More gop filthiness....

Outgoing South Carolina Republican Rep. Mark Sanford on Wednesday insisted that some babies born in the U.S. — from places like Haiti — do not deserve to be citizens because they are not descendants of slaves.


During a discussion on MSNBC about President Donald Trump’s plan to end birthright citizenship, Sanford argued that the constitution did not apply to immigrants when it said all “persons” born in the U.S. have the right to be citizens.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/10/go...s-dont-deserve-birthrights-not-former-slaves/

Americans have freedom of speech, but when it comes to the rule of law, SCOTUS has the final say. This whole 14th Amendment issue isn't going anywhere.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

There is a small problem for which this big change creates far too many more problems... That small problem is people who come to America pregnant, on a 30 day temporary "tourist" visa, and stay in a hotel next to a hospital, specifically expecting to give birth on American soil, for the explicit purpose of getting a US birth certificate for their newborn child.
Any such birth certificate should not be issued to a mother that is not a US citizen (assuming neither the DNA-confirmed father is), in my opinion.

But, just because someone legally migrated to the US, is no reason not to grant their newborn a US birth certificate, also in my opinion.

That said, I also have no problem raising the bar on immigration parameters to be more inline with what our allies do in their own countries, and greatly regulate asylum seekers. Maybe a work camp in south Texas until your papers are processed... a nice safe one where you work 8 hours a day for wages that are held in escrow until you are cleared. If not cleared, deported without the pay.

What is the legal status if they illegal enter the US and have that baby on US soil? Is the baby a US citizen then too under the law as it now is?

the current law is (as I understand it) the baby is automatically a US citizen in that case. That seems to be what should change. In what other country in the world can you get away with that? Whether the person is visiting here legally, or has moved here illegally, the child born here should not have any elevated status beyond the parent's status (visitor, or illegal alien).

Sorry, but the Libs use that exact same argument to ban guns. Be careful what you ask for when comparing the US to Eurotrash.

 

[Gun Nut]

the current law is (as I understand it) the baby is automatically a US citizen in that case. That seems to be what should change. In what other country in the world can you get away with that? Whether the person is visiting here legally, or has moved here illegally, the child born here should not have any elevated status beyond the parent's status (visitor, or illegal alien).

Sorry, but the Libs use that exact same argument to ban guns. Be careful what you ask for when comparing the US to Eurotrash.

I respect that comment... taken.

However I think the big difference is that it is far more possible to make a law that says, "for now on newborns to foreigners are not automatically US citizens..." than it is to knock on every door and try to collect every gun that has ever been made. Noone is proposing to knock on each door and collect all the babies.

 

[fast]

[T]he constitution did not apply to immigrants when it said all [']persons['] born in the U.S. have the right to be citizens.

First, ouch!

Second, isn't it abundantly clear that what was meant THEN by "persons" is in stark contrast to what is meant NOW?

Third, my oh my how ambiguity obscures things.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

[T]he constitution did not apply to immigrants when it said all [']persons['] born in the U.S. have the right to be citizens.

First, ouch!

Second, isn't it abundantly clear that what was meant THEN by "persons" is in stark contrast to what is meant NOW?

Third, my oh my how ambiguity obscures things.

Scroll up. If your definition is true, then can't the anti-gun liberals argue about what "arms" meant then and what is meant now?

 

[RavenSky]

There are very few women who come here to give birth so that their infant can gain US citizenship. Most of the women that do that are affluent women from Russian or China. They are the ones that can afford to come here for several months, and then give birth. They then return to their countries of origin. The infant has the option of returning as US citizenship has been established.

Infants who are born to undocumented immigrants are automatically given US citizenship, but under current rules, they can't apply for citizenship for their parents until they reach the age of 21. These children grow up here, so this is the only country they have ever known.

The bolded is not entirely correct. Although the child born of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen, they will likely be unable to petition for a green card or eventual citizenship for their parents even after they reach the age of 21.

the parents need to understand that, if their unlawful stay was at least 180 days long, they have become "inadmissible" to the U.S. for three years; and if the unlawful stay was one year long, they have become "inadmissible" to the U.S. for ten years. No waiver is available to parents of a U.S. citizen.

https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nol...permanent-resident-through-citizen-child.html

I don't have a problem with either of those. Plus, according to a recent PEW study, the number of infants being born to undocumented immigrants has been dropping over the past three years. ( you can easily find this information online if you want to know the actual statistics ) Trump has lied about the numbers, as usual. In a country the size of the US, why should we care if a small number of immigrants, when compared to our population, are getting birth right citizenship? I don't understand the fear, and hatred toward these women and children. We need them to build a stronger, more diverse country. Do you people who object realize how much immigrants have given to our country? And, our neighbors in Canada and Mexico offer the same thing to infants born in their countries. Why do we have to be such xenophobic assholes!!!!!

Trump always makes me think of the line, "Who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes? Sad.

Agree!