Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Say no to citizens of convienienceFollow

QuoteReply
#1 Dec 27 2005 at 5:36 AM Rating: Good
__DEL__1656893885245
View User Forum
Guru
**
894 posts
linky

Quote:
The Home Office has lodged an appeal against a High Court ruling that an Australian man imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay has a right to British citizenship


The sole reason this man has asked for a UK passport is to gain the protection of the crown. I do not wish to grant him that protection.

Did this man seek citizenship at any point in his life before now? No. Is he british in any way? No. Is his application only of convienience? Yes.

I hope his application can be rejected without consequence. If not, we need to close this loophole.

Do you americans have conditions to prevent "passports of convienience"?
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#3 Dec 27 2005 at 10:30 AM Rating: Good
Nobby
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
JennockFV wrote:
Do you americans have conditions to prevent "passports of convienience"?
No but they have reactionary knee-jerk right-wing racists like you.


Jennock wrote:
Peace on earth, and goodwill to all white men who think like I do


Merry Fu[i][/i]cking Christmas Jen! Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#4 Dec 27 2005 at 10:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Samira
View User Forum
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
As far as I know, if a parent is a citizen the child automatically has the right to citizenship as well. If a child is born in the U.S., the parents can stay on some sort of special visa. This has become something of an issue with undocumented workers from Mexico and elsewhere.

In this gentleman's place, I'd probably try everything I could imagine to get a more-or-less fair hearing.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#5 Dec 27 2005 at 11:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Samira wrote:
If a child is born in the U.S., the parents can stay on some sort of special visa.
You know, I was going to start a thread once asking if the US should change the Constitution to exclude "birthright" citizenship and the resulting "anchor babies" where illegals can not be deported because their six week old infant was born on US soil and is thusly a US citizen. But then I got lazy and never did.

For the record, I'm not advocating changing the Constitution nor ending the policy, just thought it might make for a very long and tedious thread of poorly researched factoids and inane opinions.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#6 Dec 27 2005 at 11:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Samira
View User Forum
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
It would indeed, Joph.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#7 Dec 27 2005 at 12:29 PM Rating: Decent
Elinda
View User Forum
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
I think it's interesting that three politically similar countries seem to have vastly different opinions on this case, based I suppose on their relationship to Hicks?

I say do what needs to be done to give the guy a trial.

As far as 'passports of convienence', I suppose we have loopholes, heck, INS is a bureaucracy first and foremost - certainly riddled with loopholes, blackholes and pigeonholes. I don't see any reason to further restrict access though, nor would I be adverse to loosening current restrictions.

I don't see how allowing Hicks British citizenship will prove detrimental to your country or your shiny ol crown.


____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#8 Dec 27 2005 at 12:36 PM Rating: Good
__DEL__1695601009560
Guru
*****
18,463 posts
It's a complex issue and varies by country. I'm became a dual citizen very recently, and, should I marry, my husband is not entitled to citizenship, but my children are. However, their children are not unless I had that kid on Peruvian soil.

If he has the right to claim citizenship under British law, you're talking about more than just a claim of convenience. It's about as simple as the conflict in the Middle East, and no one has a simple answer. I say if it's his right, you can't prevent it, unless you're talking about stripping him of all his rights just to prevent anything you perceive to be an excess.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#9 Dec 27 2005 at 1:24 PM Rating: Good
Thumbelyna
View User Forum
No Gag Reflex
Avatar
*****
10,802 posts
I just read an article yesterday regarding this very issue and how certan conservative members of Congress are trying to pass a bill eliminating what they call a "loophole" when illegal immigrants have children on U.S. soil and their children are automatically granted citizenship. Last time I read the Constitution, the 14th amendment stated "all persons" born in the United States were citizens. And darn if I can't find the link now.

