Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Citizens, All
Washington Post ^ | 11/12/5

Posted on 11/12/2005 6:52:36 AM PST by Crackingham

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) has a bold idea to stop illegal immigration: Deny automatic citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants. "There is general agreement about the fact that citizenship in this country should not be bestowed on people who are children of folks who come into this country illegally," he told the Washington Times. General agreement? Perhaps among Mr. Tancredo's friends in the House but not among the framers of the 14th Amendment. Indeed, any such modern consensus would have a small problem in the text of the Constitution, which is, inconveniently for anti-immigrant demagogues, not subtle on the point. The 14th Amendment begins: "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." Not "all persons except children of illegal immigrants," not "all persons except those Congress exempts in moments of nativism." All persons.

How does Mr. Tancredo propose to get around this language? Like diplomats, illegal immigrants are not truly subject to American jurisdiction, he contends, and their children therefore don't satisfy the constitutional test for birthright citizenship.

The Supreme Court rejected this thesis more than a century ago. "Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States," the court wrote. Diplomats, as a consequence of the lack of jurisdiction Mr. Tancredo would extend to aliens, cannot be arrested or charged with crimes. Is that what Mr. Tancredo has in mind for illegal immigrants? Members of Congress ought not follow him on this ugly and fruitless path.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aliens; anchorbabies; illegalimmigration; immigrantlist; immigration; tancredo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last

1 posted on 11/12/2005 6:52:37 AM PST by Crackingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Diplomats, as a consequence of the lack of jurisdiction Mr. Tancredo would extend to aliens, cannot be arrested or charged with crimes.

Then any of their children born here are NOT US citizens?


2 posted on 11/12/2005 6:57:50 AM PST by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Just one observation for the authors of this editorial:

THE EUROPEANS ALL DO IT!!!

3 posted on 11/12/2005 6:58:48 AM PST by Gay State Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Interesting. It would have to be up to SCOTUS to determine what they thought the framers meant. IMO, I don't think they considered a time when expectant mothers would jump the border to have their babies here just so they could enjoy the benefits of the welfare state.


4 posted on 11/12/2005 6:59:54 AM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spiff; HiJinx

"How does Mr. Tancredo propose to get around this language?"

I thought that was in the Constitution somewhere. Takes an amendment. Do-able, IMHO.


5 posted on 11/12/2005 7:01:02 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March ("We might have dodged a bomb but we lost a lot of brains." Bill Clinton [Veteran Sink Soldier])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

The Constitution and its associated essays on the 14th is quite clear. We cannot violate it, but use the process to change it. Propose an Admendment and have Congress pass it and the states ratify it. Let us not act like liberals.


6 posted on 11/12/2005 7:01:50 AM PST by Fee (`+Great powers never let minor allies dictate who, where and when they must fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tet68
Then any of their children born here are NOT US citizens?

I think that that's the way it works.My understanding is that "diplomatic immunity" is a concept agreed upon through treaties as the result of some of the things that governments used to do to foreign diplomats.

7 posted on 11/12/2005 7:01:52 AM PST by Gay State Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
anti-immigrant demagogues

This must be phrase # 3 on the DNC daily fax. I heard it on two local shows in Chicago in the last week, and now in the Washington Post. Hopefully the liberals won't start hiring illegals to tell lies and smears that the Washington Post and other Americans won't do.

8 posted on 11/12/2005 7:03:25 AM PST by Bernard (You can either deal with your situation or be a liberal about it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
What a great idea! I'm glad that at least someone is interested in solving the illegal immigrant problem.
9 posted on 11/12/2005 7:04:06 AM PST by Colorado Doug (Diversity is divisive. E. Pluribus Unum (Out of many, one))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sageb1
How ironic that they are reading the Constitution. There is nothing that says the parents can automatically stay or that we have to provide benefits.
10 posted on 11/12/2005 7:04:07 AM PST by CindyDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
Takes an amendment. Do-able, IMHO.

Probably not today.I suspect that two thirds (or is it three quarters?) of state legislatures would pass it...but the US Senate and/or House would be very,very difficult,I fear.

11 posted on 11/12/2005 7:04:45 AM PST by Gay State Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

"...but the US Senate and/or House would be very,very difficult,I fear..."

Yeah, with all the emboldening of rats after the last election, you have a point. It will take a few more GOP victories.


12 posted on 11/12/2005 7:15:17 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March ("We might have dodged a bomb but we lost a lot of brains." Bill Clinton [Veteran Sink Soldier])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

And the amendment is a winning issue.


13 posted on 11/12/2005 7:16:02 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March ("We might have dodged a bomb but we lost a lot of brains." Bill Clinton [Veteran Sink Soldier])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Bernard
That phrase is not just a favorite of the left. Some on FR and many surrogates of the administration use similar language if not worse.
14 posted on 11/12/2005 7:18:57 AM PST by mthom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Too bad the WaPo can't cite the case. I can cite a case from more than a century ago that precisely addresses the distinction between subject to the jurisdiction and within the jurisdiction with respect to the 14th Amendment citizenship clause:

As written and ratified, the 14th Amendment was NOT intended to grant citizenship to the children of foreign subjects, all protestations of the WaPo to the contrary.

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):

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=Slaughterhouse%20Cases&url=/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0083_0036_ZO.html

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:

"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Senator Jacob Howard, Co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.

Senator Howard recognized three classes of people to whom the 14th Amendment citizenship clause would not apply: foreigners (tourists here temporarily), aliens (those here illegally but who have no intention of leaving), and foreign diplomats (here legally and in a special protected status who will leave upon the expiration of their term).

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, the wording of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause means that they MAY NOT grant birthright citizenship to the children of illegals, nor the equivalent.

The confusion lies in the word, "subject." Clearly, in the context of a discussion of citizenship, "subject" refers to the nation of which one is a citizen, a foreign subject. Just because one is within a jurisdiction does not make them a subject.

15 posted on 11/12/2005 7:23:25 AM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CindyDawg

"There is nothing that says the parents can automatically stay or that we have to provide benefits."

Correct. We could take a hard line stand and say that citizen-children of illegals will be adopted by law-abiding US citizens while the illegals are deported. That could be too nasty-sounding though. It takes careful thought.

The driving force of immigration, the root of the movement, is the war against terror. Perhaps we could win on that, but we need to think carefully. A baby is not often a terror weapon. An Islamic mother, perhaps. But a Mexican mother who just gave birth and looking for the citizen-lotto? Sleazy, true. Worthy of debate. But not a high terror risk.

Better to keep them out to begin with, obviously.


16 posted on 11/12/2005 7:23:55 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March ("We might have dodged a bomb but we lost a lot of brains." Bill Clinton [Veteran Sink Soldier])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
The case to which WaaPo refers is U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) 169 U.S. 649
17 posted on 11/12/2005 7:26:11 AM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

' 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. '

Ah...! The Washington Compost was pulling a fast one! Very glad you weighed in!

FRegards....


18 posted on 11/12/2005 7:26:56 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March ("We might have dodged a bomb but we lost a lot of brains." Bill Clinton [Veteran Sink Soldier])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Arthur Wildfire! March
There were problems with activist courts LONG before Earl Warren. Remember that the latter ruling was during the great wave of immigration of the late 19th Century.
19 posted on 11/12/2005 7:29:12 AM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

The first judicial activist was probably Marshall, probably appointed by Adams for partizan reasons, in an effort to undermine President Jefferson.


20 posted on 11/12/2005 7:35:26 AM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March ("We might have dodged a bomb but we lost a lot of brains." Bill Clinton [Veteran Sink Soldier])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-71 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson