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

Skip to comments.

Bill would deny U.S. citizenship to children of illegal immigrants
NCTimes ^

Posted on 03/02/2005 9:38:45 AM PST by Happy2BMe

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 281-283 next last
To: skeeter
There is some question as to whether someone who has no recognized identity and isn't even supposed to be here can be 'subject to jurisdiction' of the US.

Following that logic, illegal aliens can commit crimes with impunity since the courts would have no jurisdiction over their crimes.

121 posted on 03/02/2005 10:52:08 AM PST by Modernman ("Normally, I don't listen to women, or doctors." - Captain Hero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle
So would the babies of tourists.

No, not according to the story. It says that only children of citizens or resident aliens would be citizens. Since tourists don't have residency - they're expected to leave within a certain time frame - their children born here would not qualify.

122 posted on 03/02/2005 10:52:37 AM PST by Kretek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: JustAnotherSavage
I had to fix the link anyway.

The Slaughterhouse Cases are the first Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment on record. The author of the majority opinion is a contemporary of those who drafted and debated the Amendment. The following text is from the majority opinion (about 3/4 of the way down the linked source page):

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=Slaughterhouse%20Cases&url=/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0083_0036_ZO.html

Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) (USSC+)
Opinions
MILLER, J., Opinion of the Court

"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."

The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.


123 posted on 03/02/2005 10:53:22 AM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are really stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
There is no question in my mind, however, that if you and I had presented that argument in 1789, we would be laughed out of town.

In the 18th century, there was no such thing as an "illegal." If you showed up in the US, you got to stay. There was also no central registry of citizens, so you were basically a citizen when you got here.

124 posted on 03/02/2005 10:59:07 AM PST by Modernman ("Normally, I don't listen to women, or doctors." - Captain Hero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: OneTimeLurker

E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/6042.htm


125 posted on 03/02/2005 10:59:14 AM PST by monkeywrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe

I have been saying this for a long time and about time people got on board. Why should a child born in this Country to "anyone" not a citizen have a United States citizenship? I don't draw the line at just illegals -- I say all children born of foreign parents should not be automatic US citizens.


126 posted on 03/02/2005 11:00:29 AM PST by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Increase Republicans in Congress in 2006!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot
but [the 14th Amendment] only applies to those children born here legally

Doesn't say that. It says "born", doesn't say anything about the parents having to fulfill a bureaucratic process.

127 posted on 03/02/2005 11:00:42 AM PST by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; advance_copy; OneTimeLurker
the 14th Amendment says that if you're born here, you're a citizen. Don't like it, amend the Constitution.

Not so quick. It doesn't say "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States." What it says is "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." There is some constitutional scholarship that says that children of illegals are just like the children of foreign diplomats and should not automatically be given citizenship.

"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This 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 Howard, Co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
Senator Howard recognized three classes of people to whom the 14th Amendment citizenship clause would not apply: foreigners (tourists here temporarily), aliens (those here illegally but who have no intention of leaving), and foreign diplomats (here legally and in a special protected status who will leave upon the expiration of their term).

And in Section 5 "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." cedes control of interpreting the provisions of the Amendment back to Congress who can pass a law stipulating that the children of illegal aliens are not to be granted citizenship.

128 posted on 03/02/2005 11:01:09 AM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: international american
With the possible exception of Costa Rica, what American in his/her right mind would want to live in these toilets??

Chile and Argentina are quite nice. Great climate, great wine and beautiful women.

129 posted on 03/02/2005 11:02:12 AM PST by Modernman ("Normally, I don't listen to women, or doctors." - Captain Hero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

Good argument, Constitutional props to you...


130 posted on 03/02/2005 11:04:16 AM PST by advance_copy (Stand for life, or nothing at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr; Clemenza; advance_copy; Lurking Libertarian; COEXERJ145; OneTimeLurker; Servant of the 9; ..
Most people don't know what the 14th Amendment really means.

Thank you for your addition to Chief Justice Miller's Majority Opinion from the Slaughterhouse Cases referenced above.

131 posted on 03/02/2005 11:06:34 AM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are really stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145
It would be hard for the Supreme Court to do that as Congress is given sole authority in the Constitution to set rules for citizenship.

Are you referring to the short phrase in

Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power .....
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,....?

If so that is not applicable to Citizenship obtained by birth in the US.

132 posted on 03/02/2005 11:08:15 AM PST by ASA Vet (Those who know, don't talk. Those who talk, don't know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

The law says what its says. Doing a Vdare.com and bringing up a 19th century court case doesn't change the fact that the wording implies and has since been interpreted to mean all born within the boundaries of the USA are citizens. My grandparents were born in this country to non-naturalized immigrants, but were citizens nonetheless due to the 14th amendment.


133 posted on 03/02/2005 11:09:32 AM PST by Clemenza (Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms: The Other Holy Trinity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
That argument was rejected by the Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, back in 1880 or so, which held that anyone born here was a citizen except for children of foreign diplomats.
134 posted on 03/02/2005 11:09:52 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; monkeywrench; FreedomCalls

BTTT.


135 posted on 03/02/2005 11:10:39 AM PST by skeeter ("A nation without borders is not a nation" RW R)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls

That's nice, but he should have specified that in the LANGUAGE of the amendment when it sent for ratification.


136 posted on 03/02/2005 11:10:56 AM PST by Clemenza (Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms: The Other Holy Trinity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: stevio

It's so sad when that happens isn't it.


137 posted on 03/02/2005 11:11:42 AM PST by johnb838 (Need some wood?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
A line must be drawn somewhere, and the only other line you could seriously draw is: anyone found within US borders is presumed a citizen unless proven otherwise. Considering no citizen is required to have proof of citizenship, and our legal system is (ostensibly) based on "innocent until proven guilty", that's the only rational legal line that can realistically be drawn ... except maybe presuming citizenship of undocumented minors in general.
138 posted on 03/02/2005 11:12:26 AM PST by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: monkeywrench

If you are within US borders, you do not get to decide whether you are subject to US law.


139 posted on 03/02/2005 11:13:38 AM PST by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Happy2BMe

The bill should be retroactive to at least 1980.


140 posted on 03/02/2005 11:15:27 AM PST by Cowboy Bob (Fraud is the lifeblood of the Democratic Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 281-283 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