What does it mean to be an American? (Citizenship debate)

WashingtonPost ^ | 01/14/2011 | Edward Schumacher-Matos

[BuckeyeTexan]

In the immediate aftermath of the Arizona shootings, when speculation focused on whether Jared Loughner √was politically motivated, no one said we should cancel his American citizenship.

The cries to do so surely would have been angry and loud had he been an immigrant or even the child of one. After the attempted Times Square bombing last May by a Pakistani-born U.S. citizen, a bipartisan group of lawmakers led by Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman introduced a bill to "denationalize" any citizen engaged in terrorism against the United States.

I raise this contradiction not to score a point against the Lieberman bill - which I find sensible in many ways - but to underline the urgent need to address questions of citizenship, and who is an American, while there is some calm. It is inevitable that there will be another terrorist act by an immigrant who is a citizen. And the populist insurrection in the states against birthright citizenship today suggests that the deaths as a result of such an attack may spark a public tsunami of emotion that will engulf all reason.

We would all benefit if both sides in the divisive immigration debate dropped their intransigent rhetoric of racism, criminality and the like and understood that what they really are dealing with are two opposing concepts of citizenship.

[kabar]

We would all benefit if both sides in the divisive immigration debate dropped their intransigent rhetoric of racism, criminality and the like and understood that what they really are dealing with are two opposing concepts of citizenship.

Only one side is using the race card. And there is a very basic concept in our Republic, i.e., the Rule of Law. You cannot become a citizen if you violate our laws to enter here.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Ping for your lists.

[USNBandit]

The Times Square Bomber had only been a naturalized citizen for a year when he committed his crime. There is already a rule on the books that if he was affiliated with an enemy of the U.S. within 5 years of naturalization that his citizenship can be revoked.

Lieberman just wants to put a difficult process into the express lane.

[oldbill]

Matos is a WaPo shill for illegal hispanics.

For him America is just a bunch of tribes, like Kenya and Congo, and his tribe is the hispanic one, which is more important than stupid Americanism.

Another guy getting rich on racism, like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton.

[org.whodat]

Dang, anyone not born of citizens of this country only have conditional citizenship. That is not rocket science.

[trumandogz]

It is a dead issue as there is now way they are going to screw with the 14th.

[sten]

Real Americans that believe in the Constitution view progressives as Jews would view Nazis... Or blacks would view the kkk

If they don’t like the Constitution, they can leave any time they’d like... Hell, I’d endorse paying their fare

[loveliberty2]

Please read this Post for one man's definition of what it means to be an American.

[Red Steel]

The 14th Amendment is in noway gave illegal alien children birthright citizenship. The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not only mean obedience to the laws of the nation, it further covers and most salient meaning is having 'political jurisdiction' over persons. A foreign national within the United States maintains his allegiance to his country and is not totally under the jurisdiction of the US. Supreme Justice Horrace Gray who wrote the opinion in Elk v. Wilkins of indigenous people born of allegiance to Indian nations within the United States where not completely under the 'subjected to the jurisdiction thereof, '

"an emigrant from any foreign state cannot become a citizen of the United States without a formal renunciation of his old allegiance, and an acceptance by the United States of that renunciation through such form of naturalization as may be required law. "

And Justice Gray further states,

The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.

However, in the following decade Justice Gray does an about face by contradicting himself in his court opinion in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Gray disregards the true meaning and intent of the 14th Amendment and explains away it as "not as admissible evidence, ' although, Justice Gray understood he was going against the Framers of the 14th Amendment. As justice Gray states:

"Doubtless, the intention of the Congress which framed and of the States which adopted this [14th] Amendment of the Constitution must be sought in the words of the Amendment, and the debates in Congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words. "

Even with making Wong Kim Ark, who was a legal resident, a citizen by virtue of birth within the United States does not entitle illegal alien children the same. Children of illegal aliens who claim birthright citizenship is a conflation of the 1898 Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court holding or conclusion.

[Cyropaedia]

The Framers understood that there was no need to provide blanket citizenship to all aliens within the country because there was still the naturalization process. Just because you weren't born a citizen, does not mean that you cannot still become a citizen.

This stands in stark contrast to situation where you generations of slaves living without citizenship.

[Red Steel]

I’ve missed you on the eligibility threads. I remember when we double teamed super troll Michael Michael who is now a zot LoL.

[Cyropaedia]

Hey.

The eligibility threads got to be such a chore. Going over the same points over and over. I just had to take a break.