Posted on 02/15/2010 9:38:26 AM PST by NormsRevenge
Republican lawmakers in Congress are sponsoring a bill that seeks to abolish birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents.
Federal law automatically grants citizenship to any person born on American soil, regardless of the immigration status of the child's parents.
Supporters of the bill say that many people come to this country for the express purpose of having children who are American citizens, making the family eligible for welfare and other government benefits.
"You have many people coming to this country illegally," said Rep. Gary Miller, R-Brea, a co-sponsor of the legislation. "They come to this country and have babies. The children are citizens. The children are eligible to go to school. They receive food stamps and social programs. The American taxpayers are paying for it."
The bill does not seek to change the Constitution, which grants birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment ratified in 1868.
Instead, it would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
The measure would limit birthright citizenship to children born to at least one parent who is either a citizen, lawful permanent resident or actively serving in the U.S. military. The legislation would only apply prospectively and would not affect the citizenship status of people born before the bill's enactment.
If the bill passes, people on both sides of the issue say it is likely to be challenged on constitutional grounds.
"This bill is unconstitutional," said Rep. Joe Baca, D-San Bernardino. "It would change one of the most basic principles that our nation was founded on: If you were born in the United States, you're an American."
Baca accused the bill's sponsors of playing election-year politics.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailybulletin.com ...
I did not know that. Thanks for the info!
You're confusing territorial with political jurisdiction, i.e. allegiance.
This was addressed by Ed Meese and John Eastman in their Amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Hamdi.
Read it Here and a top level explanation here.
In particular read the brief where it points out that the construction of the wording of the 14th should not be assumed to be redundant (bottom of page 6, top of page 7). Then you will understand the distinction.
See posts 82 and 83 for the best legal take on it that I have come across.
I think a sufficiently motivated Supreme Court could easily extinguish improperly claimed citizenship rights in each and every case where the individual's parent(s) failed to "add them to the visa".
For the most part the Reconquista folks are terminally stupid. Let's say we pulled out of that territory ~ and took our water with us!
Which, BTW, is very doable. There'd be 20 million people South of I70 with nothing to drink.
Worth remembering ~ the Russian claim starts somewhere in the San Francisco region and includes all the water courses back to the headwaters of the rivers draining into San Francisco Bay.
We acquired the Russian claim through the simple expedient of occupying California ~ the Russian claim, of course, had been on top of an earlier British claim that had not been exercised by UK.
It is arguable that Northern California was sufficiently separate from California to constitute territory not claimable by Mexico based on extension of claims made by Spain.
California is NOTHING without Northern California's water. Aztlan is a burning, nasty desert without Northern California's water.
The answer is easy. They are treated the way they are because it benefits politicians (like the quoted Mr. Baca). Period, end of story.
Well, yes, the real problem is our welfare system that beckons to these people, and then a porous border and non enforcement of immigration law, and chain migration. Fix all of that, and it wouldn’t be a problem.
Wow, thank you for posting that. I learn more stuff here on FR!
LOL true dat.
In post #84 Eastman basically agrees that Congress has the power to determine citizenship status of aliens born in the US and not subject to a foreign power. Quite possibly the USSC would concur as they have typically given Congress the sole right to determine immigration and naturalization policy.
Same here, it’s a good place for that. :)
This harmful custom, no matter what is done now, will inexorably turn this Republic into the northernmost Latin American Country in this hemisphere. It could have been ended by an Executive Order; an order requested of our last 6 Republican Presidents.
There is no law making the children of illegal aliens "citizens;" never has been.
Thanks for the explanation.
Thank you! I read all 3 links and I understand better.
I really appreciate you taking the time to help me learn a little bit more about our constitution.
Sure. I think that after my own reading of many texts relating to the issue, the brief that Meese and Eastman wrote is perhaps the most cogent, legally sound, and consistent point of view that I encountered.
Nice to see you back. That's brilliant: a generous custom indeed, nothing more.
Will the World be a better place when Anglo America is gone, replaced by "Brazil with Nukes", as a long ago poster put it?
It will end up being one of the great crimes of history, not an act of generosity. More a monstrosity: the murderers of Mexico will acquire the greatest power man has ever known.
And nothing could be worse for mankind.
Oh hell, we don't have to ever feel bad about the Spaniard claim. It was based on the Treaty of Tordesillas and the Pope gave them everything to the North Pole. It was utterly silly and the people in Europe at the time thought so too: especially us Protestants in England and Germany. California was land they never had and never held, which is why it fell so quickly to Stockton and Fremont.
As for denial of resources to the newly occupied Aztlan, don't forget where the electric power for California really comes from, and ask yourself if the Governors of the Western States should pay attention to things like the interstate water compacts negotiated and agreed to long ago when the population of California was not predominantly foreign.
Seems to me that if California’s population is sufficiently “foreign” the states upstream would be well within their rights to restrict water rights in California to the levels negotiated by the foreigner’s own countries.
The Russians were not bound by any Papal decision and acted on their own right.
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.