My oldest son has dual citizenship as he was born in the Philippines and his birth mother was a Filipino citizen. My other son probably has the claim of dual citizenship throug his birth mother but he was born here in the States. I don't know if the Philippines citizenship was revoked or whatever when I adopted them. I guess it's a question I really should look into.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#10 Dec 27 2005 at 1:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I wouldn't call it a "loophole" as the Constitution is very specific:

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. -- 14th Amendment

There's a valid question of whether or not the Amendment is being abused and whether or not such abuse would be grounds to change one of the foundations of the Constitution and American citizenship, but calling it a "loophole" is weasel-speak for "we want to change the Constitution to limit illegal immigration but don't want it to look like we're anti-illegal immigrant."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#11 Dec 27 2005 at 2:08 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1670199487804
Scholar
****
8,619 posts
Quote:
"we want to change the Constitution to limit illegal immigration but don't want it to look like we're anti-illegal immigrant."
Just curious but why would someone worry about looking anti-illegal immigrant?

Thats kinda like say i don't want to look anti drug runner...

If they can't follow the rules, they can't stay end of arguement.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#12 Dec 27 2005 at 2:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Because a lot of Hispanic voters have a fair degree of empathy for those illegal Hispanic immigrants who, in their eyes, are just trying to support their families and send money home. And there's a lot of potential Hispanic voters out there.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#13 Dec 27 2005 at 2:40 PM Rating: Decent
Elinda
View User Forum
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
tarv of the Seven Seas wrote:
Quote:
"we want to change the Constitution to limit illegal immigration but don't want it to look like we're anti-illegal immigrant."
Just curious but why would someone worry about looking anti-illegal immigrant?

Thats kinda like say i don't want to look anti drug runner...

If they can't follow the rules, they can't stay end of arguement.
I thought the 'loophole' under discussion was about legal immigration?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#14 Dec 27 2005 at 2:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's about illegal immigrants entering the country and then having a baby on American soil. Thereby making the baby a legal US citizen and the parents (still illegal) unable to be deported because the legal citizen baby acts as an "anchor". The US can't deport the citizen baby and can't legally just take the baby away and therefore has to allow the parents to remain.

None of this though makes the parents legal immigrants.

Edit: "Citizin"? WTF?

Edited, Tue Dec 27 14:46:59 2005 by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#15 Dec 27 2005 at 2:47 PM Rating: Decent
Elinda
View User Forum
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Jophiel wrote:
It's about illegal immigrants entering the country and then having a baby on American soil. Thereby making the baby a legal US citizen and the parents (still illegal) unable to be deported because the legal citizen baby acts as an "anchor". The US can't deported the citizen baby and can't legally just take the baby away and therefore has to allow the parents to remain.

None of this though makes the parents legal immigrants.

Edit: "Citizin"? WTF?

Edited, Tue Dec 27 14:49:06 2005 by Jophiel
No the 'loophole' Jennock asked about was gaining citizenship by one of your parents being a citizen.

I double checked.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#16 Dec 27 2005 at 2:50 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1591812056891
Scholar
***
3,101 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Because a lot of Hispanic voters have a fair degree of empathy for those illegal Hispanic immigrants who, in their eyes, are just trying to support their families and send money home. And there's a lot of potential Hispanic voters out there.


/nod


Come visit California. Pissing off the Spanish voting population isn't a good political option. It's becoming worse of an option also, since the population is growing at high rates.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#17 Dec 27 2005 at 2:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Jophiel
View User Forum
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Oh. The loophole Thumbelyna mentioned was in regards to U.S. birthright anchor babies. Then I responded and Tarv asked about my reponse.

I think the only people to address the OP were wacky Brits. And Samira.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
▲ Page top
QuoteReply
#18 Dec 27 2005 at 2:55 PM Rating: Decent
__DEL__1591812056891
Scholar
***
3,101 posts
Jophiel wrote:


I think the only people to address the OP were wacky Brits. And Samira.


You mean the OP wasn't talking about Mexican people breeding like rabbits?
▲ Page top
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 260 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (260)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC