GOP mulls ending birthright citizenship

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | November 4, 2005 | By Stephen Dinan

[.cnI redruM]

House Republicans are looking closely at ending birthright citizenship and building a barrier along the entire U.S.-Mexico border as they search for solutions to illegal immigration.

A task force of party leaders and members active on immigration has met since the summer to try to figure out where consensus exists, and several participants said those two ideas have floated to the top of the list of possibilities to be included either in an immigration-enforcement bill later this year or in a later comprehensive immigration overhaul.

"There is a general agreement about the fact that citizenship in this country should not be bestowed on people who are the children of folks who come into this country illegally," said Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, who is participating in the "unity dinners," the group of Republicans trying to find consensus on immigration.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

And yet it has.

Only because we've allowed it to. The USSC has never ruled one way or the other regarding children of illegals. Since the writers of the 14th Amendment made their intentions clear that foreigners would not be included it's time for Congress to exercise their authority in the matter and let the Court decide once and for all.

[GOPGuide]

No it is NOT necessary for to pass an amendment, only to redifine Jurisdiction.

See Post 199

[raybbr]

I hope this goes somewhere, but I'm just assuming the spineless Republicans will collapse under the weight of the "racism" charges from the Left.

There are plenty of charges of racism and prejudice from the right, too.

[LWalk18]

Many, maybe even most illegal immigrants in this country come in legally and then overstay their visa, becoming illegal. If the Indian immigrant superstar engineer is here on an expired employee visa, his/her future children born in the U.S. would not be citizens no more than the Mexican farmworker who snuck across the border's children would be.

[jackbenimble]

The child is under jurisdiction, as the child has not committed any crime or shown himself to be a criminal.

Respectfully, why do you suppose the framers included that phrase about jurisdiction? Using your logic they were wasted words because every baby born on our soil would be under our jurisdiction. If it doesn't mean anything why did they bother to specify TWO conditions for birthright citizenship.

I am not trying to take away the babies birthright. You are trying to give the baby rights that the framers did not intend. Post 86 gives some pretty good clues as to what the framers might have meant.

[BnBlFlag]

Would you please point out where in the Constitution birthright citizenship is mentioned? Thanks.

[Congressman Billybob]

That post contains its own answer. Why are you asking me about it?

John / Billybob

[highball]

I was born here. Where would they deport me to? I want them to be able to deport the riffraff.

And yet, if you give Congress the power to remove citizenship without your assent, which is a power they do not currently have, you are opening the door to its abuse. Future Congresses, including the inevitable Dim Congresses, could revoke membership for any reason they choose.

If you don't like "anchor babies" having citizenship as a birthright, the proper remedy is a Constitutional Amendment.

[GrandEagle]

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Now they really don't have a choice in the matter.

[highball]

Would you please point out where in the Constitution birthright citizenship is mentioned? Thanks.

I know that you're being facetious, but just because you don't like the interpretation of the 14th Amendment doesn't make that interpretation invalid.

Again, the proper remedy is an Amendment. That's the only way to "clarify" the Constitution if you think the Supremes are interpreting it incorrectly.

[raybbr]

If you don't like "anchor babies" having citizenship as a birthright, the proper remedy is a Constitutional Amendment.

Only if you believe that right is conveyed by the Constitution. I don't believe it is.

[BlueStateDepression]

"You are still trying to remove the child's birthright because of actions not his own."


How does the child have a birthright when the mother being here (meaning the unborn inside here is Illegal also) is Illegal to begin with?

[GOPGuide]

The Congress does NOT have to amend the constitution. Congress only needs to redifine "Jurisdiction" to mean a child who is born to parents lawfully in the United States because defining jurisdiction is perfectly within Congress' constitutional rights.

See Below:


http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:jlnDNpFLQdMJ:commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju43144.000/hju43144_0.HTM+%22define+Jurisdiction%22+%22birthright+citizenship%22&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8

CITIZENSHIP REFORM ACT OF 1997; AND VOTER ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION ACT

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Watt.

Let me go to myself and direct my first question to Dr. Erler. Now, Dr. Erler, I found your testimony persuasive, and I also found the words of Senator Howard on the Senate floor during the debate on the 14th amendment to be persuasive as well. I don't know how you can ignore the clear meaning of his words.

But the question I had for you is: What is the advantage, why should we pursue Mr. Bilbray's bill as opposed to seeking a constitutional amendment? What are the advantages of trying to change the definition by statute rather than by the Constitution?

Mr. ERLER. Well, I'm of the opinion, as I think you probably are, too, that we ought to amend the Constitution as infrequently as we possibly can. In this instance, I think that Congress has complete power under section 5 of the 14th amendment to DEFINE JURISDICTION [EMPHASIS MINE], to define who is within the jurisdiction of the United States, and in fact has done so on many, many occasions. And so I think that legislation which could cure this increasing public problem that we have is the preferred step.

Mr. SMITH. OK, thank you, Dr. Erler.

[highball]

Only if you believe that right is conveyed by the Constitution. I don't believe it is.

It doesn't matter what you believe. Or what I believe. Or what my cousin Bill believes. It only matters how the Supreme Court interprets it.

When the Supremes interpret the Constitution incorrectly, we can clarify it for them through an Amendment. That's the procedure.

[Hostage]

Your idea of a 'nonport port' is a good one, but wanted to get your take on whether an effort such as proposed by post #162 is maybe easier politically, legislatively, constitutionally, etc.

