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

To: Reaganwuzthebest
how do you explain the fact that prior to 1924 American tribal Indians could give birth in a public hospital and their kid be denied automatic citizenship? You haven't answered me on that.

For me its easy. The child was not a resident of the US which is expressly required by the last part of the sentence in the constitution.

50 posted on 02/18/2004 6:38:56 AM PST by VRWC_minion (Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and most are right)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]


To: VRWC_minion
The child was not a resident of the US which is expressly required by the last part of the sentence in the constitution.

Exactly. Simply being born on US soil did not originally mean automatic citizenship if the parents came from a foreign country and were not residents. That is what Indian tribes are considered and what the Elk decision confirmed.

Congress properly remedied that for American Indians in 1924 which is their right under the jurisdiction clause to do.

Illegal aliens are claiming they are residents and are paying taxes, therefore they qualify. But that is a stretch since at best it's only sales tax they pay, and quite a few of them are coming across the border solely for the purpose of giving birth.

Granting automatic citizenship in those cases is a violation of the spirit of the 14th Amendment and not how it was intended to be applied.

60 posted on 02/18/2004 7:57:55 AM PST by Reaganwuzthebest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

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