Posted on 01/03/2011 1:38:47 PM PST by Lmo56
Thanks for your reply.
I honestly don’t see what doing away with birthright citizenship does to help without actually securing the borders. It’s a capitulation more than anything else.
You are admitting that you have failed to secure the border, and that you cannot secure the border.
You want to prevent illegal immigrants from getting in the first place. Then you want to discourage them from coming. Tackle the demand and the access issues, and most of the problem goes away.
Someday, a foreign national denied U.S. Citizenship under such a birth should have the right to sue for unequal protection given to them versus a child born of illegal aliens. It doesn't make sense.
When one doesn't have a valid argument - he resorts to rationalization ...
The operative phrase in the 14th Amendment is "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
One CANNOT be "under the jurisdiction" if one IS NOT known to be IN the jurisdiction.
Calvin's Case [1607], upon which the Wong Kim Ark Case [1898] heavily cited, is VERY EXPLICIT that "enemies" could very well secret themselves and create havoc within the realm. It alluded to what the Greeks did to Troy using the Trojan Horse.
And, "enemies" DID NOT have to be from a country in a declared state of war with the realm. They included strangers who surepticiously resided within the realm WITHOUT the explicit permission of the Sovreign. That is, the Sovreign DID NOT know they were there.
Per Common Law, ANY child born to such an "enemy" WAS NOT a "natural-born subject" ...
Its BIG business in China now - tour operators organizing tours for 9-month pregnant women so that they can give birth in the U.S., then return to China with the child ...
The child then can claim U.S. citizenship at a later date ... if he wants.
“if one IS NOT known to be IN the jurisdiction.”
Which would seem to be any birth which is filed and acknowledged would be accompanied with ‘jurisdiction thereof’ over the child.
“And, “enemies” DID NOT have to be from a country in a declared state of war with the realm. They included strangers who surepticiously resided within the realm WITHOUT the explicit permission of the Sovreign. That is, the Sovreign DID NOT know they were there.”
Does it apply to allies, such as Mexico?
“Per Common Law, ANY child born to such an “enemy” WAS NOT a ‘natural-born subject’ “
Again, the law at present disagrees with you, stating only that one who is born in America and resides in America for the greater portion of their life sufficient to maintain residency is considered to be ‘natural born subject’. Provided that they do not later recant their citizenship by accepting the citizenship of another country.
However, that’s not the argument at present. There’s a difference between ‘natural born subject’, and between ‘citizen’. Citizenship can be acquired through other means.
I understand that Wyoming's not far behind as well.
I think ...”and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” may account for military bases, but from what I’ve read, the authors, in writings meant to clarify their intent, stated specifically that the 14th was NOT meant to grant citizenship to aliens. It’s primary purpose was to deal with slaves, the Indian nations, and diplomats.
You obviously have a pretty low estimation of the value of American citizenship if you are so willing to hand it out to all comers.
BTW, when anyone could come here we didn’t provide free schooling, food stamps, free medical, aid to the homeless etc. You came here and you could either sink or swim, now they come here and I have to pay for their swimming lessons, cell phones, education, medical care, and they still work under the table and send money home to Mexico because WE pay for all their necessities.
I think part of what makes America great is the principle that if one were willing to leave everything behind and make a life for themselves, that they could find a home in America.
What bothers me more, are the Americans who live in America who do not understand the great gift they have been granted simply by being born there.
I can understand the desire of someone who is poor and destitute risking their lives to come to America in the hopes of a better life. I’ve seen communist refugees who did this. You won’t find a better friend of America than one of these people.
“You obviously have a pretty low estimation of the value of American citizenship if you are so willing to hand it out to all comers.”
Somehow made a nation out of the scraps of Europe. The worst scum and villiany in America. Everyone who is willing to take America on her own terms ought to have citizenship. That means learning English. Being a productive citizen. Raising your children to love America and teaching them what she stands for, about our God given rights and liberties.
If more Americans were citizens, we’d not be having this discussion today. The problem is not those without status from outside, although they have a problem. The problem is the rot on the inside.
“You came here and you could either sink or swim”
Exactly. Get rid of the garbage. The welfare checks, free medical, free schooling, food stamps.
This is why America has an illegal immigrant problem. People are coming to America for the dole taking advantage of the hospitality and generosity.
I agree with you. The problem is that repeal also brings back the slavery issue again. The reason they worded it the way that they did was to close the loopholes.
If you could import fixed labour and keep labour there for generations, without the labour gaining the rights of citizenship, some will take advantage of these provisions.
This is what we have to remember as conservatives. Every change has unintended consequences. The desire is to bar people from gaining citizenship at birth from coming over the border illegally. The problem is that the current law does it the way they do it by putting it at birth, because that is the superior option to everything else.
Take the ‘of birth’ part out and human garbage will import slaves into America. Slaves that have no recourse, ever.
It will also prove a barrier to integration. If second generation immigrants cannot be granted citizenship despite being born in America, it removes much of the impetus of acquiring citizenship.
It also gives you a well meaning but cheap labour pool with no status or obligations in America. This isn’t a good thing.
No, you are wrong, most don’t want citizenship. They want their children to he citizens so they can get into the goody bag. I live in Arizona, I’ve been watching it for years. Our state has gone from a “libertarian” republicn state to one swamped with debt because of the illegals. Yes, if we got rid of all the give aways, then open the doors, but not now. We’re already supporting half the third world, and I’m sick of watching this country turn from the land of opportunity to the land of scams and free stuff.
I’m not saying open the doors now. You must first secure the borders.
Secure the borders, and make sure that the state knows who is entering Arizona. This is the first battle, with the Obama administration over border security. Yes, it’s a federal responsibility, but if the feds won’t do it than Arizona must do it.
They have no other option.
Deport everyone who is found to be illegal. Enforce the current laws on the books.
Then you change the welfare laws.
Then we can talk about ‘immigration reform’.
Border security must come first before anything else can even be discussed.
And, in the meantime, if you deport all the parents, who takes care of all the anchor babies? You know, the ones who are “citizens”.
Under the current law I don’t think you can deport the parents.
Not everyone who’s illegally in the country is going to be the parent of an American. Deport the ones you can.
I disagree with your slavery/cheap labor/citizenship premise. Before the courts began to misinterpret the 14th, it seemed to work. Granting citizenship rewards bad behavior IMHO and teaches the 2nd generation the wrong thing.
Unfortunately, Citizenship almost doesn’t matter today...seems as if non-citizens can already access most of the good things America has to offer.
Back then they had birthright citizenship.
If you are arguing to the situation prior to the 14th, slavery is a huge, huge blight. The recognised birthright citizenship but only if you were white and male. Radical at the time, as the suffrage was much more limited in the UK.
Things are different now. So long as there is demand (welfare checks and employers willing to hire cheap labour), there will be a supply of illegal immigrants.
Getting rid of birthright citizenship isn’t going to change this one bit. Only now, all those babies who are ‘anchor babies’ will live with freedom in America, only just not as citizens of America.
Does that sound like a good thing to you? Getting generations of these folks, none of whom are citizens, none of which matters in their daily lives as the checks flow?
You think that the government is going to crack down on people smugglers if the people that are being smuggled in won’t count as citizens? Will they even care anymore?
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.