Birthright citizenship law targeted by Congress

Sierra Vista Herald, Sierra Vista Arizona (AP Story) ^ | Nov 26, 2005

[SandRat]

PHOENIX (AP) — For years, proposals in Congress to end birthright citizenship have gone nowhere. But as lawmakers grapple with ways to solve illegal immigration, the idea is getting more attention.

The long-standing policy of birthright citizenship is rooted in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states in part: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.”

But some congressional members say birthright citizenship encourages illegal immigration and jeopardizes national security.

U.S. Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., is one of 69 co-sponsors of legislation to deny citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants. The proposal has gained ground with those who want to clamp down on illegal immigration through stricter enforcement and proponents of a guest-worker program alike.

“I’m all in favor of people from other countries becoming U.S. citizens, but I don’t know that it is appropriate to become a citizen automatically just by having the parents come into this country illegally and then be born here,” Shadegg said.

Some members of Congress also say they might be more inclined to support a guest-worker program if babies born to immigrants working in the United States on temporary visas were not afforded automatic citizenship.

Those who favor ending birthright citizenship say denying automatic citizenship through legislation can be accomplished because the 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted.

Chapman University law professor John Eastman, in testifying in front of the House Immigration, Border Security and Claims Subcommittee, warned that giving citizenship to everyone born in the country in the post 9/11 world could be dangerous.

In Eastman’s view, the 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted. He argues the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” suggests the 14th Amendment does not apply to children of undocumented immigrants because their parents are living in the United States illegally.

Nearly one in five babies in Arizona is born to a mother living in the country illegally, according to a study of 2002 birth records and other government data by the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, D.C., think tank that favors tighter restrictions on immigration.

Only California has a higher share of babies born to undocumented parents. The center estimates that in 2002, there were 383,388 babies born in the United States to undocumented mothers, or about one in 10 births.

Critics call children born to undocumented immigrants “anchor” babies because when they turn 21, they can sponsor their parents for legal permanent residency.

Cecilia Flores, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, is about to give birth to a daughter who will become one among about 15,000 babies born to undocumented mothers this year in Arizona and granted automatic citizenship.

But Flores and her husband Josi, also here illegally from Mexico, doubt that ending birthright citizenship will keep undocumented immigrants from coming to the United States because most come for jobs, not to have babies.

From their point of view, their baby deserves to be a U.S. citizen, even though they are living in the country illegally. “This is a country that is always promoting human rights,” Cecilia Flores said. “To deny citizenship to a defenseless child who had no say in being born here would be absurd. It would be unjust.”

[SandRat]

hmmmmm,.....

[SandRat]

verrrry interesting,.........

[goldstategop]

Its insane. Those babies born here should be deemed citizens of their parents' countries, not American citizens. Citizenship should be granted only to lawful immigrants and their children should eligible for it only after a number of years has passed. No other country on earth makes citizenship a right. Birthright citizenship has been abused and its time to end it before it bankrupts this land.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[Barte45]

I have always been against birthright citizenship. Where you were born shouldn't mean anything, where you legally live should.

[Michael.SF.]

He argues the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” suggests the 14th Amendment does not apply to children of undocumented immigrants

Why take the chance, that the above argument will fail?

I say go for it with a Amendment. The first side to get on board with this, will stake out the territory for the anti illegal immigrant contention.

[Texas_Jarhead]

"“To deny citizenship to a defenseless child who had no say in being born here would be absurd. It would be unjust.”"

Denying her illegal anchor baby citizenship is unjust. That's rich.

[adamsjas]

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States.”

I predict trouble sneaking any change to this past the Supreme Court.

You would have to make some contention base on the middle phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". What exactly that phrase means may be subject to discussion. Presumably the children of Diplomats would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States even if they were born here. But to say the child of an illegal immigrant born nere is not subject to the Jurisdiction of the US is going to be a stretch.

It sounds to me like a constitutional ammendment would be needed.

[goldstategop]

The 14th Admendment empowers Congress to address it with appropriate legislation. It seems to me the courts are required to give deference to Congress' judgment about the status of foreigners. They do not have an automatic entitlement upon America's generosity, even if their children are born here.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

[Michael.SF.]

Where you were born shouldn't mean anything, where you legally live should.

I am sure it was an oversight, but the citizenship of your parents should also be taken into consideration. For example:

Suppose you have of a French couple, both of whom are here in the USA on a legal visa, with no intention of becoming citizens, she gives birth, is that child automatically a citizen of the USA?

I say it should not be automatic.

Now reverse it, American couple in France, she gives birth. French or USA citizen?

I would say that at 18, the child could select citizenship, one or the other (depending on French law).

[adam_az]

"You would have to make some contention base on the middle phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". What exactly that phrase means may be subject to discussion."

The author of the amendment wrote about exactly what it means.

We're misinterpreting it NOW.

This will bring it back in line with the original intent.

[MissAmericanPie]

Time to call a few congress critters?

[heldmyw]

It would seem to me that an illegal alien is technically 'not here'. In any event, immediate deportation would (should) be the result of discovery. No trial, just a hearing to protect any legal aliens that may have run afoul of the system. Any children of illegals, irrespective of their birth coordinates would be the responsibility of the parents and the country of origin of the parents.

Criminals who violate U.S. sovereignty shouldn't qualify for rights and privileges when so many honest immigrants patiently go through legal channels to become real citizens. More criminals we do not need

[adamsjas]

The author of the amendment wrote about exactly what it means.

And this is written where?

The article simply states:

argues the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” suggests the 14th Amendment does not apply to children of undocumented immigrants because their parents are living in the United States illegally.

If the parents are not subject to the jusisdiction of the US, then by what means could they be arrested and deported?

[SandRat]

eeeeeYUP!

[Graybeard58]

They do not have an automatic entitlement upon America's generosity, even if their children are born here.

As a matter of practice they do and that must change. A constitutional amendment would take longer and it's not certain to get the proper number of state legislatures on board to pass anyway.

[rellimpank]

--serious subject that this is , it still reminds me of the retort of the Duke of Wellington when someone suggested that since he was born in Dublin he was Irish--

--he replied that being born in Ireland no more made one Irish than being born in a stable made one a horse---

[BunnySlippers]

Larry Elder has been doing a lot on this lately ... as well as Doug MacIntyre. KABC radio.

[Procyon]

It will take a constitutional amendment to change the 14th Amendment. Unless it overrules itself, the Supreme Court is bound by its 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, holding that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who were ineligible themselves to be naturalized is a citizen of the United States nevertheless and entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. Congress' intent in including the qualifying phrase "and subject to the jurisdiciton thereof," was apparently to exclude from the reach of the language children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation.

Do you think there are the votes on the Supreme Court to reverse itself, or 2/3 of each house of congress and 3/4 the state legislatures to change this?

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

As I understand it, after the civil war and during reconstruction (ugh, I hate that word) the birthright clause was kicked into the 14th amendment to insure that children born of ex slaves would be automatically become citizens. This was laudable and a good thing, but, it sure as hell did not take into account of being over run by criminal trespassers whom broke the nations laws to get their kids born here.

It is still debated if the 14th amendment is even legal, as it applies only to the states, not to the federal government.

It is time to give the 14th amendment a damned good test case before SCOTUS, after a conservative or two are appointed as justices.

[Congressman Billybob]

This is exactly what I and others have written in FreeRepublic threads six months or more ago. This is within the power of Congress, precisely because the 14th Amendment empowers Congress to enforce it thought appropriate legislation. This sounds like appropriate legislation to me.

John / Billybob