brithright citizenship

[bronzeage]

Wrong. Unless they are assholes. Unfortunately most, but not all, of the assholes here claim to be conservative, although many conservatives would be horrified to be associated with the assholes' views.

I've spent the afternoon discussing the activities of our local "nominals" aka "toe-rags" aka "persistent criminal offenders". I don't think any of them would claim to be, or would vote, Conservative because they might lose their social benefits and unemployed status. Conservative they may not be. Assholes (or Arseholes in British English) they certainly are.

Og

It's not that conservatives are assholes, it just that so many assholes claim to be conservatives, without understanding what it actually means. They are easily manipulated and when someone comes along and says, "Hey, it's not your fault that no one likes you. It's all those other people with the unfair advantages. It's their fault."

Conservatives get one more vote and assholes don't have to face reality.

 

[mynameisben]

If life begins at conception shouldn't it be Conception Citizenship?

Birth is a pretty big deal. It leaves quite an impression on all who are present. There can be no doubt about when and where a baby shoots out of its mother. Conception, on the other hand, is a lot harder to pin down. Freshly loosed sperm can live for up to five days inside the winding catacombs of a mother to be. Savvy sperm can find the egg in as little as 30 minutes, especially if the father is very athletic and shakes his partner upside down by the ankles afterward. But ideal conditions do not always prevail. And it's not like there's an oven timer in there that goes "ding!" the moment conception arrives. Even if she did go "ding!" who's going to know when everybody in the heap is drunk and naked and the party music is blaring?

Most earth women enjoy whoring through Europe at least once or twice in their lives. Euro countries are small, and widely popular party trains rumble through several of them continuously. Untold thousands of female passengers jiggle through europe like martini mixers on trains every day, an international cocktail of DNA aswim in each of them.

Name of father: unknown. Nationality of father: unknown. Host country of conception: unknown. Date of conception: unknown. Witnesses: unknown. This is why Conception Citizenship will never fly. It's easy to have misconceptions about conception, but birth stares you right in the face and screams at you.

Ding!

 

[Huckleman2000]

Birth is a pretty big deal. It leaves quite an impression on all who are present. There can be no doubt about when and where a baby shoots out of its mother. Conception, on the other hand, is a lot harder to pin down. Freshly loosed sperm can live for up to five days inside the winding catacombs of a mother to be. Savvy sperm can find the egg in as little as 30 minutes, especially if the father is very athletic and shakes his partner upside down by the ankles afterward. But ideal conditions do not always prevail. And it's not like there's an oven timer in there that goes "ding!" the moment conception arrives. Even if she did go "ding!" who's going to know when everybody in the heap is drunk and naked and the party music is blaring?

Most earth women enjoy whoring through Europe at least once or twice in their lives. Euro countries are small, and widely popular party trains rumble through several of them continuously. Untold thousands of female passengers jiggle through europe like martini mixers on trains every day, an international cocktail of DNA aswim in each of them.

Name of father: unknown. Nationality of father: unknown. Host country of conception: unknown. Date of conception: unknown. Witnesses: unknown. This is why Conception Citizenship will never fly. It's easy to have misconceptions about conception, but birth stares you right in the face and screams at you.

Ding!

Interesting.

I think it was a rhetorical question, though.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Blurred lines between jus soli and jus sanguinis

There is a trend in some countries toward restricting lex soli by requiring that at least one of the child's parents be a national of the state in question at the child's birth, or a legal permanent resident of the territory of the state in question at the child's birth,[2] or that the child be a foundling found on the territory of the state in question (e.g.,see subparagraph (f) of 8 U.S.C. § 1401). The primary reason for imposing this requirement is to limit or prevent people from travelling to a country with the specific intent of gaining citizenship for a child.

Modification of jus soli

In a number of countries, the automatic application of jus soli has been modified to impose some additional requirements for children of foreign parents, such as the parent being a permanent resident or having lived in the country for a period of time. Jus soli has been modified in the following countries:
· United Kingdom on 1 January 1983
· Australia on 20 August 1986[2]
· Republic of Ireland on 1 January 2005[2]
· New Zealand on 1 January 2006[2]
· South Africa on 6 October 1995[2]
· France also operates a modified form of jus soli

German nationality law was changed on 1 January 2000 to introduce a modified concept of jus soli. Prior to that date, German nationality law was based entirely on jus sanguinis.[2]

In Portugal, like in most of Europe, the basic principle of nationality is jus sanguinis, meaning you're Portuguese if your mother or your father are Portuguese. Even if you're born abroad, and even if your mother and father were born abroad but one of their parents was Portuguese, you will have no problem applying and having Portuguese nationality granted.

