Posted on 06/01/2008 5:01:35 PM PDT by goodnesswins
SPOKANE — The state Republican Party adopted a platform Saturday that includes a provision aimed at opposing automatic citizenship for babies born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants.
The state party approved a similar platform plank at its 2006 convention that proved controversial. The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution recognizes citizenship for all persons born in the United States. "Immigration is an issue that a lot of our party activists feel strongly about," state Republican Party Chairman Luke Esser said. "And it's certainly a very defensible position. It's not at all something that's based on race concerns. It's a matter of what is citizenship going to be based on."
State Attorney General Rob McKenna, one of the state's most prominent Republicans, said he doesn't support banning automatic citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants.
"We have more than 200 years of history in which children born in the U.S. are deemed U.S. citizens," said McKenna, before reading the platform language. "What matters is where the children are born." Not all delegates attending the convention support the position, either.
"The Constitution says that if you're born in the United States you're a U.S. citizen," said Scott Workman, of Sequim. "I'm not willing to change the Constitution. If we're going to let them in and they're going to have babies here, then they're U.S. citizens."
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
Section 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.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Yes.....I know...the 14th Amendment....thanks.
SPOKANE — The state Republican Party, take a long walk off a short bridge. If you want to screw around with amending the constitution, at least make it useful, like a state’s right to ignore queer marriages from other states.
“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” Illegals sure aren’t, therefore, aren’t automatically citizens.
“The Constitution says that if you’re born in the United States you’re a U.S. citizen,” said Scott Workman, of Sequim. “I’m not willing to change the Constitution. If we’re going to let them in and they’re going to have babies here, then they’re U.S. citizens.”
Huh, LET THEM IN? What is it about LEGAL and ILLEGAL do they not understand?
A baby born here of illegals should not be given any rights. Sorta takes the want-to out of the equation.
No it doesn't!
Amendment 14No, according to the 14th amendment, one has to be born in the US and "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. The child of illegal aliens born in the US is subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign country not the US. The same goes for the children of foreign diplomats born in the US. Those children are not US citizens by birth.
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....................
Three cheers! It’s gotta start somewhere.
I know we’ve discussed over and over again on this forum whether or not the 14th amendment grants citizenship to all who are born here. For whatever newbies / lurkers who may not have seen it before: there are (in my opinion) persuasive arguments to indicate that the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” precludes citizenship for the children of foreigners without the appropriate visas, i.e. illegal aliens.
I don’t want to be redundant nor pedantic on this issue, but I also don’t want people who are new to this issue not to know that this controversy exists. So, if there’s someone who wants more details on the controversy regarding the meaning of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” just indicate that desire on this thread, and I’m sure you’ll be quickly illuminated by multiple Freepers, myself included. If we all know about the relevant arguments, than I apologize for wasting your time with this post.
Sounds like Bush, McCain, Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, etc...
aka, the Ted Kennedy wing of the Republican Party.
Wow! This is coming from the state of WA? Damn there may be hope yet.
Then, and only then, once they are aware of the duties and responsibilities of US citizenship, would the right to vote and hold elective office be extended.
Thats the whole point, Einstein. We didn't 'let them in'.
Not only does the 14th Amendment NOT grant citizenship to all persons simply born in the United States, there are two Supreme Cort decisions made in this regard, and both chose to narrow -- not widen -- the interpretation.
The Court has ruled that children born to foreign nationals employed by embassies are not US citizens, even when they are born outside the embassy.
The Court has also ruled that American Indians are NOT us citizens by virtue of the 14th Amendment, because those born on reservations are really not subject to US jurisdiction.
But let's remove all doubt: pass an amendment which explicitly specifies only those born here of legal residents are citizens. We can also change the Presidential qualification in the same amendment. Naturalized citizens who take the legal route to become Americans are every bit as American as those "native born." Any person a citizen of the United States for 35 years or more should be eligible to be President [unless he's from Austria.]
have at it....
WA ping
provide some good references.
And also anything covering states rights to decide who it grants birth certificates
OK, here goes. The 14th amendment has already been reproduced on this thread.
Senator Jacob Howard, who wrote the citizenship clause in question, expounded on it’s meaning with this quote from 1866:
“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
Over the course of the years, that interpretation of the 14th amendment has been held by the Supreme court to not grant citizenship to American Indians (American Indians were granted citizenship by the Dawes Acts, approximately a decade after the 14th amendment), and not to grant citizenship to the children of other aliens (ambassadors, in particular).
Given that historical interpretation of the 14th amendment by the author of the citizenship clause of that amendment, and by the Supreme Court, many people believe that the 14th amendment does not grant birthright citizenship to the children of aliens, even if those children are born in the USA.
It’s even more clear to some people that the children of illegal aliens, (which illegal aliens, unlike American Indians and ambassadors, have no legitimate claim to be present in the USA) are not granted birthright citizenship.
And that’s my version of the argument in a nutshell.
If we’re going to let them in, why have a border patrol?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.