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

NCTimes ^

[skeeter]

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.

How so? Were Mr Wong's parents here illegally?

[moehoward]

Not in my opinion. A law defining the 14th once and for all would do. And would be MUCH easier to get passed than a constitutional amendment.

Ending this anchor baby nonsense WILL happen, it's only a matter of time.

[johnb838]

All Congress would have to do is include in the bill a section saying that this issue is not reviewable by the federal courts and there is not a dang thing the Supreme Court could do about it.

IMO, that would touch off a constitutional crisis, which I support, over whether the Congress has the right to nullify the Supreme Court. The constitution clearly states that the Congress has this power. I'm betting the SCrOTUS would try to deny it.

"You Have Ruled, Now Let Us See You Enforce"

[Carry_Okie]

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.

First, that was Cornell Law School, not VDare. Second, if you think "modern" interpretation is what defines the Constitution, instead of what was ratified, then you must be a fan of the ACLU and its rubber definitions.

The modern interpretation is illegal. The Constitution means what was ratified, else the law means whatever nine guys in robes say it does. If you want to live that way, move.

[monkeywrench]

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

Tell that to vicente fox. :)

What I cited was the original intent.

[Carry_Okie]

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.

Then you believe in a "living Constitution?" The opinion you cite is clearly historically wrong. I suppose you think it's OK that the government ignore Constitutional law as ratified as long as it has got away with it for a long time.

[OldSgt.]

", but were citizens nonetheless due to the 14th amendment."

I don't disagree with you, but why would anybody want to be a 14th Amendment citizen?

You do have a choice if you were born here. that of United States of America, National or a 14th Amendment citizen.

and the two are NOT the same thing. what da ya think?

[johnb838]

If they won't even change the arbitrary (not law) rules of the Senate so that a super-majority is not required to confirm a Federal Judge, what hope is there that they would vote to nullify the SCrOTUS'jurisdiction in any area of the law?

[Carry_Okie]

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

Why? To those who wrote, passed, and ratified the 14th Amendment it was perfectly clear. You are clearly not a Constitutional lawyer.

[Clemenza]

I never pretended to be one.

[Carry_Okie]

I never pretended to be one.

You pretended authority to tell us what the 14th Amendment means.

You were wrong. What you told us is how it's been illegally twisted.

[Iron Eagle]

"As well they should, because the 14th Amendment says that if you're born here, you're a citizen. Don't like it, amend the Constitution."

This is a common misreading and distortion of both what is said, to whom it applies, its purpose, and the history that undergirds the Constitution.

First -- the Amendment applies to "Citizens Rights."

Second, the Amendment was passed for the purpose of conveying the rights of Citizenship to the children of freed slaves.

Third, it is clear that reading the 14th Amendment, it could not possibly convey citizenship to all people subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That is, if you are here, you are subject to the jurisdiction of our Courts. That is obvious, as not being subject would lead to anarchy.

Fourth, and fa more important, no law rewards illegal behavior. In fact, the English common law and the law of most states will void the result of an illegal act. Excellent examples would be that a police raid of one's home without probable cause and a warrant is a violation of the law, and all fruit of that poisonous tree is excluded. (That means if you have 50 pounds of coke on the table, it cannot be used, because the law does not reward lawbreaking.) On the civil side, the law will not recognize contracts or civil actions to enforce illegal acts.

It is utter nonsense for people to read, as some have and as is now the law, that breaking into this country illegally should permit you to convey citizenship to your child. In fact, if one were to consider the effect of such a ruling, one would have to agree with the following. If the Russians invade Alaska and roll down through the pacific Northwest, staying for 10-15 years before being repelled. Would the children of those Russian soldiers, born here during the occupation, be U.S. Citizens? I suppose some would have to argue yes. That is just not tautologically sound.

No -- the 14th Amendment does not convey citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens. (Obviously, the question is more dicey if the father is a lawful resident.)

The proposed legislation would make for a GREAT Supreme Court case because of the issues and flaws involving the misconception and misapplication of the 14th Amendment.

[brothers4thID]

While I am willing to debate the Constitutionality of the argument that you presented, I still do not believe this law is necessary. Considering that the laws allowing for "anchor babies" to affect the legality of their parents have been struck down- what exactly is it we are trying to prevent here?

[Modernman]

The bill should be retroactive to at least 1980.

I doubt that would pass Constituional muster, either. Ex poste facto laws are unconstitutional.

[Modernman]

You do have a choice if you were born here. that of United States of America, National or a 14th Amendment citizen.

A citizen is a citizen. There are no different "clases" of citizenship.

[JustAnotherSavage]

Thanks for your input.

[getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL]

Wooo-hoooo!!

[kevao]

Ex poste facto laws are unconstitutional.

Remember the retroactive tax increase of 1993?

[OldSgt.]

"A citizen is a citizen. There are no different "clases" of citizenship."

Yes, a "citizen is(=) citizen.

Yes, There are no different "clases"( classes) of citizenship."

But you misplace the meaning of the word "citizen".

At Law, the word has a very specific meaning, as does National when applied as in, "am American National".vs "American Citizen". Common usage vs legal meaning. The United States and The United States of America are Not the same at Law, but are in common assuage. but back to the citizen issue.

If you have a passport, look the first paragraph inside the cover, it States;

The Secretary of State of the United States of America
hereby request all whom it may concern to permit the citizen / national of the United States named herein.....etc.

This is a legal document, each word has specific meanings at law. even here we find it is not a class difference but two different type of person at law (positions of standing).

you might find reading the 14th very interesting, but remember not to apply common usage to the words. Just a thought.

[freddiedavis]

it will be declared unconstitutional