Posted on 06/15/2010 12:53:36 PM PDT by SmithL
Anyone know more about that or if that is indeed a true statement?
Well it also happens to be “blatantly unconstitutional” to prevent American’s from keeping and bearing arms, ain’t it there, “legal scholars?!”
It is time to challenge the status quo. Pass the law and see if it flies.
A state may not decide if they are citizens, but they sure can decide not to issue a state birth document. Tell the to see their embassy.
I worked for a multinational company and all the foreign families that got temporary assignments in the US tried to have babies while they were here. Some of the European’s who had kids didn’t even like the US, but viewed dual citizenship as a benefit to the kid and themselves. Whereas my sons were both born in foreign countries and got no right to citizenship there. One did get the right to a permanent resident status, but not citizenship.
True. Equal protection, yes.
But isn't it interesting how the Libs will hide behind the Constitution when it suits their needs? 1st Amendment? 2nd Amendment? Fa! Outdated and antiquated! But let someone threaten a Lefty's Sacred Cow and it's 'Hold The Phone!'
The drafters of the Amendment were plain as can be that it wasn’t meant for foreigners and that’s the whole point of the jurisdiction clause. What I fear is if it gets to the USSC, even the current one they will give in to politically correct pressures and totally ignore the original meaning.
Good point. The USSC may just punt it back to Congress and say it’s up to them to clarify the jurisdiction clause. And that means it never gets changed.
You’re totally ignoring the second part of the Amendment: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. If the first and second parts were one and the same why not just say “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” and leave it at that?
The reason is those are two separate qualifications otherwise it would be redundant and not proper English.
Wasn’t the eligibility for citizenship concerning those born in the U.S. changed to include children of illegal immigrants by the 1965 immigration act?
Yes, if you are here when you are born .... ba-da-bing ... you are a US citizen, and here’s your share of our debt.
Since all 3 of you pointed out to the word 'and' in my statement, let me be clear to the way I (I am not a lawyer, just a silly engineer) undestand this to read.
If you are born here, you are a citizen and hence you are also subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Or, the way I would understand this, you are born here - so now you not only are a citizen but are also subject to laws, benefits and protections afforded to the juridiction thereof. This means you can vote, run for office, get married, own property, pay taxes, ect.
There is no condition placed on allowing citizenship, at least not the way I read this.
” . This will NOT, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens,
Just have AZ hospitals Xerox blank Mexican birth certificates and fill ‘em in as the “undocumenteds” spew the babies out.
I think you would have a point if the verbiage had been rearranged as follows:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, and of the State wherein they reside.
However, the conditional clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," PRECEDES the phrase "are citizens ..." which makes the conditional clause a modifier of the prior phrase "persons born or naturalized in the United States" rather than the "citizens" phrase. I hope this helps. Furthermore, the quote from the co-author of the citizenship clause that was previously posted further supports the position that the INTENT was not to convey citizenship on the children of foreigners and aliens who happened to be born in the US while their foreign parents were temporarily in the US.
If by "the anchor baby concept" you mean the concept that a child born on U.S. soil to alien parents is automatically a U.S. citizen, Kennedy had nothing to do with that-- it goes back at least as far as the Supreme Court's Wong Kim Ark decision in 1898 (which in turn relied on English common law). What you are thinking of was the 1965 amendment to the immigration laws which had the effect of increasing legal immigration from Africa and Asia (but had nothing to do with birthright citizenship).
The phrase "anchor baby" is obsolete. Until the mid-1990s, a U.S. citizen, even if an infant, could file an application to keep its alien parents here. That was changed in the 1990s, and now the rule is what you said-- if an alien gives birth in the U.S., the child is a citizen but has to leave with its parents and can't return until age 18 (unless it's put up for adoption).
I think the US constitution DOES NOT automatically make someone a citizen just because they are born her because hey are NOT under the “jusrisdictions” part of the clause...
The courts have said that anyone born on U.S. soil is subject to our jurisdiction unless they have diplomatic immunity. If illegal aliens weren't suject to U.S. jurisdction, they couldn't be prosecuted for crimes they commit.
RE :”PHOENIX — Emboldened by passage of the nation’s toughest law against illegal immigration, the Arizona politician who sponsored the measure now wants to deny U.S. citizenship to children born in this country to undocumented parents. Legal scholars laugh out loud at Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce’s proposal and warn that it would be blatantly unconstitutional, since the 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone born in the U.S...The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, reads: “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.” But Pearce argues that the amendment was meant to protect black people. “It’s been hijacked and abused,” he said. “There is no provision in the 14th Amendment for the declaration of citizenship to children born here to illegal aliens.”
I am going to guess that the states cannot decide who is an American citizen but they do make the rules on what goes on birth certificates which are used to prove citizenship. (Beyong the claim that the 14th amendment makes them citizens.)
Arent children of Mexican illegals automatically given Mexican citizenship too? dual citizenship? This makes no sense for us to allow this.
Their status should be the same as the parents, nothing more for these ungrateful people.
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.