Posted on 03/04/2007 3:23:24 AM PST by T.L.Sink
Congressional action warranted: the Fourteenth Amendment stipulates that Congress has the power to enforce its provisions by enactment of legislation, and the power to enforce a law is necessarily accompanied by the authority to interpret that law. Therefore, an act of Congress stating its interpretation of the 14th Amendment, as not to include the offspring of illegal aliens, would fall within Congress's prerogative. The cost of educating illegal alien children in the nation's seven states with the highest concentration of illegal aliens was $3.1 billion in 1993(which with the growth of their population to 1.3 million, would be more like $5 billion in 2000). This does not take into account the costs of bilingual education or other special educational needs.
(Excerpt) Read more at fairus.org ...
Slouching towards the NWO.
There were something like 360,000 anchor babies born to illegal aliens in the US last year.
Exactly. It is very easy to solve this problem.
Those who wrote the 14th were unable to predict how weak and stupid our politicians would be 139 years later.
I know there are a lot of attorneys and historians on this forum. Am I wrong to assume this?
Yeah. Funny how it was killed in committee back in '01.
IIRC, the Republican party had the House then, and we had a newly minted "Republican" president in office.
Funny how it was killed in committee.
Your idea is a bad one and will never happen. People who think like you however do help the cause of an EU like North America. There is a chance that could happen.
From the Federalist Blog:
Alien Birthright Citizenship: A Fable That Lives Through Ignorance
Ever since the subject of Congress taking up Birthright Citizenship have we seen the power of ignorance at work through the MSM. It is difficult to find any editorial or wire story that correctly gives the reader an honest and accurate historical account of the Fourteenth Amendment in regards to children born to foreign parents within the United States. Most often the media presents a fabled and inaccurate account of just what the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment means.
Recent story lines go something like this: "Currently the Constitution says that a person born in this country is an American citizen. That's it. No caveats." The problem with these sort of statements other than being plainly false is that it reinforces a falsehood that has become viewed as a almost certain fact through such false assertions over time.
This is like insisting the sun rotates around the earth while ignoring the body of evidence to the contrary.
During the reconstruction period following the civil war the view on citizenship was that only children born to American parents owing allegiance to no other foreign power could be declared an American Citizen upon birth on U.S. soil. This is exactly the language of the civil rights bill of 1866: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States."
The author of the Fourteenth Amendment, Rep. John A Bingham (OH), responded to the above declaration as follows: "I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."
The opinion of US Attorney General Edward Bates in 1862, citing Judge Paschal's exhaustive work on the Constitution, said: "The Constitution does not make the citizen, it is in fact made by them." In other words, only a US Citizen can make a US Citizen upon birth of their child. It was Paschal's great work which was the basis of Bingham's birthright statement.
In 1830 Congress considered amending naturalization law to entitle citizenship to "all the children of such alien mothers as have become residents, and married citizens of the United States since the year 1802."
Already before we get to the Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause we have Congress declaring only children born to parents who owe no foreign allegiance shall be citizens. We also have the author of the Fourteenth Amendment declaring this as the law of the land along with the US Attorney General. It just gets worst for advocates who want to either believe or, revise history, to support their fable that the Fourteenth Amendment somehow magically makes anyone born in the United States regardless of the allegiance of their parents a natural born citizen.
Sen. Jacob Howard, who wrote the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause believed the same thing as Bingham as evidenced by his introduction of the clause to the US Senate as follows:
[T]his amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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.
And what was this law of the land already Howard speaks of? "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power" are citizens of the United States. So what Howard is making clear here is the simple fact his citizenship clause is no different then the law of the land already which demanded allegiance to the United States by at least the child's father before that child could be considered a U.S. born citizen. This alone makes liberal construction to the contrary impossible.
Advocates for birthright citizenship for aliens either through ignorance, or deception, attempt to pretend "subject to the jurisdiction" means only one thing: location at time of birth. It does not, and never had such a meaning during the time period in question. Simply being on US soil (limits) does not automatically make you a "subject" of US jurisdiction like some pro-alien advocates would like to believe.
When one is said to be subject to some nations jurisdiction, this means they are considered as a citizen of that nation. When an alien visits or sneaks into this country they are only under the jurisdiction of local laws and ordinances, and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because they are not subjects of the nation.
The only recognized means for non-Americans to come under US jurisdiction for purposes of citizenship under the US Constitution is through the process of naturalization, which among other things requires an oath of allegiance to the United States. Sen. Reverdy Johnson said as much when debating the citizenship clause in the Senate: "And I know no mode by which an alien can become a citizen of the United States except under the naturalization laws of the United States."
So than, what exactly did subject to the jurisdiction mean? Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, framer of the Thirteenth Amendment told us in clear language what the phrase means under the Fourteenth:
[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Sen. Jacob M. Howard, responded to Trumbull's construction by saying:
[I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.
One might wonder why did Jacob Howard use the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" rather than the language of the civil rights bill of 1866? The answer is simple: He feared the States could at any time start taxing Indian's, and therefore, making them eligible for citizenship -- something most in Congress at the time did not desire. Since Indians were not under the direct jurisdiction of the United States (they were under the jurisdiction of their respected tribes) the language of the Fourteenth Amendment would disqualify them. This is why the language of the Citizenship Clause ended up different than the language of the civil rights bill of 1866 and made more restrictive as to who could become a citizen by birth.
Still confused to exactly what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" really means? Let us then hear what the same Senate said it means several years after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, in plainer and more comprehensive language that can easily be understood by anyone today with a above 6th grade education. The following is from Sen. James K. Kelly (OR), 42nd Congress, speaking before a session of the Senate on April 26, 1872:
[Take], for instance, the case that arose in the State of Oregon, and was decided by the district court, to which reference was made the other day. A man was born at Astoria, then known as Fort George, beneath the British flag, and, as a matter of course, being the child of a British subject, and born without the allegiance of the United States, because he was not born within the allegiance of the United States, in order to make him a citizen, he was born within the allegiance of the King of Great Britain at the time, and it was so held by the court, and properly held. We had no right to make the children of British subjects American citizens; no more had they a right to make the children of American parents subjects of Great Britain.
...[and] in order to be a citizen of the United States he must been not only be born within the United States, but born within the the allegiance of the United States.
Here Sen. Kelly lays out exactly what our national law was on the subject of citizenship by birth and clearly removes all doubt to exactly what the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause means.
Myths can be difficult to dispose of, and birthright citizenship to aliens is no exception. Pro immigration advocates will refer to the Supreme Court ruling U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark as a desperate attempt to keep the fable alive. The problem with relying on Wong Kim Ark is that it draws zero support from the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, the ruling had nothing to with the Fourteenth Amendment at all, but everything to do with English Common Law, something the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause had no connection because it was a virtue of "national law."
There is other significant problems with the Wong Kim Ark ruling other than having no basis in Fourteenth Amendment text, intent and history that will never hold up under review -- and that is how will any court with a straight face attempt to reconcile the civil rights bill of 1866. Remember this civil rights bill declared those children born to parents subject to a foreign power cannot be declared United States citizens.
You cannot simply revise he Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause to mean yes, it really was the intent of the Congress to grant citizenship to alien children born on US soil when the same Congress enacted law that did just the reverse. Try and explain why Congress would pass a Constitutional Amendment that grants citizenship to ANYONE born in the US that would in return instantly nullify their recent enacted civil rights law? Because you cannot, only leads us back to the exact construction of the clause for which it was intended and written to mean...and for which national law was based upon.
Another question arises for pro-alien birthright citizenship advocates: national law having always required direct allegiance to the United States by a child's parents before that child could be declared an American citizen -- why would a Congress who clearly acknowledged this "law of the land" want to change it and not one soul raised one voice of concern or protest to such a drastic reversal of national law?
The answer should be obvious by now: the Fourteenth Amendment did not change national law of birthright citizenship to aliens or foreigners, just as Sen. Howard confirmed.
It’s also important to understand the majority decided that Ark’s parents were domiciled in the State of California at the time of his birth. The majority considered the fact his parent’s were business owners, not visitors or aliens residing in the State contrary to any law. So this fact makes using this ruling to support automatic citizenship to illegal aliens a real stretch of the imagination.
The Wong Kim Ark ruling is so badly flawed and irrelevant probably lead to a split US Supreme Court ruling in 1982 to declare they had never confirmed the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction." It is also interesting to note there is no record indicating any change to national law regarding citizenship by birth following the Wong Kim Ark ruling. Asian children (and other aliens) continued to be treated as aliens upon birth till their parents became naturalized or they returned to their country of origin.
By far the most relevant Supreme Court ruling on the subject to date, and indeed, fully supported by the Fourteenth Amendment itself, came in Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884), where the court held that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence.
If pro immigration groups or individuals want to continue in believing the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born in the country regardless of their allegiance, fine -- but to continue to insist the Fourteenth Amendment supports their fable is both feeble and a disrespect to American history.
I'm no attorney but from my layman's point of view it strikes me that the plain English meaning and original intent of many passages are being obfuscated by some who prefer to advance their own agendas. I suppose when we have a "living Constitution" it's no more than what a few unelected judges tell us it is.
Relative to the illegal invasion, I quote Article IV., Section 4. of the Constitution:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.
Question: Since even the illegal lobby calls this a foreign invasion, havn't the three federal branches of our govermnent clearly failed to uphold the oaths they took to uphold and defend the Constitution? To me, this is criminally negligent behaviour.
Thanks for the excellent and very informative historical background material. The Fourteenth Amendment brought into our national family all the former slaves liberated by the Thirteenth. As you indicate, the wholesale perversion of our Constitution based on ignorance and demagoguery is deplorable.
Since illegal aliens "do the jobs Americans don't want to do" have them build the wall between the U.S. and Mexico. Then send them back home.
I dunno where "around here" is, but I can tell you that 1 mile from the beach in California, the illegals don't have to hang out in trailer parks. They are subsidized in rather nice surroundings:
This is, as advertised, 1 mile from the beach (New Brighton), and across the street from houses that sell for about $1 million. Typically, the County will not approve development permits unless low income housing is included nearby or in the development.
Oh, and, the county Supervisors are ecstatic about their latest plan to develop a park across the street so that Los Ninos de Anchor can have a nice taxpayer subsidized area to conduct the usual gang businesses. The local paper even quoted a grandfather described as a "long time resident" as saying that his 5 grandchildren who also live in the project will love the new park. Oh, and they did mention that he said that in Spanish, because he can't speak English.
But he apparently was able to fill out the free housing forms. They're in Spanish, naturally.
I kid you not.
This is one of the issues that you can really blame the RATS for. Ted (Swimmer) Kennedy introduced the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 that created the mess we are currently in. Prior to that, children born in the U.S. had the same citizenship as their parents.
send them all home. anchor babies are dependent on their parents, not the US.
This provision in the XIVth Amend was intended to correct the problem following emancipation and was modelled on Roman law. The problem is that the model was successful and the XIVth isn’t because the writers of the XIVth left out something important—which they did for all four of the major points.
Tragically for the nation we now have too many courts that see the Constitution as “living” which serves as the pretext for advancing some personal agenda. For example, the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment clearly makes affirmative action unconstitutional. It may come as a shock to some but one doesn’t have to be an erudite constitutional scholar to understand the plain English meaning and original intent of those words. But pin heads like former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor have a genius for making Orwellian obfuscations and interpretations of what is patently obvious - or should be.
I wouldn’t join in the name-calling, but it does appear that if jurists in this country know legal history many are choosing to follow case precedent rather than take an interest in the purpose and intent of history.
I think even a cursory study of Supreme Court history shows that case history - stare decisis, precedent - itself is too often followed or departed from according to the particular agenda judges or courts wish to advance. One book that gives a good historical overview of the Supreme Court in this regard is “Men in Black” by Mark Levin.
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.