Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court To Hear Birthright Citizenship Case
Project USA, Time-Out Project, Issue 180: February 17, 2004 ^ | February 17, 2004 | Project USA email alert

Posted on 02/17/2004 7:39:20 PM PST by CIBvet

+== TIME-OUT PROJECT ==+

Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement filed a motion in the case of Saudi Arabian Taliban fighter, Yaser Esam Hamdi. Hamdi is considered by the government to be an American citizen because he was born in Louisiana to Saudis who were here on a temporary work visa. While still a tot, Hamdi's parents returned to Saudi Arabia with him, where he lived until he went off to join a terrorist group trying to kill Americans in Afghanistan. This man is not American in any real sense, of course, and the Supreme Court now has a historic opportunity to end the absurd custom of "birthright citizenship."

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case of Yaser Esam Hamdi, the captured Taliban fighter who was originally incarcerated with other captured enemy fighters at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but who was moved to the naval brig at Norfolk when, after it was discovered he has an American birth certificate, he was declared an American citizen.

Since the discovery of his birth in Louisiana (to Saudi nationals in the United States on temporary work permits), Hamdi has been at the center of a major legal battle.

On one side, Hamdi's public defender argues that, as an American citizen, Hamdi has certain civil rights.

On the other side, the government argues that, as an American "enemy combatant," Hamdi loses some of those rights.

Both sides, however, are essentially arguing an imaginary point, since Hamdi is not an American citizen in spite of his birth in Louisiana. There is nothing in the Constitution, in Federal law, or in case law anywhere that mandates U.S. citizenship by virtue of being born on U.S. soil.

The custom of granting of automatic birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born offspring of temporary workers, tourists, and illegal aliens is nothing more than that: a custom, and the pervasive myth that the U.S. Constitution grants birthright citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil is simply that: a myth.

In the Hamdi case, the Supreme Court will be wrestling with some important questions concerning the civil liberties guaranteed to the citizens of a free republic. Such questions should not be decided in a case in which the plaintiff is not even a citizen a case in which the premises are founded in myth and habit.

Since Yaser Esam Hamdi is not an American either by virtue of the law or by virtue of common sense a prior question of fact in his case is fundamentally flawed, and deciding weighty citizenship issues based on this case is like deciding important international trade issues based on a case involving the toys Santa Claus brings.

Unfortunately, the baseless American habit of granting birthright citizenship to anyone whose mother happens to be in the United States at the time of his or her birth is not just some harmless and quaint American tradition like singing the national anthem before baseball games. The birthright citizenship custom, which accounts for an estimated 250,000 new "anchor baby" citizens every year, is one of the primary magnets luring to our shores foreigners who want to increase their consumption levels.

This custom is responsible for the spectacle of women in labor dragging themselves through the Arizona desert in order to give birth to their very own tickets into the American social services network. It also accounts for the burgeoning industry in Asia known as "birth tourism," which arranges U.S. tourist visas for pregnant Asian women to coincide with their delivery dates so that they may give birth to their and their extended families' very own American "anchors" in the United States.

However, birthright citizenship is not a law of nature, it is not a commandment from God, and it is not a cultural imperative. It is nothing more than a destructive and unsustainable custom, and it is time we put a stop to this assault on the very meaning of citizenship.

In the Hamdi case, the Supreme Court has a historic opportunity to do away with this wrong-headed practice and make explicit, after nearly a century and a half, the very limited intentions of the authors of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Let's hope the Justices rise to the occasion.

+== RELATED LINKS ==+

Group argues U.S.-born detainee is not an American citizen ( Associated Press on FILE's 2002 motion in Hamdi case)

Closing the Loopholes to Easy U.S. Citizenship (St Petersburg Tribune on FILE's 2002 motion in Hamdi case)

Rescuing U.S. Citizenship (VDARE on FILE's 2002 motion in Hamdi case)

The Basic Right of Citizenship (CIS)

Why Yaser Hamdi is not a U.S. Citizen: FILE's motion to intervene in the Hamdi case (FILE)

Wrong Question in Hamdi (Ashbrook Center)

+== TAKE POSITIVE ACTION ==+

In August 2002, while the Hamdi case was still bouncing around the Fourth Circuit, Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement (FILE) recognized both the legal dangers involved in the Hamdi case, as well as the historic legal opportunity the case provides to dispose of the absurd and destructive custom of birthright citizenship.

