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.
...and that is what is happening all over this country. Can you imagine how much money this nation would have to spend on our seniors and our own citizens if we didn't pay for all of this and have to pay for our own as well???
We are all paying a dear price. No other generation has been taxed so heavily. It all started with President LBJ and his war on poverty. 40 years later, we are still here and so are the poverty stricken. Funny thing is that the poverty stricken people have grown in so much intensity, we are losing the war on poverty.
How could they not be?
One's intentions don't have anything to do with it.
The LEGALITY of your actions have everything to do with it.
"IN LAW, a person's DWELLING place as it is defined for purposes of judicial jurisdiction and governmental burdens and benefits."
": to dwell permanently or continuously : occupy a place as one's LEGAL domicile"
I don't know how much clearer I could make it for you. Britannica states very clearly that "IN LAW one's "DWELLING PLACE" is one's "LEGAL DOMICILE"!!!
Illegal aliens are here well, illegally!
There is nothing legal about their residence!
Their children do not now have and NEVER HAVE HAD LEGAL BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES!!!
"3 : not migratory"<
That means NOT!!! MIGRATORY!!! for all of you migrant workers and your stupid lawyers out there. ;^)
A migratory worker's temporary dwelling doesn't qualify. They are not residents of the state that they are working in. They are transients.
Britannica very clearly states that all of the definitions it provides for dwelling, resident and domicile are used "IN LAW" for "purposes of judicial jurisdiction and governmental burdens and benefits."
What's so hard to understand about that?
If you have some other definitions of all of these words, please source them.
I'd like to know who's responsible for confusing you. ;^)
Where do you get your definitions?
Please source them.
My son or daughter were born to U.S. citizens LEGALLY residing in the United States.
Comparing what it is legal for them to do with what illegal aliens are doing is comparing apples to oranges, IMHO.
Wouldn't you agree?
It's not different, and that's rather the point of the 14th Amendment. States used to say that it was apples and oranges when comparing whites born in the state to blacks born in the state, with the latter not having the rights of citizenship. The 14th amendment was designed to stop that practice once and for all and put an to any debate--if you're born here, you're a citizen.
Maybe it's a bad rule. I'm not debating the merits of the clause; I'm just saying what it is. If you don't like it, the answer isn't try to twist the meaning of the amendment. When democrats do that, most people on here stamp their feet and mash their teeth and whine about judicial activism--but when Republicans do it, it seems to be ok... If you don't like it, amend the Constitution. Given the current hysteria surrounding illegal aliens, I'm sure it wouldn't be that difficult to do.
The 14th Amendment is fine just as written.
If you use the definitions of those words as published in the Encyclopedia Britannica and Webster's, the children of illegal aliens are not citizens.
Please source the definitions that you are using and where they come from.
The definitions I posted say very clearly "IN LAW"!!!
How can you continue to claim different?
Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), domicile
DOMICILE
domicile (dom-<>-sIl), n. 1. The place at which a person has been physically present and that the person regards as home; a person's true, fixed, principal, and permanent home, to which that person intends to return and remain even though currently residing elsewhere. • A person has a settled connection with his or her domicile for legal purposes, either because that place is home or because the law has so designated that place. -- Also termed permanent abode. [Cases: Domicile 1. C.J.S. Domicile §§ 2-3, 5, 11.] "By domicile we mean home, the permanent home; and if you do not understand your permanent home, I am afraid that no illustration drawn from foreign writers or foreign languages will very much help you to it." Whicker v. Hume [1858] 7 H.L.C. 124, 160 (per Lord Cranworth).
Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), residence
RESIDENCE
residence. 1. The act or fact of living in a given place for some time . 2. The place where one actually lives, as distinguished from a domicile . • Residence usu. just means bodily presence as an inhabitant in a given place; domicile usu. requires bodily presence plus an intention to make the place one's home. A person thus may have more than one residence at a time but only one domicile. Sometimes, though, the two terms are used synonymously. Cf. DOMICILE (2).
If it doesn't include the word 'legal' anywhere in those definitions, then the only thing "suitable" to do with it is line the bottom of a bird cage or use it to wrap fish. ;^)
Heh. Are you saying Black's doesn't qualify? I mean, it is THE legal dictionary in the world, and it is Black's LAW dictionary...
But that's not good enough, huh? All right, how about the Supreme Court of the United States?
"Domicile" is, of course, a concept widely used in both federal and state courts for jurisdiction and conflict-of-laws purposes, and its meaning is generally uncontroverted. See generally Restatement §§ 11- 23; R. Leflar, L. McDougal, & R. Felix, American Conflicts Law 17-38 (4th ed. 1986); R. Weintraub, Commentary on the Conflict of Laws 12-24 (2d ed. 1980). "Domicile" is not necessarily synonymous with "residence," Perri v. Kisselbach, 34 N.J. 84, 87, 167 A.2d 377, 379 (1961), and one can reside in one place but be domiciled in another, District of Columbia v. Murphy, 314 U.S. 441, 62 S.Ct. 303, 86 L.Ed. 329 (1941); In re Estate of Jones, 192 Iowa 78, 80, 182 N.W. 227, 228 (1921). For adults, domicile is established by physical presence in a place in connection with a certain state of mind concerning one's intent to remain there. Texas v. Florida, 306 U.S. 398, 424, 59 S.Ct. 563, 576, 83 L.Ed. 817 (1939). Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 US 30, 48 (1989).
