Citizenship-By-Birth Faces Challenges

NPR ^ | 5/25/2010 | Alan Greenblatt

[Altura Ct.]

If you're born in the U.S.A., you're an American citizen. Some lawmakers, however, plan to challenge that basic assumption.

In what might be the next great flash point in the nation's ongoing debate about immigration policy, legislation has been introduced in Congress and a pair of states to deny birth certificates to babies born of illegal-immigrant parents.

"Currently, if you have a child born to two alien parents, that person is believed to be a U.S. citizen," says Randy Terrill, a Republican state representative in Oklahoma who is working on an anti-birthright bill. "When taken to its logical extreme, that would produce the absurd result that children of invading armies would be considered citizens of the U.S."

Bills to challenge the fact that citizenship is granted as a birthright in this country have been perennial nonstarters in Congress, although the current legislation has 91 co-sponsors. As with other issues surrounding immigration, however, some state legislatures still might act, if only in hopes of bringing this issue before the Supreme Court.

"That was the primary purpose of the bill, for someone to sue us in federal court, and let's resolve this issue once and for all," says Texas state Rep. Leo Berman, a Republican who has introduced a bill to deny birth certificates to the newborn children of illegal immigrants. "I believe we are giving away 350,000 citizens a year to children born to illegal aliens."

What The Constitution Says

Berman faces an uphill battle. For more than a century, courts have held that citizenship is granted to anyone born within the territory of the United States.

The 14th Amendment, which was ratified in the wake of the Civil War, overturned the Dred Scott decision, clarifying that the children of former slaves were citizens and entitled to constitutional protections: "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."

Since then, courts have made it clear that this applies to the children of American Indians, visiting diplomats and Chinese guest workers, among other groups. The principle of birthright citizenship has never been successfully challenged, according to immigration lawyers.

But the federal courts have never specifically addressed the question of whether children born to those in the country illegally should be entitled to citizenship, says Michael M. Hethmon, general counsel of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, which favors tighter restrictions on immigration and has advised the state legislators on their efforts.

Berman says the 14th Amendment was meant to clarify the status of freedmen and "does not apply to foreigners. The 14th Amendment, which is being used to provide citizenship, is the last thing that should be used."

Subject To What Jurisdiction?

The authors of the 14th Amendment, he argues, intended to make citizenship contingent on allegiance to the country. The congressional debate at the time makes it clear that this did not apply to foreigners, Berman says.

"There cannot be a more total or forceful denial of consent to a person's citizenship than to make the source of that person's presence in the nation illegal," Lino A. Graglia, a professor at the University of Texas law school, wrote in a law review article last year. "This would clearly settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens."

Opponents to granting birthright citizenship often grab hold of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," saying that those in the country illegally are by their nature not subject to the jurisdiction in question, whether it's the U.S. or a particular state.

Many other lawyers say that's a false reading. "Of course they're under our jurisdiction," says Michele Waslin, senior policy analyst with the American Immigration Council, which works to protect the legal rights of immigrants. "If they commit a crime, they're subject to the jurisdiction of the courts."

'Who Is An American?'

Not every nation grants citizenship as a birthright. Sometimes it is an inheritance from one's parents, based more on blood than land.

But challenging the traditional expectation that anyone born within the physical territory of the U.S. is automatically a citizen represents a "major change in a bedrock principle that has lasted for decades," says Karen Tumlin, managing attorney for the National Immigration Law Center, a public interest legal group based in Los Angeles.

"It's a core American belief that those who are born here get integrated into our society, no matter where your parents are from," she says. "This would be an erosion of the core principles about who belongs in this country."

That's precisely the argument opponents of birthright citizenship want to start. If a law denying birth certificates to the children of illegal immigrants passes — and it's written in such a way that it gets argued in federal court, rather than being dismissed out of hand — it will have more of a "galvanizing effect" than the recent passage of a strict anti-immigration law in Arizona, says Hethmon, general counsel of the Immigration Reform Law Institute.

"All the interested parties, which in the case of birthright citizenship includes everyone in the country, would have to respond to it, either supporting it or opposing it," Hethmon says. "Who is an American? If that question can't be answered, it's hard to conceive of a greater constitutional crisis for a democratic republic."

[hennie pennie]

*ping*

[at bay]

“When taken to its logical extreme, that would produce the absurd result that children of invading armies would be considered citizens of the U.S.”

God help you, sir, and everyone else, to understand the illegals ARE an invading army.

[ZULU]

This is a PERFECT example of WHY we don’t need a “living” constitution and why Original Intent is essential.

Get pregnant, sneak into the U.S., have your kid here and you, its father, and assorted relatives get an in.

Disgraceful.

[Travis McGee]

About damn time. Actually, decades too late, but better late than never.

[Mich Patriot]

IMO, if the wad was fired from an illegal, then the resulting little bastard is also illegal. “Fruit of the poisonous tree” don’tcha know.

[TexasFreeper2009]

Simple solution...

Yes they are born citizens... but then that citizenship is stripped from them!

No constitutional amendment required.

[MamaTexan]

The 14th Amendment, which was ratified in the wake of the Civil War, overturned the Dred Scott decision, clarifying that the children of former slaves were citizens and entitled to constitutional protections: "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, the 14th Amendment attempted to take the original power of creating equal rules for immigration and turn it into the ability to declare whomever they wanted to a 'citizen'.

It's a legalistic ILLUSION in order to turn everyone in federal citizens. If it had meant only slaves it would have said so.

The problem is that the 14th tried to take our inalienable rights that are based in the State and turn us into administrative-based 'legal entities'....thus denying us access to our natural personhood and subjecting us to whatever the current crop of congress-critters decided to roll down the pike.

-----

We went from this:

§ 1218. The inhabitants enjoy all their civil, religious, and political rights. They live substantially under the same laws, as at the time of the cession, such changes only having been made, as have been devised, and sought by themselves. They are not indeed citizens of any state, entitled to the privileges of such; but they are citizens of the United States. They have no immediate representatives in congress.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution

To this:

"... a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that `citizen' means `citizen of the United States,' and not a person generally, nor citizen of a State ..."
U.S. Supreme Court in US v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542: (1875)

-------

Ever wonder why they say taxes are 'voluntary'? Because we voluntarily claim to be citizens of the United States

Ever wonder why illegals are 'special'? Because they are NOT citizens of the United States, they are still state-based 'persons'.

WAKE UP PEOPLE!

We are helping to destroy our country by giving the federal governemnt a authority it was never intended to have. As long as the People aquiesce to being under federal juristiction, the States are helpless to do anything to rein in federal power.

[phockthis]

sfl

[dennisw]

The solution is very simple and direct. Get a court case going that is high quality enough for the US Supreme Court to consider and rule on. All we need is a favorable Supreme Court ruling to change the 14th Amendment interpretation. Nothing more than that. You don’t need a Constitutional Amendment.

I can just imagine illegal aliens and their backers protesting such a decision. The American people will laugh because it is common sense you don’t give illegal alien babies automatic citizenship. May not be legal sense yet, but it is common sense

[IronJack]

To strictly construe the letter of the 14th Amendment, children of illegals are citizens. They meet two of the requisite criteria:

1). They are born in the United States;

2). They are subject to its jurisdiction.

If we interrogate the INTENT of the Amendment, the conclusion is far less certain.

However, doing so takes us out of the realm of strict construction and leads us down the path of relativism, the so-called “living Constitution” where we’re allowed to impute motives to men who have been dead for 150 years.

It’s an ideological dilemma whose simplest — but ultimately unworkable — solution is to clarify the Amendment.

[Uncle Chip]

The question is just who is authoriizing these drop and squat citizenships. Per Dr Eastman there is no Constitutional requirement, no court case, no statute and no executive order authorizing these citizenships. So then just who is doing it and how can we get it stopped without the American people having to jump through a lot of hoops to protect American citizenship.

http://www.capsweb.org/content.php?id=775&menu_id=8

[ExTxMarine]

“However, doing so takes us out of the realm of strict construction and leads us down the path of relativism, the so-called ‘living Constitution’ where we’re allowed to impute motives to men who have been dead for 150 years.”

We are not “imputing” the motives of men who have been dead for 150 years. We are reading their writings and the arguments which were made when this was introduced. They specifically mentioned citizens who had allegiance to other countries and other entities like Navajo Indians. We can agree that Navajo Indians were born in the US territories and states; however, they specifically mentioned that these children would NOT be American citizens!

The problem is that the liberals have used the “living Constitution” argument to change the original intent of this Amendment. We simply want to change it BACK!

And this IS “settled law.” But, I am not talking about the Wong Kim Ark supreme court ruling. Wong Kim Ark was dealing with LEGAL, NON-citizen immigrants. I am talking about the 1884, Elk v. Wilkins ruling which stated that the phrase “subject to its jurisdiction” was interpreted to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.” If the Wong Kim Ark ruling was bedrock, then why was the Citizens Act of 1924, necessary? That act gave citizenship to American Indians!

[Liz]

Pre-eminent Arizona Sen Russell Pearce, author of the state's immensely successful immigration bill, now wants to End Citizenship by Birthright.

GOV BREWER ---- the new symbol of American can-do.

Supermodel and gov Jan Brewer.

Rally for Arizona! (Tea Party Rally for Arizona going nationwide)
Wake Up 1776 ^ | 22 May 2010 | John Smithers
FR Posted on Saturday, May 22, 2010 by FloridaBattleGround
Contact libertyandprosperity1776@gmail.com for details.

Starts June 8th in Orlando and ends in Phoenix on June 12th. Need maximum participation because Arizona needs our help. They are getting hammered in the media.

Please make some signs for the rally that read:

JAN BREWER FOR DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY SECY.

RUSSELL PEARCE FOR SECY OF STATE.

[MrB]

So are the Muslims, illegal or not.

[Liz]

Conservatives not “imputing” the motives of dead men who wrote the Constitution 150 years ago. We are reading the writings and arguments made when this topic was introduced. The founders specifically excluded "citizens who had allegiance to other countries" and other entities like Navajos who were born in US territories and states; the founders specifically mentioned that these children would NOT be American citizens!

PRES TEDDY ROOSEVELT: "There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag....... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

========================================

2008 McCains' Hispanic Outreach Coordinator, Juan Hernandez, Fort Worth, a dual citizen of the US and Mexico, and past member of Vicente Fox’s Mexican government, is as open borders as you can get.

Hernandez, Fort Worth, once served as a cabinet member in the Mexican Government. Hernandez believes all illegal Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in the USA should become dual citizens and consider themselves Mexicans first, "to the 8th generation." Hernandez' book urges illegal alien invaders to become settlers in the USA for Reconquista---the Mexican plan to take back the SW.

McCain said he chose Hernandez because he agrees with his positions. McC sucked up to amnesty-pusher Hernandez (as Americans woke up to 5 million toxic mortgages fraudulently doled out to illegals that poisoned our economy forever). Hernandez, McCain's Hispanic outreach director, stated on national television that he is for the North American Union, and the “Amero” to replace the dollar within 10 years or so.

========================================

Juan Hernandez was born in Dallas and decided as an adult to become a dual-national Mexican citizen. His last verifiable job was serving in Mexican President Vicente Fox's cabinet as Vicente Fox's "American Reconquista Director." Hernandez then worked for Bush hater George Soros' international foundations---(one such foundation published Hernendez's book that taunts Americans).

===================================================

QUOTING FORMER CONG TOM TANCREDO (R-Colo) Juan Hernandez headed up the Mexican govt agency, "Ministry of Mexicans Living in the United States. Hernandez is a dual citizen of the United States and Mexico, and a good friend of then-presidents Bush and Mexico's Vicente Fox." Hernandez was presidential candidate John McCain's Hispanic outreach man.

Hernandez explained to Cong Tancredo the purpose of the Mexican government agency: Ministry of Mexicans Living in the United States:

(1) to increase the flow of Mexican nationals to the United States.....

(2) to direct Mexican nationals in the US to serve Mexico’s needs (like reconquista);

(3) to increase US remittances to Mexico of $50 billion a year (30% of the Mexican GDP);

(4) to get US jobs for an exploding Mexican population, alleviating Mexico's social instability due to rising unemployment;

(5) to get free US training for Mexicans, who are expected to return and repatriate those skills back to Mexico.

Hernandez, a dual citizen who resides in Fort Worth, supports amnesty: "By populating the United States with millions of Hispanics tied economically, politically and linguistically to Mexico, we are able to exert enormous influence and pressure on US policy and its dealings with Mexico."

SOURCE http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33894

NOTE: " Exerting enormous influence and pressure on US policy and its dealings with Mexico" means extorting billions of US tax dollars to subsidize corrupt Third World federales.

[Liz]

ping

[stephenjohnbanker]

” “When taken to its logical extreme, that would produce the absurd result that children of invading armies would be considered citizens of the U.S.” “

They ARE an invading army!

[stephenjohnbanker]

B U M P

[Liz]

A very apt metaphor............. “taken to its logical extreme, that would produce the absurd result that children of invading armies would be considered citizens of the US.”