Some states preparing legislation to deny citizenship to children of illegals

West Central Tribune ^ | 10/19/2010 | AP

[Windflier]

"...the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which grants automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants."

Idiot presstitutes simply do not care enough to actually READ the 14th Amendment, and get this point straight in their heads.

Rep. Daryl Metcalfe has it exactly right - insisting that the 14th Amendment "grants automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants" is an "ongoing distortion and twisting" of the amendment.

It does no such thing.

[Altura Ct.]

Lawmakers in at least 14 states are collaborating on proposed legislation to deny U.S. citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, according to lawmakers, including the sponsor of Arizona's 2010 law targeting illegal immigration.

Bout time!

[One Name]

I agree that it was not the intent of the 14th to grant citizenship to interlopers; it was meant to protect the rights of liberated slaves and their offspring.

I hope more states join this effort.

Fixing one wrong should not have created the current crisis that threatens to overwhelm the law-abiders.

[no-to-illegals]

Imagine that...some states actually want the laws enforced and obeyed...a radical idea...the radical part being those who will say enforcing the law and obeying the law is the ‘radical’ portion.

[K-oneTexas]

'Anchor Babies' not in Constitution or in 14th Amendment or in USSC precedent.


See http://www.talkgwinnett.net/main/section/7-featured/1597-anchor-babies:

[Snip] Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads, "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 5 states, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." The Fourteenth Amendment was approved by Congress in 1866 and ratified by the requisite number of states two years later. It was the legislative response to the Supreme Court's 1857 "Dred Scott" decision in which the court ruled that blacks were the property of their masters and not free men and women. The amendment also abolished numerous "Black Codes" passed by former slave states; laws that denied citizenship and the privileges thereof to the newly-freed slaves. The amendment was approved to address a specific, time-limited problem; the question of whether or not former slaves were citizens or property. The Congress never intended for the amendment to be interpreted as it is today. The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, so there were, by definition, no "illegal" immigrants. The issue of citizenship for the children of those here illegally was nonexistent. The amendment was, therefore, not written to grant automatic citizenship to the children of illegal alien mothers... that is a fairly new interpretation. In fact, the amendment was not drafted to address any immigration-related problem at all. The intent of the amendment's authors is clear. Senator Jacob Howard, a co-author of the amendment, wrote, "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." Senator Edward Cowan stated, "[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..." To further establish the proper interpretation of the amendment, you should note that-- just 16 years after the 14th was ratified, the Supreme Court ruled in Elk v. Wilkins that the Fourteenth Amendment did not even make citizens of Indians because they were self-governed and subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction A correct understanding of the phrase "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." leads most constitutional scholars today to conclude that illegal immigrants are not eligible for citizenship due to their incomplete allegiance to the United States, but that's a discussion for another day. A little over a decade after the Elk v. Wilkins decision, the court ruled that children born on U.S. soil to legal non-citizen permanent residents who were contributors to society and were not the employees of a foreign government would also earn citizenship at birth. The interpretation of the amendment that allows the babies of illegal aliens to receive citizenship at birth is a fairly new phenomenon. In 1982, Supreme Court Justice Brennan opined in a footnote to the majority opinion in Plyler v. Doe, that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." In other words, Justice Brennan could see no difference between legal immigrants who pledged allegiance to the U.S. and subjected themselves to the rule of law and illegal immigrants who flaunted U.S. laws with their very first steps on our soil. And so we now have "anchor babies." [Snip]
Thank Justice Brennan. Congressional intent as seen in the debates on the floor of Congress and USSC decisions clearly show NO ANCHOR BABY RIGHT!

This little 'Brennan Hook' is what the US State Department hangs their hat on in generating policies allowing a 'b*astardization' of the 14th Amendment and here to fore USSC precedent.

[Jedidah]

Seems to me that individual states could not legally determine national citizenship.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I wonder about that too.

[bravo whiskey]

i agrre. i don’t think the states can do this as much as i want the federal government’s abuse of power and the constitution ended. on another thought, why do ustates need federal authority to call out the state national guard? andwould putting us troops on the mexican border be a violation of the Posse Comitatus act? of course if you think the influx of illegal mexican immigrants (10% of the mexican population is in the us) constitutes an invasion, as i do then it’s national defense but congress would have to act.

[Jedidah]

All things the new Congress needs to address in January, with backing from the states.

I’m all for strong states’ rights, but there are some things that are clearly the responsibility of the feds — like citizenship and national security.

[coloradan]

That’s a good point, but it also seems that the federal government can’t require people to buy health insurance ... or register a machine gun for that matter. But, that hasn’t stopped them from doing exactly that ... and I guess it’s time for the States to play ball.

[BuckeyeTexan]

While my personal opinion is that anchor babies should not be granted automatic citizenship, the 14th says “all persons born ...” It makes no restrictions in scope. We had open immigration when the 14th was written. There was no such thing as illegal immigration.

Those individuals who are classified as illegal today likely would have been classified as legal back when the 14th was adopted. Changes in immigration law can’t amend the Constitution.

And if that is the case, how can Congress or a State revoke a right granted by the Constitution? I think it will be difficult to revoke a right granted under the Constitution solely because of a change in immigration policy.

But again, I think it is unfair to our citizens that anchor babies are granted citizenship.

[Jedidah]

They may be trying to address citizenship within the state in order to lessen the demand for social services and also laws that require in-state tuition for children of illegals.

This is a serious subject for many states. Those anchor children are a major drain on our resources.

Frankly, I like Mexicans. Despite the ugliness along the border, most are polite, respectful, and hard-working. I meet many Mexican families at our church food bank. They often have large families, and the children born here are eligible for all social services. They make good neighbors and would make good and loyal citizens — BUT THEY BROKE THE LAW by coming here illegally and should pay a price for it.

And their kids should not be awarded citizenship as a result of the parents’ crime.

[coloradan]

"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. ..."

One could argue that the way they comport themselves indicates that they do not consider themselves "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and therefore, the sentence does not apply to them.

[DaGman]

This is flatly and without question unconstitutional. And it ticks me off when precious money and time is wasted on things like this that accomplish nothing. Give me my tax dollars back for the cost of wasting time on this. I can use it a lot wiser than any state can.

[Monorprise]

Let the State laws assert that to be the case, and no doubt the Federal employees in black robes will want to issue an edict on the nature and limits of it’s own employees power.

The States should have the final say on this issue, unless and until congress passes a uniform law naturalizing everyone who was born here.

The Federal court should not be involved, except in disputes between the Federal Executive and Federal Legislator.

[Moonman62]

Seems to me that individual states could not legally determine national citizenship.

IIRC, the strategy has something to do with the birth certificate which is issued by the state.

[jdirt]

“Seems to me that individual states could not legally determine national citizenship.”

States issue the birth certificates. The only job that vital statistics do is to count births etc.. The States do not have the authority to issue National citizenship, which is what the issuance of a bc does. As long as no bc’s are given out it will be fine. Parents who want one will have to show citizenship. OR they may put on a disclaimer, parents not citizens OR not a 14th amendment citizen. It will eventually go to the Supreme Ct.

Gman
“it ticks me off when precious money and time is wasted on things like this “

My State Congressman makes 10,000 a year. They draft legislation before the session starts on their days off. Do you have any idea how much illegal immigration is costing US taxpayers?

[traditional1]

THIS (the mis-interpretation of the 14th Amendment Language) is KEY to removing ONE of the rewards for law-breakers. Sneaking in and dropping a baby (which then is instantly a family-member, aka, U.S. Citizen) is one of the WORST court-sanctioned violations of the Framers’ intent that we have today.

[traditional1]

"“all persons born ...” It makes no restrictions in scope."

That's correct, but you left out the "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" next words in the sentence.

That changes the meaning, where foreigners' babies are NOT "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", in that they are STILL foreign nationals (and protected by law of that foreign country), and THIS is what has been trampled. If you are LEGALLY visiting a foreign country, and are STILL subject to arrest under their laws, your ALLEGIANCE is to your home of origin, and you are NOT a citizen there, either. The situation where you sneak into a country and somehow instantly gain all that country's benefits of citizenship is pretty unique to the USA.