Birthright citizenship ban could hamper U.S. military recruiting

[RamboLiberal]

Source: Arizona Republic News

Hundreds of thousands of children born to illegal immigrants every year would no longer be eligible to join the military if efforts to restrict birthright citizenship are successful.

That has some immigration experts concerned that ending birthright citizenship could exacerbate chronic shortages of U.S. troops and hamper national security in the future.

-----

About 350,000 children born in the U.S. in 2009 had at least one undocumented parent, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group in Washington, D.C. About 8 percent of all children born in the U.S. from March 2009 to March 2010 had undocumented parents, according to the center.

Based on those numbers, Stock estimates that the military could lose 8 to 10 percent of its recruits in the future. That would be a significant loss, Stock said, because the U.S. military is all voluntary and requires a large pool of people to produce enough qualified recruits.



Read more: http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-news/2011/03/22/birthright-citizenship-ban-could-hamper-u-s-military-recruiting/

[Downwinder]

1. It is an ill wind,indeed, which blows no good.

[Fearless]

2. Then clearly the movement will not be successful.

[Ozymanithrax]

3. Short of amending the Constitution and revoking the 14th amendment...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There is nothing they can do. The attempt to end Birthright Citizenship is nothing more than virulent racism to get the racists out to the voting booth to elect racists.

[cosmicone]

11. +1 Absolutely

Jus soli has been the law of the land and has done well for the US over centuries. The political myth perpetuated to poorly informed people is the concept of "Anchor Baby" -- a US Citizen child who can somehow make hundreds of people eligible for US citizenship. In fact, such a US Citizen child cannot even sponsor its parents until he/she turns 21 and has a net income of 125% of the poverty line.

By changing the US citizenship doctrine from jus soli to jus sanguinis as in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE or Japan, we would be going backwards. In fact, Germany changed its laws from jus sanguinis to jus soli as of January 1, 2000.

Immigration is what has made our country great. A steady stream of generally the best, brightest and the most motivated is the envy of many countries and our diversity is a strength that has few parallels except perhaps India which has citizens who can trace their ancestry to some 50 countries.

[lbrtbell]

17. No sane person objects to immigration

It's the question of ILLEGAL immigration.

Very few of us native-born U.S. citizens could pass a citizenship test, yet thousands of people do, every year, for the privilege of living here. They deserve our respect, and they enrich our nation.

So it's really not fair that people from so many countries have to jump through so many hoops to become citizens, while people from just a handful of countries think it's their right to jump to the front of the line, without making any effort to abide by the rules.

[cosmicone]

22. I agree with you but geographic proximity always

results in illegal immigration towards lands with higher prosperity and opportunity. There were Spanish and Portuguese illegals in France, Belgium and Netherlands before the EU, there were Polish and Turkish immigrants into Austria and Germany, Bangladeshi illegals into India, Zambian and Zimbawean illegals in South Africa, Indonesian illegals into Singapore and Malaysia and Cambodian/Laotian illegals in Thailand.

Mexicans have geographic proximity to the US and thus the opportunity to get in. They are not thinking, "yay! I so rule, I jumped ahead in the line while all those poor souls are patiently waiting!" They are simply trying to survive and are probably not even aware that a line exists.

[No Elephants]

24. Illegal immigration is a different issue from anchor babies, jus soli and

jus sanguinis.

[jberryhill]

34. Being born in the United States is not "illegal immigration"

In all likelihood, it is precisely how you became a citizen.

[plumbob]

14. Will someone alert these goddam idiots about a little thing called the Constitution?

Thanks for posting the 14th - nothing short of an amendment can get their job done.

Let me see if I can paraphrase the fuckers' stance on children:

Unborn children - so sacred that they must be allowed to kill their mothers if need be to get born.
Born children - who gives a fuck about these welfare-devouring losers?
Born children of at least one non-citizen - huntin' season!

Try as I may, I just cannot make a large enough psychotic break to understand these fuckers...

[No Elephants]

25. Scalia has "reasoned" his way around the 14th.

[plumbob]

36. Thanks for using quotes on "reasoned", since that fat fuck is

completely absorbed in a medieval mindset and all his neurons are clogged with grease.

[arcane1]

4. I suppose that's a silver lining n/t

[groundloop]

5. I don't know about accuracy of these numbers

Just because 8% of babies born have an undocumented parent doesn't necessarily mean that 8% of people born in that year who join the military will have undocumented parents.

However, nitpicking aside, it's high time we cleared up this mess. It's a thorny issue and I believe the Publicans are afraid to have a serious conversation on the subject. Speaking of the military and undocumented people, here's a thought (admittedly a little off topic) - serve x number of years in the military with an honorable discharge and come out a citizen.

[CreekDog]

6. Cleared up what mess? Under the current system, Barack Obama is a citizen

"clearing it up" would mean that someone like him is not.

[No Elephants]

26. How could he not be a citizen? He was born in the U.S. to a U.S.

citizen. That's both jus soli and jus sanguinis.

[CreekDog]

27. the poster i was responding to wants to change that

says they want to "clear up the mess".

i don't see any mess.

:eyes:

[ieoeja]

12. Your idea was called the DREAM act.

One of those Democrats thought they could vote on during the lame duck sessions when difficult laws used to be passed.

[lbrtbell]

18. +1

Military service to our country definitely deserves to be rewarded in that way.

