Posted on 04/24/2005 8:38:00 AM PDT by Founding Father
The "All persons born or naturalized within the US.......are citizens.." part of the 14th Amendment will one day be amended to restrict citizenship by birth to citizens and those "ferners" who are in the US legally. What part about legal and illegal don't you understand?
The rest of the 14th. Amendment, such as "equal protection under the law" will remain. If we don't remedy the flaws in the 14th., then your grand kids will have to speak Spanish and learn Napoleanic Law. You know, guilty until proven innocent. Like Red China.
Note to readers.
Psssssst! The "readers" really don't care, zook. You flatter yourself.
Read on, there's more:
"But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.
This leads to the question of whether or not being in the US "without the Kings permission" or "hostile to the laws of the jurisdiction", does by law enable the offspring of those in the US illegally with the right, under the 14th. Amendment, to claim citizenship by birth. Yes I know it's the custom, but is it really the law.
By statute, it's crystal-clear that anyone born in the U.S. (except children of foreign diplomats) is a U.S. citizen. Indeed, the statutes go much farther and confer citizenship on many people that the 14th Amendment wouldn't confer citizenship on. (People born overseas to one U.S. parent, for example. Indeed, any child under 5 found in the U.S. is, by statute, presumptively a citizen unless it can be proven otherwise.) There will never be a definitive constitutional test unless Congress tries to change the law. (Don't hold your breath.)
No I won't. If it ever gets that far, it will probably be debated in Spanish. Thanks for the elucidation.
If that was his intention in drafting the language of the provision, he did a poor job drafting it. We are left with the words of the Consitution, not his intention.
What part about legal and illegal do you not understand? Also, you never answered my question about the citizenship policies of Taiwan regarding the birth of a child to foreign nationals that are on that Island illegally. You can't answer because you know that the policy of Taiwan contradicts the policy of the US as it applies to the 14th. Amendment. Why doesn't Taiwan have a version of the US 14th. Amendment?
What part of the 14th Amendment don't you understand? What don't you understand about our nation's longstanding legal tradition that those born here are entitled to citizenship regardless of the legal standing of their parents?
What don't you understand about the fact that Taiwan law or French law or Scottish law matter not a whit in determining American law and custom?
You are very confused!
And you are very Confederate.
Actually its not been part of our legal tradition for "over a hundred years", only since about 1965. The tradition before that required some legal standing of the parents, such as residence, for citizenship to be acquired. The story at the beginning of this thread provides the facts regarding the original intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment. It has, like many laws, been selectively enforced. AAMF, the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th. Amendment is continuously ignored by federal courts to the detriment of US citizens. So misapplying one part of the 14th and ignoring other parts is OK with you? Might makes right, is that it? The power of the state is all powerful!
The problems of illegal won't go away because we wish it so. It is expensive to all, even you. The 14th. Amendment is flawed by its disuse. It will be remedied someday to support legal immigration and refuse residence and citizenship to those who are here illegally, or there won't be a US to be "a light of freedom for the world".
I think you're wrong. And I an article that says we were denying citizenship to any "illegal" babies before 1965 is also wrong. I dare anyone to find a pre 1965 example of anyone who could prove they were born in the US being denied citizenship because their parents were "illegal."
BUMPMARK
I beg to differ. It's obvious that you know very little of the history, intent and unintended consequences of the passage of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act. A law pushed by the Kennedy's, passed by Democrats and signed by Lyndon Johnson as part of the "Great Society". Prior to that law, just because a foreign nationals child was born in the US, it did not automatically assure US citizenship. There were legal entry and residency requirements (jurisdiction?) that, if not met, could cause the child to be considered the nationality of the parents. Your interpretation of the 14th. Amendment, that was meant to make citizens of Southern Negro slaves and Mexicans born in what became US territory or a state, such as California, was not intended, nor was it interpreted until the last 40 years, to confer automatic, undisputable citizenship upon birth.
You may think it so, you may wish it so, but it is not the tradition. It is a corruption of the 1965 Immigration act that has led to this notion. What you are arguing for is a cynical and self serving interpretation of the citizenship clause that was not intended at the time for the contemporary context that is at issue. Do you really think that Congress would have passed this act had it known that wealthy Korean and Taiwanese businessmen and professionals would fly their pregnant wives to the USA, put them up in hotels close to hospitals so that their children would be born on "US Soil" and then fly them back to Korea or Taiwan to be used as "tickets out" in case the communists invaded their countries? I don't think so. Were I a member of the Korean or Taiwan legislatures, I would consider laws that denied the recognition of any such citizenship by manipulation.
You may think you know whereof you speak, but the more you say, the more I know you either don't know, or don't want to admit. The '65 I&N Act needs to be revisited by congress and the legal entry and residency laws restored to the pre-1965 requirements.
I dare anyone to find a pre 1965 example of anyone who could prove they were born in the US being denied citizenship because their parents were "illegal."
"Illegal" immigration was extremely rare prior to 1965. People here illegally were deported along with their children. Their child may have been considered to be a US citizen, but that fact, if so, did not provide an "anchor" for the parents to stay in the US. All were deported. Most Mexicans wanted their kids with them and raised in Mexico. If they wanted their US citizen kids to be raised in the US, they sent them to a family member that was a US citizen. Now, these "anchor babies" are used to enable mama, papa, abuelita e abuelito (that's grandma and grandpa in español), to reside in the US, partly or wholly, at the taxpayers expense. You may argue that the former is more cruel than the latter, but considering the impact of excessive crowding and the reduction in quality of US schools, is it really?
And that is eventually the point of permitting "illegal" immigration. Is it moral?
I know my history and I know the facts. I know a foolish statement when I read one. Illegal immigration was extremely rare before 1965? That's an astoundingly absurd assertion. You think that Mexicans weren't wandering across the border for most of our history? Especially since they were wandering into lands that used to belong to them?
Sorry bucko, your argument has no wings, not even legs.
to read later
Yes. Before the end of the Bracero Program, Mexicans would visit their American relatives in the North, but rarely stayed. I can remember that in the early 1960's, here in California, illegal immigration was not even an issue. By the 1970's, the Immigration Service was raiding businesses in Los Angeles as a result of the '65 Immigration Act.
That's an astoundingly absurd assertion.
No, this statement of yours is absurd. To wit: "Especially since they were wandering into lands that used to belong to them?". That makes it right in your mind, does it? It would seem that you have a curious way of interpreting the law or the concept of a sovereign nation that suits your convenience. I wonder how the island country of Taiwan would fare if it had the amount of immigration from the Chinese mainland that the US has from Mexico? After all, Taiwan used to belong to China, therefore, the Red Chinese have the right to "wander" onto lands that "used (?) to belong to them". N'est ce pas?
All I can say based on reading your posts, especially your last two, is that you ought to be really really careful tossing around the word "ignorant."
e.g., "illegal immegration was extremely rare before 1965".
Moreover, none of your examples regarding Taiwan have any relevance whatsoever regarding the question of whether our tradition and law allows a child born in the U.S. to be considered a citizen. Yet you keep gnawing at them like a dog on a rubber bone. Nor have you been able to find a single case where anyone having been born in the U.S. has been legally denied a claim to citezenship since the 14th Amendment.
You simply have no argument other than to say you don't like the current situation. But that was never the point. You've run completely out of ammo and have lost the debate.
No zook, the point was and is "illegal". Not immigration, not Taiwan, not what you belive, or desire to be fact.
..you ought to be really really careful tossing around the word "ignorant."
In your case its easy to see that it applies. You answer no pertinent questions, you proffer no facts or relate empirical experience. So far, your only tactic of debate is repudiation without substantiation and simplistic repetition. The tactic of a child or the ignorant when they have no argument. Therefore, zook, I yield you the point, such as it is, but not on any facts that you offered and defended, but only to escape an onerous argument with an ignorant man.
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.