Posted on 05/13/2005 8:11:11 AM PDT by azhenfud
There is debate continuing to surface over America's Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee that everyone born on U.S. soil be granted U.S. citizenship. Many have resolved it among themselves, having been misguided by unwilling lawmakers claiming there is nothing that can be done to deny illegal aliens the opportunity to complicate their deportation procedures with the birth of what is commonly known as "anchor babies".
This idea is however, false, predicated upon the fact politicians and lawmakers dare not appear to "evict" a "citizen" from these United States and that America is also too "compassionate" to do so. Although the Fourteenth Amendment appears clear in its requiring subjugation to U.S. law, that may possibly be in fact, an area of contention with illegal aliens.
Children of illegal aliens are minors in the care of legal guardian(s) not subject(s) of that same law. Since many illegal aliens, if they have knowledge of that "right", will appeal to the Consular's offices of their respective countries when the first need arises, such exception may and should be taken to exclude those "anchor babies" from U.S. citizenship eligibility. Let's look at the matter in more simplistic terms comparable to what's happened to the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. In doing so, we may determine how restrictions on eligibility for citizenship at birth may be enacted.
Federal and state laws have been enacted which restricted, modified, and in some cases even denied the constitutional right to bear arms with government touting such measures as a protection for U.S. citizens. They have, in fact, "denied" and "revoked" that right to some, limited the possession of arms types "in excess", required the registration of those who've exercised that right, and even placed restrictions as to how that right is exercised by making concealed weapons and mere possession of some types unlawful. All these restrictions and exceptions were placed upon a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and to bear arms.
Now, if the legislatures of both federal and state governments had a desire to stop illegal aliens from complicating the normal legal process of deportation, provisions requiring at least one parent to document their legal residency at the time of applying for a child's birth certificate should be enacted immediately. Those lacking that documentation could be issued provisional certifications differing in appearance from those of legal residents' or citizens'. Such measure would help assure those "anchors" remaining eligible for deportation along with the illegal parents.
Restrictions on the constitutional "right" of citizenship have equal legitimacy as do restrictions on the constitutional "right" to keep and bear arms. The time to clarify may be needed now more than ever before.
This one;
Article 1 Section 8, Clause 17:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square)
NOT TO EXCEED TEN MILES SQUARE... the EXTENT of Federal jurisdiction (with the exception of the exercise of any enumerated power concerning the states *not* the people)
as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings
Properties purchased by the federal government (with the consent of the states) for military bases.
why does Congress need to pass a constitutional amendment?
1. Congress doesn't pass Amendments, the States do, and Congress verifies the process with ratification.
2. Because that's what a Republic IS! A government BY the people...no vote = no law. (And even a voted in law can't infringe an unalienable right)
Like it or not, this is what the Amendment does. Any other reading is just plain wrong.
Sorry, it the 'government has authority to do whatever it says it does' mentality is what GOT us where we are today.
The Constitution partially serves the same purpose as any state Constitution while also enumerating the VERY limited powers in areas where it has authority over the states. When it says 'citizen' it means the District of Columbia, when it says 'person', it means a resident of a state.
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, concerning French refugees from San Domingo, 1794
Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind.
James Wilson, Lectures on Law, 1791
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 17, 1782
Now, I'm really not trying to tell you what to believe, it is a free country, after all:)
But I've been researching this for years, and I know for a fact that at least 3 generations of Americans have been mislead about the Constitution, what it IS, and what it CAN and consequently CANNOT do!
One thing it CANNOT do is assume a power it never possessed, or to alter any power it already had.
The 14th Amendment is a legalistic shell game. It gives the illusion of extending federal jurisdiction without actually doing so. All it truly does is reiterate what was ALREADY in the Constitution. (Lincoln was a lawyer, was he not?)
It MAY attempt to blend the two distinct types of law (natural law / positive law) that constitutes the "Republic" bequeathed to us by the Founders, but again, this is a legal impossibility since government has no authority (jurisdiction) to nullify our enumerated right to a Republican form of government.
Such an act would nullify the entire *legally binding contract* of the Constitution itself.
If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.
John Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772
Kennedy could be a possibility (not that Congress would DO it), but as far as the others are concerned, Congress would have to go through the Constitutional process of declaring war on all the countries the illegals COME from before the 'aid and comfort' clause could be used. :(
N
I think the correct link to Ms. Beaujon's article is http://www.nbeaujon.com/plyler.htm
YW NB!!
Sorry to hear about your horse though, hope he's better and fit as Flicka soon!!
Expert on MALDEF?? Not me...just a bunch more enlightened thanks to you!!
Hooah! :)
Yes that's it.
Much better format, thanks!
;)
I couldn't care less about the niceties and subtleties involved. The anchor baby issue needs to be resolved as quickly as possible (while not neglecting all of the other illegal alien issues either).
You know that a child born of American soldiers in Germany--on an American base--has to apply for Naturalized Citizenship to be a citizen of the USA?
Germany will, forever, consider that child a citizen of Germany, by the way.
As far as I'm concerned illegal aliens and their children aren't covered by the 14th Amendment. What we need is some good lawyers to take this up and some good judges to rule for us.
This one was pretty good.
The Fourteenth Amendment Mess FrontPageMagazine.com ^ | September 9, 2002 | Robert Locke
Posted on 09/09/2002 3:09:26 AM EDT by Coeur de Lion
The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) has become the key Constitutional issue of the immigration mess. The relevant section reads,
"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 problem is that this has been misinterpreted in recent years to mean simply that anyone born in the U.S, under any circumstances, is an American citizen. This is neither the original intent of the law nor the way it was interpreted by the courts in subsequent decades. Some Americans speak of birthright citizenship as if it were an immutable law of nature. It is not, and most other nations do not, in fact, recognize it. It is only a bad habit that could be broken with a simple Executive Order.
According to estimates, some 200,000 so-called anchor babies are born in the United States every year. Once a mother has birthed a child on American soil, she can then seek to obtain citizenship for herself on the strength of the family-reunification laws. Even before this happens, she is very hard to deport, as the mother of an American, and the full panoply of welfare benefits is available to her, as is affirmative action if she is a member of a racial minority. "The situation we have today is absurd," alleges Craig Nelsen, director of Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement, a group of attorneys and immigration experts that is trying to do something about the problem. "There is a huge and growing industry in Asia that arranges tourist visas for pregnant women so they can fly to the United States and give birth to an American. This was not the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment; it makes a mockery of citizenship."
The war on terror has forced this issue to a head, though its widest application will of course be elsewhere. In a court action with wide-ranging implications, FILE has filed a motion in U.S. District Court asking to intervene in the case of a U.S.-born Saudi Arabian Taliban fighter. The group argues that the captured fighter, Yaser Esam Hamdi, is not a U.S. citizen despite his Louisiana birth.
Judge Robert G. Doumar, presiding in this case, must now decide whether to allow FILE to make the argument in court that Hamdi's birth to Saudi nationals in the U.S. on temporary work visas does not grant Hamdi automatic U.S. citizenship. According to FILE, the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not mandate the current practice of granting birthright citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to temporary workers, illegal immigrants, and tourists.
In an August 16 letter to Solicitor General Ted Olson, whose office is handling the case, the group asked the Justice Department to declare Hamdi a Saudi national, asserting that he is "not an American in any real sense of the word." The letter argued that Hamdi's case — likely to end up in the Supreme Court — provides a "historic and excellent opportunity...to address the true meaning and intent of the citizenship clause."
The key to undoing the current misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is this odd phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The whole problem is caused by the fact that the meaning of this phrase, which was clear to anyone versed in legal language in 1868, has slipped with changes in usage. Fortunately, there is a large group of court precedents that make clear what the phrase actually means:
The Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens. (The Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873))
The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. (Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874)) The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence. (Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884))
There is no automatic birthright citizenship in a particular case. (Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
The Supreme Court has never confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, temporary workers, and tourists. (Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n.10 (1982))
There are other cases referring to minor details of the question.
In essence, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant, at the time the amendment was written, a person having a reciprocal relationship of allegiance and protection with the United States government. It was thus understood not to apply to persons whose presence in this country is transitory or illegal. For details of the evolution of this phrase and its interpretation by the courts, see this page on FILE's web site. The key question that those who favor the contemporary misinterpretation of this phrase cannot answer is, why is the phrase there, if it means nothing, which is what their interpretation implies. Logic implies that it would only have been inserted if it modified the meaning of the amendment, which it does: by limiting the scope of persons to which it applies. The debate — adequately settled, in my view, by the precedents named above — can at most be over who is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," not over whether this phrase means anything.