FILE filed a motion to intervene asking the Fourth Circuit to dismiss the Hamdi case on the grounds Hamdi is not a citizen.

The court never ruled on FILE's motion, but within the next few weeks, the group will again attempt to have the question of Hamdi's citizenship adjudicated this time as an amici on a brief filed with several other respected organizations, and backed by members of Congress.

FILE welcomes the opportunity to join The Center for American Unity and others in filing the amicus brief before the Supreme Court. We will have more news about this important event as the filing date draws near.

In the meantime, to add weight to the brief, we need to begin to generate some support in the U.S. Congress for ending legislatively the abuse of the Citizenship Clause.

We already have some Congressional backing, but we need to reinforce it. The best way to do that is by going to the NumbersUSA fax center and sending a free fax to your representative in Congress asking him or her to co-sponsor H.R.1567, the Citizenship Reform Act of 2003, which would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny citizenship at birth to children born in the United States of parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.

Just go to http://www.numbersusa.com/fax and click on "anchor babies." (If you haven't registered for NumbersUSA's excellent and very effective "fax Congress free" system, yet, what are you waiting for?)

(Special note to all of you who responded last week to our appeal for donations: I want to personally say thank you for a really great response, and remind you that when you support ProjectUSA, you are also supporting our sister organization, Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement (FILE). In other words, donating $50 to us is really like donating $100 since you are helping two very effective organizations at the same time! Craig)

+== QUOTE OF THE WEEK ==+

"[The Fourteenth Amendment] 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."

Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan Introducing what would later become the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868

(The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, often wrongly cited as the Constitutional requirement for birthright citizenship, was enacted in order to guarantee recently freed slaves the rights of citizenship. It was never intended, as the quote above by one of the Amendment's authors makes clear, to grant birthright citizenship to the offspring of tourists, illegal aliens, and temporary workers.)

+== EMAIL OF THE WEEK ==+

To start with, I am not an American citizen, but I think all of you Americans should exercise your constitutional right to keep your country free of outside influences that affect your individual freedom and your distinctive identity.

We cannot deny the fact that you are still considered as the "land of opportunity", but you have to carefully choose your fortune hunters.

Therefore, I added my name to your list to be presented to Mr. Ashcroft only to emphasize the fact, that as an outsider, I am more enthusiastic about your cause than so many Americans who are still asleep, and to Mr. Ashcroft himself, who is still blinded by his "generous and/or naive" personality. I still highly value the brief time that I have spent in your country, when I was an undergraduate student in Fresno, CA. Thank you for this memorable experience, and I mean those Americans whom I had encountered.

I hope that the Americans will rise to the challenge of keeping America great as it always was, for the years to come.

Ihsan Omet
Amman, Jordan


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; anchorbabies; anchorbabys; deportation; hamdi; illegalaliens; illegals; immigration; nationalsovereignty; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101 next last
To: Jack Black
strange little conspiracy theories
not worry about yellow finge on the flag.

Huh?

See post #73
and lay off the Black, Jack.

81 posted on 02/18/2004 11:42:57 AM PST by MamaTexan (Is anyone obligated to obey an unconstitutional government?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
No, babies do not kill America. As an aside, ideology-addled organizations always seek to rescind the inalienable rights of other citizens.

Ah, so you favor millions of illegals and their spawn living off the taxpayers of the US.

Thanks for setting that straight. May they move in next door to you, in a nice section 8 apartment building.

82 posted on 02/18/2004 11:47:50 AM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: jimt
Try to use logic and rationality for a change. You made the ludicrous claim that American-born, innocent, and helpless babies are somehow destroying our nation, not the policies of the Democratic welfare state.
83 posted on 02/18/2004 11:55:12 AM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
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.

Bump for later read...

It says and not or.

84 posted on 02/18/2004 12:05:37 PM PST by dpa5923 (Small minds talk about people, normal minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Try to use logic and rationality for a change.

Try reading for a change.

Anchor babies legitimizing millions of parasites on welfare is what will kill America as a great nation.

85 posted on 02/18/2004 12:12:01 PM PST by jimt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
and lay off the Black, Jack.

Pardon Sir.

I was caught in one of my more uncharitable moments and regretted it after hitting the post key.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I can't understand why everyone thinks the government is a superior power.

Government was created by man. By the very definition of that creation it is artificial.

