Posted on 04/05/2005 12:09:01 PM PDT by 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
My guess is that it is unconstiturional. The Constitution does not specify parental status for native born children to qualify for automatic citizenship.
If this law had been in effect in say 1870, many of us would not be citizens now.
IMO a constitutional amendmend would be necessary to bring about the intent of this bill.
After thinking about it more I agree with you. I do however appreciate someone in congress dedicating thought to the immigration issue. Work on curbing illegal immigration as noble and worthy as it is must be within the confinement of the constitution.
....Work on curbing illegal immigration as noble and worthy as it is must be within the confinement of the constitution.....
The immigration problem where I live works for my personal benefit in that work is done and tasks are accomplished by Mexicans (don't know their status). I see no one to do this work if not for the Mexicans.
That said, I realize that in other areas the cost of medical and other services is a severe problem for government and burden on taxpayers. I oppose illegal immigration and and severely pissed off by the Mexican governmnet that apparently encourages the process.
The US Congress should hold hearings to thouroughly air all sides of the problem and then develop legislation to resolve the various complex issues. The Minute Men are doing a great service by focusing attention. From what I have seen, they are like the FR DC chapter raising issues, playing by the rules and making the opposition very uncomfortable.
Get behind this folks - this is a critical legislation and these patriots who are attempting to stop the illegal alien invasion are under direct assault! Support them please.
NOTE: THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT SUPPORTING THIS ACT.
==========================
H.R.698 (as ammended)
(click this link)Official Title: 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.
Status: Introduced (By Rep. Nathan Deal [R-GA]) Introduced: Feb 9, 2005 Last Action: Mar 2, 2005: Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims. Sponsor: Rep. Nathan Deal [R-GA] Cosponsors:
emailed Boxer, Fienstien and Doolittle (boy, did he get the right name!).
Excerpted from:
Illegal Aliens and American Medicine
We must overturn the misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution grants citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." An illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her country. The baby of an illegal alien mother also is subject to that home country's jurisdiction.
When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, its purpose was to assure rights of freedom and citizenship to newly emancipated Negro citizens. American Indians, however, were excluded from American citizenship because of their tribal jurisdiction. Also not subject to American jurisdiction were foreign visitors, ambassadors, consuls, and their babies born here. For citizenship, the person was required to submit to complete, exclusive American jurisdiction, owing allegiance to no other nation.
Long ago the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation 'children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.' In Elk, the American Indian claimant was born in America, but considered not An American citizen because the law required him to be 'not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.'
To obtain citizenship, an American Indian had to separate from his tribe and be accepted by the United States as a citizen. A special act of Congress was needed to grant full citizenship to American Indians. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that: The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;Congress by legislation has the right to create uniform rules on naturalization, and to create dual citizenship and similar variations upon 'jurisdiction.' We must be vigilant against Congressmen voting to extend the list of those born here to include illegal aliens or other lawbreakers, conferring American citizenship and its generous social and medical benefits on babies born to criminals.... Aiding and abetting illegal aliens is a crime. Punish it. This will anger devotees of illegal aliens who believe that the Constitution guarantees them civil rights that trump American administrative, civil, and criminal laws.(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
Illegal Aliens and American Medicine
http://www.cairco.org/articles/art2005spring.html
For the complete article:
http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf
Great link, thanks!
BUMP!
What could be politically acceptible is to grandfather those in who are 18 years older and above. Anyone younger born to illegals tough, they are clearly abusing the current interpretation of the law for their own personal gain.
I think it is important to point out this only affects ILLEGAL entrants.
If a woman is legally in the USA and gives birth the child is still a citizen.
We need to force the MSM to sepeate legal and ILLEGAL aliens.
Thanks - I'll read this when i can. this may be the "ammo" I've been looking for.
the "latin american maid provision" is why its NOT in there. so if the senators or one of their high paying "lobbyists" knock up their ilegal maid, the maid can be deported with the kid.
Nice try. I've said the same thing repeatedly, but most folks refuse to understand that the 'United States' in the Constitution does NOT mean the entire country......
No matter HOW many times the government says it does. :)
and since when does congress care abut whether or not the laws they pass are constitutional? or are they gonna start here?
I have a hard time believing that the bill will pass, and that many states will go along with the REAL ID ACT..
I probably would have had that opinion before yesterday, but after hearing what the people at the Voters Rights rally on Saturday, said....I don't think anything will be passed that has to do with MORE regulation on minorities...
When you have Nancy Pelosi, most of the Cong. Black Caucas, Jesse Jackson et. al, out saying that it is WRONG to ask people to have to show a picture ID to vote, even though the state of Georgia said it would send people to resident's homes and make a picture ID for FREE!!!, there is no hope in this country....
Regulations are good...they help ensure civility and a lawful society. If there are no regulations, you have Baghdad, or Nuevo Laredo...or any number of cities that have wanton violence in the streets...
BUT, according to the Dem Party----and some REPS, it would be "insensitive" and "race hating" to require these regulations...and besides the politicians in power to make these changes are AFRAID of the minorities....and need their votes...
" If you want to make it so that some people born here are not "natural born citizens" you have to amend the Constitution."
WRONG
That is a novel interpretation.
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,"
...means what it says, lefty.
Excerpted from:
Illegal Aliens and American Medicine
BTTT
I'm afraid we both have learned to be quite skeptical.
I too doubt the law will pass, but I have been surprised before. HR 698 IH is a goody because there is no state compliance issues like with the REAL ID.
Here's the way I see it. Immigration reform has been building a solid head of steam for years. It has become THE issue for the next electoral cycles, at least as far as the voters are concerned. It's now or never.
The GOP leadership needs to step up, embrace it, and lead the way. It's the one issue that will solidify the constituency and draw dem voters over. This forces Hillary to address the issue in earnest and up the ante, something she does NOT want to have to do.
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.