"Domicile is acquired by residence and the animus manendi, the intent to remain." 100 US 548, 562.
"Domicile has been thus defined: 'A residence at a particular place accompanied with positive or presumptive proof of an intention to remain there for an unlimited time.'" 88 US 350, 352.
Satisfied?
When they say uncontroverted do they mean incontrovertible?
"Domicile" is not necessarily synonymous with "residence,"
The word resident is the word the 14th Amendment uses.
"Domicile is acquired by residence and the animus manendi, the intent to remain." 100 US 548, 562.
They mean LEGAL residence, don't they?
The Supreme Court of the United States is not compelling authority for a legal definition, eh?
Well, then, I'm afraid we're lost, since apparently nothing short of a direct message from God will be convincing to you.
As far as residence goes, legal residence is wherever you live. See my post 87. If I live in Virginia, I am a resident of Virginia. If I move to South Carolina, I'm a resident there. If my job sends me to Georgia for six months to work on a project, I'm a resident of Georgia for the six months that I'm there.
I'm afraid I really don't understand why this is so hard for you. You have a Supreme Court case saying, albeit in dicta, that status as an illegal alien does not matter for 14th amendment citizenship purposes. What more do you want?
Yes, that's true, but that word modifies state citizenship, not United States citizenship; besides, even taking it the way I think you mean it, it is damaging to your argument, is it not? This seems to support inclusion of "anchor babies," so to speak, since it does not even require an intent to permanently remain in order to obtain citizenship.
You're mixing apples and oranges again.
The word we need the Supreme Court's definition of is residence, not dwelling. They are not synonymous.
What you do, or my kids do, or any citizen of the United States does is one thing, what an illegal alien does is another.
Again, it's apples and oranges.
I totally agree, which is why I proffered Blacks. But when did you change your mind on this? I note an earlier post of yours... "To my knowledge, the definitions of residence, domicile and dwelling are the same for the law, Webster's and Britannica."
But all right, how about from the US immigration Code?
"The term "residence" means the place of general abode; the place of general abode of a person means his principal, actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent." 8 USC 1011(a)(33).
Thanks, I'll stick with the definitions in Webster's and the Encyclopedia Britannica. ;^)
That's fine, but you're wrong. I give you the Supreme Court, I give you the United States Code. That's the law. That's what it is.
If you don't like it, amend the Constitution. Until then, you're doing nothing more than judicial "activism."
When the definitions you posted and I posted were so extremely different, I knew something was wrong.
I'll take Britannica's and Webster's definitions over that Libertarian/pro-open borders sounding definition from Black's, anyday.
This is from memory. I seem to recall that circa 1910 to 1920 immigration law provided that children born in the USA of non-citizen parents were not citizens.
You don't choose to subject yourself to jurisdiction, jurisdiction is taken or given by the law. Just by being in this country they are subject to our laws, it's the the crime and location that determines which court will have jurisdiction over you.(All illegals, however, should be Federally prosecuted first for immigration violations. Then, if the state's want a crack at them, they should be able to have it- for the death penalty for cop killers, for example.)
The problem with illegals is that its federal jurisdiction all the way on immmigration issues and the feds have completely dropped the ball. As far as the 14th amendment is concerned, it should be repealed because it is the single worst amendment, always abused through misinterpretation, that allows Liberals to get away with everything.
How can a newborn be considered a citizen when he is here illegally? Soft headed reasoning has conferred this much sought after status on countless thousands
I don't know the legalities of anchor babies, I do know that the majority of kids who are sucking the life out of our education and social systems weren't born here. Even outright illegal status entitles them to free education, for example, just because they are here. Thank the 14th amendment or, more to the point, the Burger Court for that. If being born on US soil makes you a US citizen and I'm sorry to say I don't recall if that is true (maybe someone can fill me in) that doesn't make the parents any more legal. Give them a choice: They can put their kids up for adoption or take them back home. Either way, you don't reward someone for breaking the law, or allow them to hide behind their kids to circumvent prosecution. (And I realize, on this point, I am no doubt just preachin' to the already converted.)
The interesting "flip side" of this??
As an American Citizen, my children are entitled to US Citizenship - however, as my wife is NOT a citizen, it is impossible for me to register them at the consulate, obtain an SSN or to get a passport for my children ON MY OWN! I MUST have her PERMISSION to do so. Thus, the citizenship status of my children is dependant upon the good will of a foreigner!
For the record, this is not a problem in my family. BUT, what kind of government allows the children of illegals to become citizens - no questions asked - but at the same time, by law, allows the above situation??
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.