Ed Barrow
(585 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-16-10 09:45 PM
Original message |
DU this "anchor baby" poll |
|
Edited on Wed Jun-16-10 09:46 PM by Ed Barrow
As of the time I'm making this post, 51% of the people who've responded to this poll say they shouldn't be granted citizenship. :( http://theweek.com/article/index/204093/whats-your-opinion-on-anchor-babies
|
Ken Burch
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-16-10 09:51 PM
Response to Original message |
caledesi
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-16-10 09:58 PM
Response to Original message |
2. We don't need no 'stenking' 14th admendment. nt |
EFerrari
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-16-10 10:00 PM
Response to Original message |
OhioBlue
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-16-10 10:00 PM
Response to Original message |
Infinite Hope
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-16-10 10:03 PM
Response to Original message |
5. Interesting. I don't see the issue with allowing it. That subject was recently discussed on a blog |
|
Edited on Wed Jun-16-10 10:03 PM by Infinite Hope
which some people I know are writing:
|
Captain Hilts
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-16-10 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. An excellent column. I agree with it. nt |
madokie
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-16-10 10:05 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Yes. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees it. 27% Not necessarily. The Founding Fathers didn’t anticipate the complexities of immigration. 14% No. At least one of the parents should be a legal resident. 51% None of the above. 8%
|
pinboy3niner
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-16-10 10:21 PM
Response to Original message |
8. Done. "Yes" notching upward: |
|
Yes. The 14th Amendment to the Constitution guarantees it. 29% Not necessarily. The Founding Fathers didn’t anticipate the complexities of immigration. 13% No. At least one of the parents should be a legal resident. 50% None of the above. 8%
|
dark forest
(65 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-16-10 10:27 PM
Response to Original message |
unkachuck
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-16-10 10:34 PM
Response to Original message |
10. done....yes 28%, no 51%....n/t |
lunasun
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jun-16-10 10:35 PM
Response to Original message |
11. Ir's in that little book the teapartiers carry around- wonder if any really read... eom |
Scuba
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-17-10 02:21 AM
Response to Original message |
12. Looks like the 'constitutional purists' are anti-constitution. |
onestepforward
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-17-10 02:27 AM
Response to Original message |
AsahinaKimi
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-17-10 02:28 AM
Response to Original message |
14. done and it needs work!! |
Donald Ian Rankin
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-17-10 05:59 AM
Response to Original message |
15. Yes, but not necessarily because of the 14th ammendment. |
|
I think that children should be granted citizenship of the country of their birth. But the 14th ammendment includes a "and subject to the juristriction thereof" clause, which I suspect may exclude illegal immigrants? Or possibly not - I'm not an expert on US constitutional law?
|
pinboy3niner
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-17-10 06:24 AM
Response to Reply #15 |
17. No, they are not excluded |
|
In 1898 the Supreme Court upheld the interpretation that all children born here are citizens, the ONLY exception being children born to foreign diplomats (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649).
|
muffin1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jun-17-10 06:08 AM
Response to Original message |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon Apr 29th 2024, 03:11 PM
Response to Original message |