People,(no matter their differing beliefs for that existence) are living beings. An artificial entity cannot be superior to a person... period.

To believe that allows the artificial to rule you.

86 posted on 02/18/2004 12:17:43 PM PST by MamaTexan (Is anyone obligated to obey an unconstitutional government?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
That is not true. They can be deported should the government wish to deport them.

Unfortunately what is true is that often states and localities don't cooperate with the INS or HSA in apprehending and holding these people. They just let them go or don't even bother to determine status.
87 posted on 02/18/2004 12:20:55 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (America's Enemies foreign and domestic agree: Bush must be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
and lay off the Black, Jack.

Pardon Sir.

I was caught in one of my more uncharitable moments and regretted it after hitting the post key.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I can't understand why everyone thinks the government is a superior power.

Government was created by man. By the very definition of that creation it is artificial.

People,(no matter their differing beliefs for that existence) are living beings. An artificial entity cannot be superior to a person... period.

To believe that allows the artificial to rule you.

88 posted on 02/18/2004 12:23:57 PM PST by MamaTexan (Is anyone obligated to obey an unconstitutional government?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
The income tax does not apply to citizens outside of the District of Columbia and territories of the United States because the way "United States" is defined in the Internal Revenue Code does not include the states of the United States.

This argument is the result of functional illiteracy.

Section 7701(a)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code states that "The term 'United States' when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia."

Well, that contradicts the tax protesters, because it says that "United States" includes "the States." But the tax protesters then turn to the definition of "State":

"The term 'State' shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title." I.R.C. section 7701(a)(10).

According to tax protesters, this definition excludes the states of the United States from the definition of "State," and "State" means only the District of Columbia. There are several things wrong with this "argument":

  • The word "includes" is also defined by the Internal Revenue Code. According to section 7701(c), "The terms 'includes' and 'including' when used in a definition contained in this title shall not be deemed to exclude other things otherwise within the meaning of the term defined." The states of the United States are within the normal meaning of the word "State," and so a definition that says that "State" shall be construed to include the District of Columbia does not exclude the states of the United States from the meaning of "State."

  • A definition of "State" that equates "State" with "District of Columbia" turns the definition of "United States" into gibberish, because the definition then becomes a statement that "United States" "includes only the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia."

  • The definition of "State" includes the District of Columbia "where such construction is necessary to carry out the provisions of this title." What happens if the construction is not necessary? If "State" does not include the District of Columbia, then references to "states" in the Internal Revenue Code would apply to nothing at all. Which is absurd.

So where do tax protesters get the idea that "includes" might be restrictive? Mainly from wishful thinking and poor reading skills.

"In definitive provisions of statutes and other writings, 'include' is frequently, if not generally, used as a word of extension or enlargement rather than as one of limitation or enumeration." American Surety Co. of New York v. Marotta, 287 U.S. 513 (1933).

What have the courts said about the claim that the United States does not include the states of the United States?

"In an affidavit attached to his amended petition, petitioner sets forth numerous, tax-protester type legal arguments, including, in petitioner's words, the following propositions:
"That the Republic of Illinois is 'without the United States';
"...
"The Congress excluded the 50 States from the definition of 'United States,' ...
"Petitioner attempts to argue an absurd proposition, essentially that the States of Illinois is not part of the United States. His hope is that he will find some semantic technicality which will render him exempt from Federal income tax, which applies generally to all U.S. citizens and residents. Suffice it to say, we find no support in any of the authorities petitioner cites for his position that he is not subject to Federal income tax on income he earned in Illinois. ... Petitioner's arguments are no more than stale tax protester contentions long dismissed summarily by this Court and all other courts which have heard such contentions." Nieman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1993-533.
"Ward reaches this twisted conclusion [that the Internal Revenue Code only applies to individuals located within Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the states, and the territories and possessions of the United States] by misinterpreting a portion of the Income Tax Code. The 1913 Act defined the words 'state' or 'United States" to 'include' United States territories and the District of Columbia; Ward asks this court to interpret the word 'include' as a term of limitation, rather than of definition. ... We find each of appellant's contentions to be utterly without merit." United States of America v. Ward, 833 F.2d 1538 (11th Cir. 1987) (conviction of tax evasion affirmed, despite arguments of Lowell H. Beecraft Jr.).
"Steiner also argued that the word 'includes,' which appears throughout the tax laws, limits the court's jurisdiction under the tax laws. This argument has been specifically rejected in United States v. Condo, 741 F.2d 238, 239 (9th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1164 (1985), in which this court held that the word 'includes' is one of expansion, not limitation." United States v. Steiner, 963 F.2d 381 (9th Cir. 1992).

89 posted on 02/18/2004 1:30:38 PM PST by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: VRWC_minion
So you’re saying the government has the absolute authority to take however much of our property it wants just because it claims to have that power?

Wasn't there a revolution over this a while back?

90 posted on 02/18/2004 2:46:53 PM PST by MamaTexan (Is anyone obligated to obey an unconstitutional government?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
So you’re saying the government has the absolute authority to take however much of our property it wants just because it claims to have that power?

Yep and it doesn't claim it. It has it.

91 posted on 02/18/2004 6:49:51 PM PST by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Polybius; WOSG
What it looks like you're saying in your posts is that the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment extends only as far as Congress wants it to extend - that by tweaking the definition of "jurisdiction", they can enlarge or contract the citizenhip pool at pleasure. Do I have that wrong?
92 posted on 02/18/2004 9:39:11 PM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: inquest
What it looks like you're saying in your posts is that the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment extends only as far as Congress wants it to extend - that by tweaking the definition of "jurisdiction", they can enlarge or contract the citizenhip pool at pleasure. Do I have that wrong?

What I meant to say is that the original drafters of the XIV Amendment intended U.S. citizenship to be limited to those individuals whose parents were part of American society and not to the offspring of every pregnant tourist or illegal alien whose water happens to break on U.S. soil.

Then again, I am rather old fashioned, and believe in the concept of Constitutional "original intent".

Since, for the life of me, I can not see how the original intent of the XIV Amendment had anything to do with abortion, my archaic notions of "original intent" obviously don't carry much weight in this day and age.

93 posted on 02/18/2004 10:14:24 PM PST by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: inquest
You have it almost but not quite right. Congress' powers to specify and to elucidate the exact boundaries of this "under the jurisdiction" clause are in the 14th amendment itself:

"Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
94 posted on 02/18/2004 10:15:03 PM PST by WOSG (Bush/Cheney 2004!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
Maybe I should put my question in a different way: Does Congress have the power to deny citizenship to anyone who's had every honest reason to think of himself as a citizen his entire life? Myself or yourself, for example?

If not, how is the line drawn?

95 posted on 02/19/2004 8:15:30 AM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: inquest
Revoking citizenship? That's a completely different question from the scope of granting citizenship in the first place.

"had every honest reason to think " ... that's not a legal standard. Either someone was or was not a citizen.
My points have been about how we define who becomes a citizen, not how we revoke citizenship.

Only children born of legal residents or citizens in the US should be citizens in the first place.

96 posted on 02/19/2004 12:31:38 PM PST by WOSG (Bush/Cheney 2004!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Polybius
"What I meant to say is that the original drafters of the XIV Amendment intended U.S. citizenship to be limited to those individuals whose parents were part of American society and not to the offspring of every pregnant tourist or illegal alien whose water happens to break on U.S. soil. Then again, I am rather old fashioned, and believe in the concept of Constitutional "original intent"."

We are a bunch of old fuddy duddies.

97 posted on 02/19/2004 12:34:07 PM PST by WOSG (Bush/Cheney 2004!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: CIBvet
bump
98 posted on 02/19/2004 12:34:18 PM PST by Lady Eileen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
OK, so just for the record, then, is Hamdi currently a citizen? If he is, then that means Congress can't change that fact, right?

(Sorry if it seems like I'm asking a dumb question; I just wanted to make sure we're all on the same page on this matter)

99 posted on 02/19/2004 1:20:25 PM PST by inquest (The only problem with partisanship is that it leads to bipartisanship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: inquest
OK, so just for the record, then, is Hamdi currently a citizen?

YES

If he is, then that means Congress can't change that fact, right?

NO. Congress could change the law on how citizenship of naturalized citizens gets revoked. That could in the future cause him to lose his citizenship, although there is surely some 'ex post facto' nature of the rule, so that they cant simply change the law on naturalization itself and *retroactively* apply it to citizens.


100 posted on 02/19/2004 6:10:09 PM PST by WOSG (Bush/Cheney 2004!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson