Citizenship Reform Act of 2005 (Introduced in House) HR 698 IH

Library of Congress ^ | February 9, 2005 | Congressman Deal (R) GA

[mikemikemikecubed]

To 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.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Citizenship Reform Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

It is the purpose of this Act to deny automatic citizenship at birth to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.

SEC. 3. CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH FOR CHILDREN OF NON-CITIZEN, NON-PERMANENT RESIDENT ALIENS.

(a) In General- Section 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101) is amended by inserting after subsection (c) the following new subsection:

`(d) For purposes of section 301(a), a person born in the United States shall be considered as `subject to the jurisdiction of the United States' if--

`(1) the child was born in wedlock in the United States to a parent either of whom is (A) a citizen or national of the United States, or (B) an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence and maintains his or her residence (as defined in subsection (a)(33)) in the United States; or

`(2) the child was born out of wedlock in the United States to a mother who is (A) a citizen or national of the United States, or (B) an alien who is lawfully admitted for permanent residence and maintains her residence in the United States.

For purposes of this subsection, a child is considered to be `born in wedlock' only if both parents are married to each other and parents are not considered to be married if such marriage is only a common law marriage.'.

(b) Conforming Amendment- Section 301 of such Act (8 U.S.C. 1401) is amended by inserting `(as defined in section 101(d))' after `subject to the jurisdiction thereof'.

(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to aliens born on or after the date of the enactment of this

[An American Patriot]

"Unfortunately my Senators are libs, so I'm screwed there. But, my Congressman is a very conservative Republican"

Lucky you. 1 out of 3 "ain't bad."

Try 0 for 3!!!

Native Vermonter, but lived in South Jersey (in and around Mt. Holly) for 15 years (69-84) after I got out of AF. Loved it.

Unfortunately, I moved back here. Big mistake.

My Mom passed away in January and am in process of getting my things in order; packing my "stuff" and moving to Virginia.

Oh by the way, if you are not familiar with Vt. politics, our 2 Senators are Pat Leahy (whose voting record is equal to--and at times more Lib than--Kennedy's) and Jump-in Jim Jeffords, who was No. 1 RINO and jumped ship right after the election and gave control of Senate to Dims.

If that was not bad enough, our one Rep (Bernie Sanders) is the only avowed Socialist in Congress.

Also, we are the wonderful state that gave the country Aaaaaaaaaaaaagh!!! Howard Dean?

I could go on and on, but too depressing.

Count your blessing m'Lady! LOL

[COEXERJ145]

If the bill fails to get out of Congress, everyone will blame the President even if it dies in the Senate thanks to a 1/2 dozen RINOS like McCain. If the bill passes, the same people will claim Bush is against it but is signing it out of fear and will give all the credit to people like Tancredo.

[Fast1]

It's a beginning But what about just simply throwing them out?

[cryptical]

Face it folks, the House and the Senate do not have the "fortitude", "nerve", "integrity", whatever, to actually do anything about illegal immigration or anything related to it....(at least that is my impression)

Yet they could rush back to town and pass a do-nothing bill for a court to ignore in the Schaivo case, and get the President to rush back to sign it.

It's good to know that they'll go out on a limb to pander to people that will vote for them anyway. The day will come when they find out that there's a lot of us out here that can find something better to do on election day than go down and vote for the same old crapola.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Um, say 1 in 10^40?

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

It isn’t that easy. They are going to have to amend the Constitution since the Constitution is clear on this. Anybody born in the U.S. is a citizen of the United States. I would like to see an amendment change. As is though, it is not going to pass; or if it does, it will be thrown out by the Supremes as unconstitutional.

[CORedneck]

Even though a few people here disagree but the Real ID Act is awful on the license provisions. The rest of it, I am neutral. What they could do is amend the law that was passed as part of the Intel reform back in the 108th Congress. All they need to do is put the requirement in that licenses cannot be issued to illegals. This would a few lines added/changed. Sensenbrenner's bill basically micromanages the state DMV's including the mandate that states MUST join the Driver License Agreement which mandates interstate and international reciprocity (Canada & Mexico) on stupid traffic tickets. What does this have to do with terrorism ? This agreement would also open our state DMV databases which includes sensitive information like our SS#'s to any official including law enforcement not only in any state but also Canada and Mexico or any other country at a later time. The database would not be able to know which official is corrupt and who is honest.One phrase, can you say identity theft !

The states object the Real ID Act, people with the National Conference of State Legislatures object, Gun Owners of America and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership object and liberal groups like the ACLU object. When people on both sides of the political aisle object, you have to wonder that the legislation is not a good idea.

I love it---therefore it won't pass---

I just read an article yesterday that said that the ID law that passed the House requiring US citizenship proof for drivers licenses is sitting gathering dust somewhere and prolly will not be seen again...at least for a long time..

Face it folks, the House and the Senate do not have the "fortitude", "nerve", "integrity", whatever, to actually do anything about illegal immigration or anything related to it....(at least that is my impression)

[Bald Eagle777]

Hope it passes

[MD_Willington_1976]

Thanks guys...You just made my kids into non-americans...[/rolling eyes....

[massgopguy]

They're afraid of the Anchor Baby Lobby.

[tnlibertarian]

Add one thing and I'll support it. A child born out of wedlock where the father is a citizen

I thought the same thing when I read this. My child should be a U. S. citizen regardless of his mother's citizenship. Just one more example of ignoring the father's rights.

Of course, my wife would be really steamed.

[jackbenimble]

They are going to have to amend the Constitution since the Constitution is clear on this. Anybody born in the U.S. is a citizen of the United States.

Read the 14th Amendment to the Constitution again. Why do you suppose the put in the clause, "and subject to the jurisdiction" if the sentence would have meant the same thing without that clause?

[antiRepublicrat]

Of course, my wife would be really steamed.

Banging the illegal immigrant maid again, huh? :^)

If they add my idea, they should call it the "Latin American maid provision."

[El Gato]

Doing this by passing a law would be unconstitutional. A mere law passed by Congress and signed by the President cannot override Constitution.

If you want to make it so that some people born here are not "natural born citizens" you have to amend the Constitution.

Amendment XIV, Section. 1., states:

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[El Gato]

No one should be awarded citizenship as a result of breaking our laws.

Agreed, but people born here of illegals haven't broken any laws, their parents have.

[El Gato]

This child should not enjoy the privileges of citizenship before the child of immigrants who have not broken the law. That's the American way

I'm afraid it's not, since the American way is defined first and foremost by the plain words of the Constitution. It can be amended, but as it is, it states that those children are American citizens. I do know of people in this situtation whose parents were sent back to wherever, taking their child with them. Later the child returned and they are citizens. One gal, who sounded like any South Texas Tejano, had just gotten her associates degree, the other had only "fair" English skills and worked at a fast food Taco joint. Both are people you would like to call friends, which I do, and you'd also like them living next door, or watching your back.

[El Gato]

Why do you suppose the put in the clause, "and subject to the jurisdiction" if the sentence would have meant the same thing without that clause?

That's a good question, and I don't know the answer, but will be anxious to find out the answer. However if you defined someone as "not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" how would you deport them, or prosecute them for various crimes? Possibly it's to cover the children of diplomats. I'll bet it takes a bit of research to find the original intent of that clause.

I don't think it can be that Congress can just declare a class of people "not subject" and deny them citizenship, else some future Congress could have declared all blacks to be "not subject" (or all redheads or people of German ancestry, etc).

[jackbenimble]

That's a good question, and I don't know the answer, but will be anxious to find out the answer.

Here is an interesting analysis:

Gingrich was right: Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to Aliens

Obviously, in the unlikely event that this law were ever passed, the Supreme Court would be called upon to provide us with the ultimate interpretation.

[Czar]

"...their parents have."

Good enough for me. I see no reason to confer all the benefits of American citizenship on someone born here of illegal aliens. Anchor babies have been and continue to be a significant part of the overall problem.

It needs to be fixed.

[blaquebyrd]

"Both are people you would like to call friends, which I do, and you'd also like them living next door, or watching your back."

I'm sure they are fine people but, that's not the issue. The issue is one of fairness. Say for instance that law-abiding immigrants have gone through the lengthy legal process set up by our government to attain citizenship. Should an illegal family that has ignored our laws be allowed to attain citizenship before a family that has followed all the rules? A family that has shown respect for the laws of the land they want to become citizens of? If your position is that anchor babies should have preference you will perpetuate our problem where there is no incentive to follow the law.