On the other hand, if both your parents are foreigners and you're born in Portugal, you will get full citizenship only if your parent had been living in Portuguese territory for at least 6 years at the time of your birth - legally or not - or after you complete grade school (grades 1 to 4) in Portugal.

I think that's fair and balanced enough.

 

[bronzeage]

In Portugal, like in most of Europe, the basic principle of nationality is jus sanguinis, meaning you're Portuguese if your mother or your father are Portuguese. Even if you're born abroad, and even if your mother and father were born abroad but one of their parents was Portuguese, you will have no problem applying and having Portuguese nationality granted.

On the other hand, if both your parents are foreigners and you're born in Portugal, you will get full citizenship only if your parent had been living in Portuguese territory for at least 6 years at the time of your birth - legally or not - or after you complete grade school (grades 1 to 4) in Portugal.

I think that's fair and balanced enough.

By this standard, the child of US citizens, born in Portugal while on a short trip, would be a stateless person.

I suppose US law has some provision for this problem, just so long as the child did not ever want to run for President.

 

[fieryjen]

yes it is. those with a green card are legal. also those with a valid visa are legal.

both followed the law in effect, where the others did not.

should those who did not follow the law be given special treatment by the law?

Legal immigrants also have visas and passports. They need them to enter the country in the first place. After they have done that, they can get green cards. I know this because my wife and I were recently joined by six legal immigrants from the Philippines.

Just to clarify, I was referring to the distinction between immigrant vs nonimmigrant, not legal vs illegal.

Visa holders are not immigrants as visas are not permanent means of staying in the US, only temporary. It is in fact possible to obtain a green card without ever holding a visa. Visa holders are generally still considered visitors. They are expected to leave the country again unless they start the process of applying for permanent residence, also called immigration process.

 

[oggbashan]

By this standard, the child of US citizens, born in Portugal while on a short trip, would be a stateless person.

I suppose US law has some provision for this problem, just so long as the child did not ever want to run for President.

Extract from advice from immigration lawyers:

My son/daughter was born overseas. Can he/she become a US citizen?

In many/most cases, a child born outside the US to a US citizen or citizens is a US citizen by birth (and, in the opinions of most legal scholars, qualifies as a "natural born" citizen eligible to become President or Vice-President). The question, in such cases, is not whether the child can "become" a US citizen, but rather how the parents can go about documenting the fact of the child's citizenship.

The law on US citizenship for children born outside the US depends on when the child was born, whether one or both parents are US citizens, and how long each parent lived in the US prior (not necessarily immediately prior) to the child's birth. A table describing US law on this subject during the 20th century (for children born in wedlock) can be found on the Web site of Buffalo immigration lawyer Joe Grasmick. Check with a US consulate for an exact interpretation of the rules with regard to a specific situation; however, here's a summary of the rules as they pertain to children born now or in the recent past.

For children born abroad since 14 November 1986 to a married couple consisting of two US citizens, at least one of the parents must have "had a residence" in the US at some time in his or her life, prior to the child's birth. There is no minimum amount of time, in this case, during which an American parent must have "had a residence" in the US -- though the longer that period of time was, the easier it may be to convince US officials that the time represented a genuine period of "residence" in the US, and not simply a short vacation trip.

For children born abroad since 14 November 1986 to a married couple consisting of one US citizen and one non-citizen, the American parent must have been "physically present" in the US for a total of at least five years prior to the birth of the child. Further, at least two years out of this five-year period must have been after the parent reached age 14 (e.g., no good if you lived in the US from birth till age five, then left the country never to return). From 24 December 1952 to 14 November 1986, the minimum requirement was ten years (five years of which had to have been after the parent's 14th birthday).

The time spent in the US need not have been immediately prior to the child's birth, and it is possible to combine multiple separate periods of physical presence in the US to reach the required figures. Additionally, time spent in US territories or possessions can be counted -- as can time spent abroad in the US military, in US government employment, or as a dependent spouse or child of someone posted abroad under such circumstances.

These rules are designed to prevent the proliferation of generation after generation of "Americans" who might otherwise be citizens by descent without ever having set foot in the US.

Different rules apply to a child born out of wedlock outside the US. If the mother of an "illegitimate" child is a US citizen, her foreign-born child is a US citizen by birth if she had ever spent at least one year's worth of continuous literal, physical presence in the US. If the father is a US citizen (and the mother is not), the child is a US citizen only if the father's paternity is formally established and if the father has agreed to support the child. (This more stringent requirement for an American father to pass along US citizenship to a foreign-born illegitimate child may seem discriminatory, but it was upheld by the Supreme Court in a 2001 case, Nguyen v. INS.)

An American who has a child born outside the US should contact the nearest US embassy or consulate as soon as possible, to request an application for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad. This form needs to be filled out by both parents and returned with payment (check with the consulate in advance to be sure what the current fee is and what forms of payment will be accepted), as well as supporting documents including parents' birth certificates, marriage certificate, passports, and the child's own birth certificate. For the supporting documents to be returned, you must enclose sufficient local postage for registered mail (ask the consulate for the required amount), or else bring everything in person to the consulate (in which case they will prepare the certificate while you wait; expect the process to take about an hour).

Note, once again, that a child born abroad under these circumstances is a US citizen by birth (in addition to possibly being a citizen of the country of birth). The "consular report of birth abroad" is not a bestowal of US citizenship, but simply an acknowledgment of same.

Even if a child born outside the US to an American parent or parents does not qualify for US citizenship at birth, the child can frequently become a US citizen fairly easily -- especially if the family moves to the US -- on account of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000. This may be good enough as having been born a citizen for most (though not all) purposes.

 

[sr71plt]

I have a sister who was born of U.S. citizen parents in the French Chancery in Germany. She had to declare a single citizenship when she turned 21, but could have opted for any of the three.

 

[fuckwaffle]

There is no question as to the citizenship of the baby, at least under current law.

in your mind, no. since when do those who break the law get to benefit from their crime?

 

[sr71plt]

in your mind, no. since when do those who break the law get to benefit from their crime?

Umm, no. He said it was legal under the current laws. Are you doubting that--or just not understanding his statement?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Just to clarify, I was referring to the distinction between immigrant vs nonimmigrant, not legal vs illegal.

Visa holders are not immigrants as visas are not permanent means of staying in the US, only temporary. It is in fact possible to obtain a green card without ever holding a visa. Visa holders are generally still considered visitors. They are expected to leave the country again unless they start the process of applying for permanent residence, also called immigration process.

Besides my own experience and observation, this is the source of my info: http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_5019.html

The bulletin refers throughout to "immigrant visas." Of course, once green cards are issued, if they are, the visas don't have much use, but the immigrants still keep them.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckleman2000
There is no question as to the citizenship of the baby, at least under current law.

in your mind, no. since when do those who break the law get to benefit from their crime?

They shouldn't, but they do. The amendment is very clear about this. The parents are breaking the law by being in this country, but there is nothing illegal about them having children while they are here, and those children, as US citizens are referred to as "anchors" because their need for their parents sometimes keeps the parents from being deported.

Like it or not, and I don't like it, this is common knowledge.

 

[Huckleman2000]

in your mind, no. since when do those who break the law get to benefit from their crime?

Undocumented foreign nationals aren't necessarily "illegal" in the sense that, if caught, they would be tried and convicted and sentenced to prison. Entering the country without going through proper channels is a misdemeanor, unless done repeatedly. They may be deported and fined, but it's not as if they're going to wind up in jail unless they've committed some other crime(s) while in the US. I'm not sure even working here is a crime, although hiring undocumented workers is.

The economic problems facing this country would not be solved by deporting all the "illegals", and government services wouldn't suddenly come into balance with tax revenues if they weren't here.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

in your mind, no. since when do those who break the law get to benefit from their crime?

Judges allow it all the time, and 5th Amendment protections prevent questioning about the other crime.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Undocumented foreign nationals aren't necessarily "illegal" in the sense that, if caught, they would be tried and convicted and sentenced to prison. Entering the country without going through proper channels is a misdemeanor, unless done repeatedly. They may be deported and fined, but it's not as if they're going to wind up in jail unless they've committed some other crime(s) while in the US. I'm not sure even working here is a crime, although hiring undocumented workers is.

The economic problems facing this country would not be solved by deporting all the "illegals", and government services wouldn't suddenly come into balance with tax revenues if they weren't here.

I refer to "illegal" rather than "undocumented" because there are documented aliens who are breaking the law while they are here. Sometimes those with tourist or student visas work, and get paid under the table, which makes them illegal, although not undocumented. And, of course, those who sneak into the country are also illegal.

I hope you know that people who commit misdemeanors sometimes go to jail. Illegal aliens are probably not usually sent to jail, except for holding while waiting for deportation, but they could be.

Not all problems would be solved by deporting all illegals, but they would be made less serious. There would be less unemployment, and medical expenses would be less because there would be fewer people going to the ER and not paying, making the hospital pass the cost on to everybody. Schools would be less crowded because the offspring of illegals would not be going there. Since illegals do not pay income taxes, the otherwise unemployed people who take their jobs would increase the total collected.