That the Fourteenth Amendment does not grant automatic birthright citizenship is also made clear by the fact that it took an act of Congress in 1922 to give American Indians birthright citizenship, which would obviously not have been necessary if they had it automatically just by being born here. The courts have also long recognized an exception for the children of foreign diplomats, which exception would be unconstitutional if the Fourteenth Amendment granted automatic birthright citizenship to everyone.
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will clear up this issue. But this is not the only possible way to fix the problem, for the Fourteenth Amendment, in Section 5, explicitly delegates to Congress the right to legislate how the provisions of the amendment are to be applied. So Congress could legislatively undo this misinterpretation. (Of course, this might force the issue to court again if it were challenged on Constitutional grounds, but it would do so with an even stronger case, relying on less confusing language and backed by Congressional authority.) A number of bills to conform the application of the Citizenship Clause to its original intent have been introduced in the House of Representatives. The most recent is H.R. 190, introduced by Rep. Robert Stump of Arizona on January 3, 2001. H.R. 190 would deny citizenship to the U.S.-born child of "a mother who is neither a citizen or national of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident." H.R. 190 would render into modern language considering such a child as born subject to the jurisdiction of his parents' country and a citizen of that country and not of the United States.
With any luck, this absurd loophole will thus be closed one way or another. What this problem points to is the larger problem we can call "citizenship inflation:" the tendency to debase and cheapen American citizenship by handing it out casually while draining it of meaning. I am just waiting for some fool — Ben Wattenberg? — to announce that everyone on Earth has an inalienable right to be an American citizen. Being an American used to be understood to have a real and substantial significance, as well it ought to, given the moral obligations one has as the citizen of a democracy. Now it has become a parody of the welfare state: the ultimate handout.
Repeal it.
80-95% of the Latinas I see during a normal day's movement are pushing baby carriages. During my lunch hour lately, LOTS more men are pushing baby carriages. The word has long been out that the authorities are unlikely to mess with you if the kiddies are involved. I read on one thread long while back that the BP (?) called this the "baby duck" syndrome. Lots of game playing going on. If I'm here yesterday and want/need to go out, I just borrow my cousin's kids. Sometimes multiple hands on a ding-dong umbrella stroller ... to be on the "safe side" I assume. BTW, who's to say they're not showing up with the same kids to get on assistance?
I view the 14th Amendment as the #1 problem with regard to illegal immigration. The view, right or wrong, is "drop one" and you're "home free"!
Correcting myself here, the "view" is WRONG!
When the BP went inland locally (CA) not so long ago and caused such a stir because they were ... uh ... doing their job? Well, the day after has to rate as one of my all-time strangest bus ride days ever. I boarded several buses and was receiving A LOT of attention. I thought maybe I was unbuttoned, unzipped, wearing my clothes inside out, possibly backwards too. I'd sit in the back of the bus and half the bus was rubbernecking to see what I was doing or where I was sitting.
What was happening finally occurred to me on the way back from lunch. I had the seat behind the back door and the woman seated in front of the back door could barely concentrate on her Hola Hoy newspaper ... with a photo of a big bad Border Patrol agent covering the entire front page. It eventually occurred to me that I was being "profiled."
While I wholeheartedly agree with you in principle, from the quoted article even they admitted children of illegal aliens are considered citizens.
"The United States currently grants automatic U.S. citizenship to almost all children born in the United States, regardless of whether the parents are U.S. citizens, legal residents, temporary visitors, or illegal aliens in the United States."
It's time lawmakers close this loophole.
Thanks for the link JJ.
I admit there are much better articles touching on this subject, of exposing the lie we've been spoon fed from politicians that the citizenship of illegal alien children born here is granted and protected by the Fourteenth and the biggest lie - there is nothing they can do to correct it.
The major point of the article is by using what lawmakers have done infringing on, restricting, and redefining the Second Amendment as an example, it exposes their claims of being unabled to correct the "anchor baby" problem as bogus.
Thanks for posting this.
BTTT
For that matter, how do you know that the children were actually born in America. If one can get a drivers license illegally, a birth certificate shouldn't be too terribly difficult.
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.