No need to respond at length if you have no opinion or an unformed one about #162 type approaches.

TIA for any and all.

[highball]

I've read that, and I don't agree with Mr. Erler's opinion (and keep in mind that's all it is).

Better, I think, to pursue a Constitutional Amendment to settle this issue once and for all.

[chronic_loser]

Great point, and a very interesting one, too. I had always assumed the "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States " HAD to mean what most everyone I have ever seen thinks it means.

I actually think defining the jurisdiction that way is a great idea.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

When the Supremes interpret the Constitution incorrectly, we can clarify it for them through an Amendment.

But the USSC has never ruled on the citizenship status regarding children of illegals. If you're aware of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 then you'll know Congress has the authority to change the law without amending the Constitution.

[Vicomte13]

"It would be up to us to replace those in congress who pulled such a stunt, but they do have the authority."

Sez you.
Let the Congress try to pass a law denying the Supreme Court the right to review for constitutionality.
Watch how swiftly the Supreme Court strikes down that law, with Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito all joining the other 5 justices in a 9-0 decision that firmly reasserts Marbury v. Madison.
A direct confrontation between Congress and the Supreme Court over the power of judicial review would be very interesting to see.

It would ultimately be decided by the court of public opinion, although the way the executive branch went would help.

You're an Immigration Official. On the one hand, you've got a Congressional Act that says to do X. On the other, you have a Supreme Court order that orders you not to. What do you do?

A lot of people's oaths to the Constitution would be tested in such a showdown. It would be won in the Court of public opinion, and the loser would be pummmelled.

I don't think it's hard to divine which way the public would go. Let's see, on the one hand you've got all 9 Justices asserting Marbury v. Madison, the most ancient and hoariest of all American constitutional rules, Civics 101 stuff. On the other, you've got one party in Congress asserting that Congress has plenary power to prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing acts of Congress for Constitutionality.

All of the Democrats and every Libertarian would side with the court. So would a lot of Republicans. Congress would be defeated.

Let's hope that we don't have to see that test.

[GOPGuide]

"I've read that, and I don't agree with Mr. Erler's opinion (and keep in mind that's all it is)."

It is not his opion it is a FACT that Congress can define jurisdiction.

If foreign diplomats can be, by Congressional statutes, denied by Congress of being subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the United States, why can't Congress deny legal jurisdiction to illegal immigrant children as per the 14th amendment.

See below.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:gj5TP5qpLD4J:www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode22/usc_sec_22_00002728----000-.html+%22jurisdiction+of+the+united+states%22+%22diplomatic+immunity%22&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8


§ 2728. Crimes committed by diplomats


Release date: 2005-08-18

(a) Annual report concerning diplomatic immunity
(1) Report to Congress
180 days after October 21, 1998, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State shall prepare and submit to the Congress, a report concerning diplomatic immunity entitled “Report on Cases Involving Diplomatic Immunity”.
(2) Content of report
In addition to such other information as the Secretary of State may consider appropriate, the report under paragraph (1) shall include the following:
(A) The number of persons residing in the United States who enjoy full immunity FROM THE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES [EMPHASIS MINE] under laws extending diplomatic privileges and immunities.



(B) Each case involving an alien described in subparagraph (A) in which an appropriate authority of a State, a political subdivision of a State, or the United States reported to the Department of State that the authority had reasonable cause to believe the alien committed a serious criminal offense within the United States, and any additional information provided to the Secretary relating to other serious criminal offenses that any such authority had reasonable cause to believe the alien committed before the period covered by the report. The Secretary may omit from such report any matter the provision of which the Secretary reasonably believes would compromise a criminal investigation or prosecution or which would directly compromise law enforcement or intelligence sources or methods.
(C) Each case described in subparagraph (B) in which the Secretary of State has certified that a person enjoys full immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the United States under laws extending diplomatic privileges and immunities.
(D) The number of United States citizens who are residing in a receiving state and who enjoy full immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of such state under laws extending diplomatic privileges and immunities.
(E) Each case involving a United States citizen under subparagraph (D) in which the United States has been requested by the government of a receiving state to waive the immunity from criminal jurisdiction of the United States citizen.
(F) Whether the Secretary has made the notifications referred to in subsection (c) of this section during the period covered by the report.
(3) Serious criminal offense defined
For the purposes of this section, the term “serious criminal offense” means—
(A) any felony under Federal, State, or local law;
(B) any Federal, State, or local offense punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year;
(C) any crime of violence as defined for purposes of section 16 of title 18; or
(D)
(i) driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs;
(ii) reckless driving; or
(iii) driving while intoxicated.
(b) United States policy concerning reform of diplomatic immunity
It is the sense of the Congress that the Secretary of State should explore, in appropriate fora, whether states should enter into agreements and adopt legislation—
(1) to provide jurisdiction in the sending state to prosecute crimes committed in the receiving state by persons entitled to immunity from criminal jurisdiction under laws extending diplomatic privileges and immunities; and
(2) to provide that where there is probable cause to believe that an individual who is entitled to immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving state under laws extending diplomatic privileges and immunities committed a serious crime, the sending state will waive such immunity or the sending state will prosecute such individual.
(c) Notification of diplomatic corps
The Secretary should periodically notify each foreign mission of United States policies relating to criminal offenses committed by individuals with immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the United States under laws extending diplomatic privileges and immunities.