 

[Pure]

being in the US w/o proper papers is not a criminal matter, it's neither a felony nor misdemeanor (though the AZ law sought to make it the latter).

it's an infraction (of immigration law) that leaves you open to being apprehended and deported. analogy: shooting a deer w/o a hunting license.

however, the fate of that person is not the thread topic. supposing w/o papers she lives in the US for five years, and then has a child. i see no reason why the CHILD should not be a citizen or at least eligible to become one (say, at 18), by simple application. ESPECIALLY, let's further assume that the CHILD has lived from birth, five years (or more) in the US, gone to kindergarten here, etc. the child knows no other country than the US.

it's well to remember that the 'birthright' law is NOT an act of charity, as in welcoming refugees. it's stark national interest, and that's why it's found in US, approximately in Canada, and very close in Australia. new people are needed to replenish the population, pay taxes and so on.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]Since illegals do not pay income taxes, the otherwise unemployed people who take their jobs would increase the total collected.

Not true. They pay taxes all the time. Sales tax, property tax, withholding taxes on their fake SS#'s (including income tax)... Moreover, they aren't eligible for food stamps, medicaid, and other programs for which citizenship is required.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
[...]Since illegals do not pay income taxes, the otherwise unemployed people who take their jobs would increase the total collected.

Not true. They pay taxes all the time. Sales tax, property tax, withholding taxes on their fake SS#'s (including income tax)... Moreover, they aren't eligible for food stamps, medicaid, and other programs for which citizenship is required.

They might pay sales taxes, depending on the state where they live. In CA they wouldpay sales taxes on some things; in OR they would not. Very few illegals own property, so very few would pay property taxes.

Those being paid "under the table" would not pay WH or Social Security on their earnings. They might not be elgible for food stamps, etc. but those with bogus ID's might be receiving such aid. Those without bogus ID's probably would not, escept for emergency medical treatment, for which everybody else would pay.

 

[glynndah]

My husband held dual citizenship {United States and Italy} until his eighteenth birthday. Due to Italian regulations about military service then in effect, he relinquished his Italian citizenship. From what he's been told, though, the rules have been changed and he could apply for dual citizenship once more.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Not true. They pay taxes all the time. Sales tax, property tax, withholding taxes on their fake SS#'s (including income tax)... Moreover, they aren't eligible for food stamps, medicaid, and other programs for which citizenship is required.

They also use their fake SS#s to collect welfare benefits. Ever heard of identity theft? Around Tampa the Catholic Church is sucking up major government grants to build the little brown people homes.

 

[Huckleman2000]

They also use their fake SS#s to collect welfare benefits. Ever heard of identity theft? Around Tampa the Catholic Church is sucking up major government grants to build the little brown people homes.

No, shit for brains. The fake SS#s get them a job. If they file anything against that, then the system starts checking them out, which is the last thing they need.

Identity theft happens, sure. But there aren't 10 million maids and busboys and migrant farm workers and chicken processors with the time to devote to scamming government benefits which could only attract scrutiny, the one thing they don't want.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Last year alone Obama paid $110 BILLION to dead people. Wanna take a guess who those dead people are?

The niggaz at Social Security dont check records, they press picto-tabs on their McDonalds keyboards. One key shows a masked crook with a pistol pointed at a white guy, the other key shows the Monopoly man handing a bag of cash to a ho with a herd of kids.

 

[Pure]

box //Those [["illegals"] without bogus ID's probably would not, escept for emergency medical treatment, for which everybody else would pay.//


let's remember that the Republicans, such as box, insisted that undocumented people NOT be able to apply for health insurance [under the democrats' scheme] *and pay for it*. then they complain about these people milking the system!

to which i might add that the charge of 'paying no [income] taxes' is similarly defective. Rep'ns have opposed schemes (for amnesty) involving the payment of back taxes, and for sure would oppose any scheme where an undocumented person, on a 'no questions asked' basis, gets a SS number and pays withholding taxes like everyone else. it might also be pointed out that for bogus id's, the withheld tax is likely never claimed; so there is a pay-in, w/o any benefit.

 

[jomar]

Interesting.

I think it was a rhetorical question, though.

*ding*

 

[Pure]

i vote for minor modifications, e.g. requiring that a parent be a permanent resident. note that i did not say "permanent LEGAL resident"; the parents' (parent's) undocumented status should be irrevelant. as to 'anchor babies', i think those cases can be handled on a compassionate basis: any established (settled, US resident) US citizen should have a right, with certain qualifications, to bring in his/her parents as legal permanent residents, if not eventual citzens.

birth in the US, 'on the soil' should be sufficient provided the kid stays here, let's say, for his/her first five years.

what i do not like is the fact of people legally and openly visiting the US, intending to have a baby, then all go home after the birth, the baby having secured american citizenship (rich foreigners move).