Posted on 03/02/2005 9:38:45 AM PST by Happy2BMe
Bill would deny U.S. citizenship to children of illegal immigrants
A bill recently introduced in Congress would deny U.S. citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants. Supporters said the bill, called the Citizenship Reform Act of 2005, would be a good way to control the number of people who have the right to claim citizenship ---- and the rights and benefits that come with it. Opponents said the measure was "extreme" and would be likely to face constitutional challenges.
An estimated 200,000 to 300,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the United States each year, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, a policy and research group that advocates for stricter immigration controls.
The Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group that also supports stricter policies, estimated that California spends about $7.7 billion each year to educate about 1 million children of illegal immigrants.
|
|
|
"Citizenship means you have some stake in this country; it's not just an accident of geography," said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman of the federation, which supports the measure.
However, immigrant-rights groups say that citizenship is a fundamental right that cannot be taken away by Congress.
"Citizenship belongs to a person wherever they are born," said Katherine Cullion, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, a Latino rights group. "The most basic, fundamental right is the right to citizenship in the country where you were born."
Advocates for and against the measure, which has surfaced in various forms before, said the bill is unlikely to go far in Congress. The bill is now in the House Judiciary Committee. No hearing on the bill has been scheduled.
"This is really a perennial bill; it comes up each spring," said Angela Kelley, deputy director of the National Immigration Forum, an immigrant-rights advocacy group based in Washington, D.C. "It gets a handful of co-sponsors and never sees the light of day."
If enacted, the bill would stipulate that children born in the United States would be considered American citizens only if born to parents who are citizens or legal residents living in the country. Under current law, any children born in the country can claim American citizenship.
The bill was introduced last month by Georgia Republican Rep. Nathan Deal and was co-sponsored by 16 other representatives, including Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach; Rep. Gary Miller, R-Diamond Bar; and Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado.
Anti-illegal immigrant groups, such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform, say immigration, legal and illegal, is largely responsible for a population explosion that could lead to unprecedented social, economic and environmental problems.
"Massive population growth has and will continue to have a profound impact on the lives of all Americans," said Dan Stein, president of the federation. The group released a study this week that indicated more than half of the nation's population growth over the last 35 years is due to immigration.
However, Steven Camarota, the Center for Immigration Studies' director of research, said the citizenship bill itself will not solve the nation's illegal immigration problem. Without immigration enforcement elsewhere, such as at the border and at work sites, denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants would only make the number of illegal immigrants grow.
"By itself, it doesn't move the ball forward very much, if at all," Camarota said.
Following that logic, illegal aliens can commit crimes with impunity since the courts would have no jurisdiction over their crimes.
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.
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):
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.
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.
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
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.
Doesn't say that. It says "born", doesn't say anything about the parents having to fulfill a bureaucratic process.
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 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).
Senator Jacob Howard, Co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
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.
Chile and Argentina are quite nice. Great climate, great wine and beautiful women.
Good argument, Constitutional props to you...
Thank you for your addition to Chief Justice Miller's Majority Opinion from the Slaughterhouse Cases referenced above.
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.
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.
BTTT.
That's nice, but he should have specified that in the LANGUAGE of the amendment when it sent for ratification.
It's so sad when that happens isn't it.
If you are within US borders, you do not get to decide whether you are subject to US law.
The bill should be retroactive to at least 1980.
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.