[Geoffrey_Lebowski]

7. I suppose this is not very liberal of me ...

And is one of the rare instances where my pedigree fails me. Why exactly is it so 'sacrosanct' that individuals born on US soil are automatically 'citizens', even if neither parent is here legally?

I wouldn't actually be against the idea that in order for a child to be considered a Citizen at least one of their parents must be a US Citizen.

If I'm not mistaken, there's many countries in the world where this is the case, and I think there's a valid argument to be made that these other countries are 'right'.

I'm not any kind of a racist or remotely anti-immigrant, I just think that our system of justice (and morals) gets put in a significant quandary when we have minor 'citizens' whose parents are here illegally. What ends up happening when the whole family is deported amounts to exile to one of citizens, which is something we're not supposed to do.

I know us liberals aren't even supposed to utter the words 'anchor baby' ... but it does happen and it IS an issue.

[jberryhill]

8. "Why exactly is it so 'sacrosanct' that individuals born on US soil are automatically 'citizens'"

The answer is quite simple, and it is surprising that you do not know the answer:

The Constitution says so.

That is the same Constitution that says everything else the Constitution says.

You might as well ask why freedom of speech or religion, the right to counsel in criminal proceedings, etc. are so "sacrosanct".

The 14th Amendment was not obtained easily, and involved more casualties than did obtaining independence and subsequently the Constitution itself.

If you want to seek to amend it, then there is a process for that.

[lbrtbell]

16. That part of the Constitution, itself, is an amendment

You're suggesting that an amendment be amended? And if we still don't like it, should we amend the amendment of that amendment? :)

Congress amended the Constitution to give citizenship rights to African Americans born in this country. They did this because the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision had basically said that African Americans couldn't be citizens. The amendment had nothing to do with immigrants, legal or illegal, being citizens simply by being born here.

This amendment was interpreted in the case of the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark: "A child born in the United States, of parent(s) of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil(e) and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States."

This was a special case involving the status of just the babies of Chinese immigrants, because there was a question at the time of whether these babies were subjects of the Emperor of China, or Americans. Yet this decision has been stretched to a ridiculous degree, conferring citizenship to babies born to non-Chinese and even illegal immigrants. None of this has anything to do with what this amendment and the court case were about, i.e., "Negroes" and Chinese being allowed to become citizens.

So, if you're really that concerned about the Constitution, this citizenship discussion needs to be limited to African Americans, people of the Chinese race, and Native Americans (who are also referred to in this particular amendment).



EDITED for messed-up code...

[jberryhill]

19. Doesn't matter - the First Amendment is also an amendment

Prohibition of alcohol was an amendment too.

There really isn't much to "interpret" here, unless you also want to say that the second amendment only meant to encompass flintlock rifles and muskets. Nobody at the time thought it would apply to revolvers and semi-automatics.

But I'm not sure I get your point. Absent an amendment, if you are born here then you are a citizen. Period.

[lbrtbell]

21. You don't get the point because you don't want to.

Flintlock rifles and muskets were not specifically mentioned in the second amendment. "Negroes" and "Indians" are mentioned in this amendment. It didn't even apply to Chinese people until that later court case, and IMHO it's a pretty loose interpretation of that amendment.

That loose interpretation is what opened the floodgates for more abuse of that amendment, which is what we're seeing today.

[No Elephants]

28. "Negroes" and "Indians" are mentioned in this amendment." Um...no..

"Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

And yes, an amendment an be amended, and more than once. Absolutely no reason why not.

[jberryhill]

29. Wow, where to begin...

First off, it DIDN'T apply to Indians, who in sovereign areas were not considered "under the jurisdiction thereof". Citizenship for Indians was addressed by statute later on.

However, under the operative language here, it applies to "all persons born" with the extremely minor jurisdictional immunity provision.

Wong Kim Ark is by no means a "loose" interpretation, and the only folks that argue otherwise are Obama birthers.

[No Elephants]

31. Thanks or info on "Indians." Good to know. Agree on all else.

[jberryhill]

32. Indian Citizenship Act of 1924

Often forgotten.

[sinkingfeeling]

10. Care to explain why this IS an issue? Or is it just an issue to Arizona?

[ieoeja]

13. What ends up happening when someone born and raised American ...

... gets deported as an adult to a foreign country where she does not know the language, culture etc because of something her parents did before she was even born? For that matter, what ends up happening when someone not born, but raised here from infancy, gets deported to a foreign country where she does not know the language, culture etc because her parents brought her here illegally as a baby?

I know conservatives aren't even supposed to talk about American citizens in all but name getting deported ... but it does happen and it IS an issue.

[lbrtbell]

20. Narc on the parents and get them deported, too

Misery loves company.

I'm not being facetious, I'm saying that this is a horrible thing to do to your own offspring, and should be punished as such. Just giving citizenship to the child does nothing to punish the criminals who put their child in that position.

[No Elephants]

30. You can punish parents without punishing an innocent child.

[jberryhill]

35. "a horrible thing to do to your own offspring"

A horrible thing?

Bringing them to the United States?

Like the pilgrims did?

[underpants]

23. Answer: the Constitution

duh

[sinkingfeeling]

9. Then all those who support this will volunteer to serve. Right? Right?

[tanyev]

15. Oh, yes, the Young Republicans will show up en masse at their nearest recruiting stations.

Any day now..............................................................................................................................................................................................................

[bullwinkle428]

33. These motherfuckers NEVER consider the consequences of their actions.

:mad: :mad: