Posted on 11/04/2005 5:54:41 AM PST by .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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
What was the case "Wo Van ark, or something like that? Back in 1895.
"I was referring to the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, which bestows citizenship on anyone born in America."
The drafters of the 14th amendment during congressional deliberations on the amendment EXPLICITLY said that the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship simply because you are in the borders of the United States.
The word "subject to the jurisdiction" was meant to allow Congress, NOT the Courts, to define who is under American jurisdiction by appropriate Congressional statutes.
The Congress can actually pass a statute defining "jurisdiction" as a child born to parent/parents who are lawfully present within the United States. Also, the Congress can make this law unreviewable by any Federal Court, including SCOTUS as per Congress' powers under Article III Section II of the Constitution. Even if that law is unconstitutional, SCOTUS can't review it.
If someone doesn't like a law banning anchor babies from citizenship, the people can go to the ballot box and vote in Congressman willing to restore birthright citizenship.
The Founders would not have put up with this invasion.
Section 1. All persons born((((to legal permanent resident aliens or legal citizens))) or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they ((((legally))))reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of((((legal)))) citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person(((here legally))) of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person((((herelegally))))within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons((((here legally)))) in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male((((or female legal)))) inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one((((18 instead)))) years of age, and ((((legal))))citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male(((or female legal)))) citizens shall bear to the whole number of male((((or female legal)))) citizens twenty-one((((18 instead)))) years of age in such state.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation(((( AND IMMEDIATE ACTION BY ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT Entities REQUIRED))) the provisions of this article.
I really do not see why this is so difficult!
I will offer that Section 5 Authorizes the Congress to declare war on this invasion of illegal aliens and thus allows them to deploy military to the border to enforce border security.
I suppose the first opposition to these changes would be the defenition of "legal" as used here and I would argue that although self evident, the term means that all laws made about citizenship must be met and abided by or else they are deemed Illegal and subject to punishments.
I do not think this is an amendment issue so much as it is a precedent Law issue or an 'amending an amendment issue. There are immigrants rights laws that would need addressed in combination with this, but a person could pose the arguement that these changes( amendments to the amendment) affect all laws they affect with superceding power and would make any and all statements in all laws null and void with these new changes Setting the NEW precedent. National Security of this country being the vehicle to justify it.
Nope. As written, the 14th Amendment was NOT intended to grant citizenship to the children of foreign subjects.
The Slaughterhouse Cases are the first Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment on record. The author of the majority opinion is a contemporary of those who drafted and debated the Amendment. The following text is from the majority opinion (about 3/4 of the way down the linked source page):
Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) (USSC+)
Opinions
MILLER, J., Opinion of the Court
"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 first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
Here is a second source:
Senator Jacob Howard, Co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
And in Section 5 "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." cedes control of implementing provisions of the Amendment back to Congress. Because the Constitution is a limiting document they MAY NOT grant citizenship to illegals, nor the equivalent.
The interpretation started to change when a Roosevelt court started playing fast and loose with the term, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in Bridges v. Wixon (1945).
So you are saying an Amendment might not be needed?
The right court would get rid of this disgraceful illegal alien loophole. The 14th Amendment can easily be interpreted as not applicable to illegal aliens and the babies they drop here.
Few other nations allow such easy citizenship for illegal alien intruders. We've been saps for far too long and word is out in the 3rd world about our nonexistent deportation policies
Workplace raids for illegal aliens were much greater under Bill Clinton!!
"They would technically be US citizens when born according to the constitution... but then would have that citizenship stripped from them by congress."
Interesting point.
Notice how it STILL puts the blame on CONGRESS for lack of action......Funny how it ALWAYS comes right back to that....
"That's a step. Now end the free healthcare, schooling, food stamps, housing and every other freebie that these ILLEGALS get."
Let's not forget that part of the solution starts at home. As long as State and liberal local Governments insist on doing stupid things, like giving illegals valid State driver's licenses. Once you have a valid ID, half the battle is won.
There isn't much that the Feds can really do to stop the flood of illegals across the border, as long as Localities all over the country continue to create magnets of freebies for illegals that just draws more and more people over the border. A lot of the problems for you land owners on the border in Arizona are the direct result of the actions of cities like San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle; and many points in between.
All politics is local...
I agree with the points you are making. I guess we should ask WWFD. Would they want Congress to make a law or amend the Constitution. I still think that an amendment is required.
"All politics is local..."
Sure until the local people band together and pass votes that higher ups do not agree with...
The statement ....what denver did doesnt matter cuz it is in Colorado comes to mind....
Yes, our government really is that far out of line.
Ending birthright citizen would go a long way.
Congress has the authority to strip anyone of their citizenship.
So no constitutional amendment is required.
They would technically be US citizens when born according to the constitution... but then would have that citizenship stripped from them by congress.
I don't think Congress has the right to strip an entire class of people of their citizenship. That doesn't smell right. It smells of facism, of a government out of control. Especially since it's little more than an end-run around the Constitution.
Moreover, it would be a PR nightmare, not to mention the logistical problems. Issuing birth certificates, then confiscating them?
It should simply say that minors have the same legal status as the parents.
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.