Posted on 08/17/2015 2:01:07 PM PDT by Red Steel
“To put this in perspective this means that one out of 10 births in the U.S. is to an illegal immigrant mother,” Freere said at a House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security hearing titled “Birthright Citizenship: Is It The Right Policy For America?”
He explained that, regardless of the foreign allegiance and/or illegal status of the parents, their children, if born on U.S. soil, are automatically afforded the benefits of U.S. citizenship, including a Social Security Number and U.S. passports. This benefit also applies, he noted, to those born to mere tourists and other people with temporary status in the U.S.
“It is unlikely that Congress intended such a broad application of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause, and the Supreme Court has only held that children born to citizens or permanently domiciled immigrants must be considered U.S. citizens at birth. Some clarity from Congress would be helpful in resolving this ongoing debate,” Feere said.
“Under the immigration enforcement priorities of the Obama administration, illegal immigrants who give birth to U.S. citizens have become low priorities for deportation. Furthermore, the president’s DAPA program, the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program, he said.
-snip-
“The United States and Canada are the only two advanced economies as rated by the IMF to grant automatic citizenship to children of illegal aliens,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
About time we put a stop to that, don’t you think?
That's entirely correct. The practice of considering the children of illegals as citizens is just that, a practice. It has no formal basis in law other then an implicit allowance from the Wong Kim Ark decision of 1898.
You can go to most any maternity ward (it doesn’t have to be in the “bad” part of town) and quickly learn two things:
1) most children being born are future Democrat voters
2) most of those births are being paid for by current Republican voters.
The open borders crowd have conflated the meaning of the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 opinion to include everyone.
But while federal law generally bars illegal immigrants from being covered by Medicaid, a little-known part of the state-federal health insurance program for the poor pays about $2 billion a year for emergency treatment for a group of patients who, according to hospitals, mostly comprise illegal immigrants. Most of it goes to reimburse hospitals for delivering babies for women who show up in their emergency rooms, according to interviews with hospital officials and studies.
BUMP
It not only has been expanded far beyond its legal limits, it was a ridiculous decision in the first place.
Stop granting citizenship based on birth and the problem goes away on it's own. Incentives work. Start docking the pay of ALL illegals an extra 20%. Give 5% to the employer (to give the employer an incentive to dock the pay) and put the other 15% in a Federal Savings Account payable to the worker when he 'self deports'... If the worker doesn't self deport within 5 years up the amount taken out of his pay and decrease the amount in his 'savings' account. People got here on theeir own - they can leave on their own.
About a month ago, my daughter burned her hand on the stove and we took her to the ER here in California. There was a girl about 16 who looked about 8-9 months pregnant. She could not speak English but had an ID and told them she wanted to have the baby there.
They are literally minting Democratic voters for life. We need to stop this and have Mexico foot its own bills for its own people.
We foot the bill for nearly all of them.
For cripes sake don’t let THIS Congress “clarify” the issue. With their take on the matter all children born on this planet will get US Citizenship.
This has to end we are being invaded.
Another one of these threads.
My position is simple. The 14th amendment never said that, and there is no valid support for it either in common law or common sense.
The government argued that Wong Kim Ark was not a citizen, even though he was born in the U.S.
By a 6-2 vote, the Supreme Court rejected the government’s argument.
The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualification (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes …
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 693.
This isn’t black letter law. It’s just an opinion.
And the above navel-gazing can be picked apart about a dozen different ways ...
but isn’t it the, mmmmm, Democrats who are always arguing, along with O.W. Holmes, that the Constitution is not “immutable and unchanging” but rather is “the skin of living thought”?
I think it’s long past time for the Court to correct its wool gathering error.
This country was never intended to be one big nest for the irresponsible cowbirds of the world, particularly the failed state to our immediate south—Mexico—currently swamping our country with its citizens, and with utter disdain for our black letter laws.
If we don’t fix it, we’re going to join Mexico as a failed state.
Absolutely!
Ha ha—I don’t even have to go to a maternity ward to deduce that.
And Canada, presumably, has a better handle on their illegal population.
Very so. More reading on Wong Ark and immigration issues including birthright.
"Testimony of Dr. John C. Eastman, Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law, Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Oversight Hearing on “Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty” - U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims "
"Born in the U.S.A.? Rethinking Birthright Citizenship in the Wake of 9/11 "
http://lawreview.richmond.edu/?p=469
and here
http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/eastman092905.pdf
"...But the effort to read Wong Kim Ark more broadly than that, as interpreting the Citizenship Clause to confer birthright citizenship on the children of those not subject to the full and sovereign (as opposed to territorial) jurisdiction of the United States, not only ignores the text, history, and theory of the Citizenship Clause, but it permits the Court to intrude upon a plenary power assigned to Congress itself. "
all persons born in the United States were as a result citizens both of the United States and the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power
The key point bolded.
We haven't been "subjects" in so long, we forget what it mean't.
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.