Posted on 12/26/2005 10:07:06 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Bitter Debate Over 'Bithright Citizenship'
By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer 16 minutes ago
A proposal to change long-standing federal policy and deny citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants on U.S. soil ran aground this month in Congress, but it is sure to resurface — kindling bitter debate even if it fails to become law.
At issue is "birthright citizenship" — provided for since the Constitution's 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.
Section 1 of that amendment, drafted with freed slaves in mind, says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Some conservatives in Congress, as well as advocacy groups seeking to crack down on illegal immigration, say the amendment has been misapplied over the years, that it was never intended to grant citizenship automatically to babies of illegal immigrants. Thus they contend that federal legislation, rather than a difficult-to-achieve constitutional amendment, would be sufficient to end birthright citizenship.
With more than 70 co-sponsors, Georgia Republican Rep. Nathan Deal (news, bio, voting record) tried to include a revocation of birthright citizenship in an immigration bill passed by the House in mid-December. GOP House leaders did not let the proposal come to a vote.
"Most Americans feel it doesn't make any sense for people to come into the country illegally, give birth and have a new U.S. citizen," said Ira Mehlman of the Federation of American Immigration Reform, which backs Deal's proposal. "But the advocates for illegal immigrants will make a fuss; they'll claim you're punishing the children, and I suspect the leadership doesn't want to deal with that."
Deal has said he will continue pushing the issue, describing birthright citizenship as "a huge magnet" attracting illegal immigrants.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Maybe we should simply mirror the immigration laws of Mexico... do you suppose that would shut the critics up? Their laws are MUCH more strict than our own, but they never lose a chance to bellyache about our more liberal policies.
Okay, I'll be first - - is "bithright" what Peter Sellers claims when he wants to wash up?
Fruit of the poison tree, no gains can come from an illegal act. Round em up, head em out.
I disagree. The language of the 14th Amendment is clear and a Constitutional amendment is requrired to modify it.
For better or worse, 14th Amendment statest "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
As a Constitutional conservative, I think the 14th's language was too broad. I also don't like the 16th and 17th Amendments and would like to see them repealed, but there is only one proper way to do it. Muster the political will and support to pass new Constitutional amendments. No legislative end runs around the Constitution. We have enough of that already.
House Leaders obviously means Hastart...It's going to feel good to vote against these clowns...
If the Supremes determine that the jurisdiction clause exlcudes illegal immigrants then congress need only enforce that law, it would require no change or additional law.
I think that Alito is much more likely than Miers to be able to discern meaning and render judgement on "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Since they are illegal, are they really subject to the jurisdiction of the US? I think this is the area that will be subject to judgements and may provide the wiggle room necessary to change the practices.
Ref post #6.
I agree with you 100%.
"No legislative end runs around the Constitution."
Amen.
Why should there be bitterness. Does anyone truly believe the fact that one is born on US soil should automatically confer citizenship? Getting to US soil at the time of the founding fathers took great effort and courage. Today this is not the case. Perhaps we should move for a Constitutional amendment NOW if in fact that is required.
If the mother cat gives birth in an oven, the kittens are not automatically biscuits....
Children born of non-citizen parents who happen to be in transit through the US to a point beyond the US borders or US possessions, have some sort of provision in which they retain the citizenship of the parents. So should it be with children of parents who are here illegally, which is a variation of the concept of transient. I believe the deal is, that the child born of such circumstances is NOT granted full citizenship in the US, but only has preference of which citizenship is chosen after attaining adult status.
For the benefit of everyone, check this out...
Alien Birthright Citizenship: A Fable That Lives Through Ignorance
"The Wong Kim Ark ruling is so badly flawed and irrelevant probably lead to the US Supreme Court in 1982 to say they "had never confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens."
The full text of the 14th Amendment...
Section. 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person 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 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 inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and 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 citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one 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, the provisions of this article.
"what Peter Sellers claims when he wants to wash up?"
Correct. Also remember he was King of the "Grand Duchy of Fenwick!
read later
For better or worse, 14th Amendment statest "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
I certainly agree that there should be no legislative endruns around the Constitution.
But clearly the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," are meant to exclude some people who were born here. The question is who? Clearly members of an invading army who might give birth would be excluded. The only difference to me between the Illegal Mexicans and an invading army is a uniform. And since a uniform conveys rights, it should seem logical that a lack of a uniform would not convey a different set of rights here including the right citizenship of to their children born here.
I think Congress, and even States, can make whatever laws they want to regarding people determined to be here illegally up to and including execution.
ML/NJ
Actually we should not. The U.S. and Mexico are the only major western countries that still have birthright citizenship.
Illegal aliens are not subject to our jurisdiction. For starters, they are here in violation of our laws. They do not subject themselves to normal laws like having legal status to work before doing so, nor do they have valid identification, social security numbers, buy auto insurance or pay taxes. In fact, their very attempts to blur legal and illegal immigration, turn the United States into the third-world countries from whence they came and force us to accommodate them by providing services in Spanish, including welfare services for which they are not legally eligible indicates they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and, therefore, ineligible to claim protections offered under the 14th amendment of the constitution.
ping
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.