Posted on 04/24/2013 6:53:09 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Not a single word in the 844-page "Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act" introduced by Senator Marco Rubio and the "Gang of Eight" addresses the controversial practice of "birthright citizenship."
Birthright citizenship is the common description given to the automatic grant of U.S. citizenship to babies born in the U.S. regardless of the citizenship status of the parents. Many experts agree with the verdict of law professor Lino Graglia -- that the practice generates "perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry."
The failure of Congress to confront the subject is nothing new. The "four pillars" of the reform framework floated by Senators Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham back in 2010 also avoided mention of the gaping "hole in the fence" created by the "magnet" of the birthright practice.
While Rubio touted the newest bipartisan proposal and appeared to "backtrack" on the border fence as illegals continue to climb over it, our government creates even more incentives for illegals to have children here. Besides potential ObamaCare benefits, many provisions in the Gang's new package increase the allure and impact of the birthright magnet.
Conservative columnist Ann Coulter penned a scathing analysis titled "If Rubio's Amnesty is So Great, Why is He Lying?" Near the end of her litany of damning facts and figures, Coulter wrote: "The children of illegal aliens become automatic citizens under our current insane interpretation of the 14th Amendment."
The insanity, however, goes beyond the "illegal" argument. Coulter noted statistics and dollars relating to the children of illegals; however, she didn't mention that the practice also awards citizenship to the babies of virtually anyone legally but temporarily present, including "birth tourists."
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
With the right lawyer and the right Supreme Court this incorrect interpretation of The Fourteenth Amendment would have been voided out years ago. I am mystified why no conservative lawyers have ever challenged it, say funded by the Heritage Foundation
Jeff, the U.S. Secretaries of State explicitly cited the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement in determining those men weren't U.S. citizens even though born in the U.S.
The government has chosen to consider them citizens. They did so contrary to the decision on what NBC & the 14th mean. Someone here illegally is NOT living under the jurisdiction of our laws. They are not domiciled here. They are the functional equivalent of an invading army - here without the permission of the government. That is a long recognized exception to citizenship by birth.
“There is no requirement that your parents must be citizens in order to become a citizen of the US.”
I never said they did. But the parents must be here in amity with the government - because the government accepts them as living here legally, under our laws.
Why do you keep twisting it around to suggest I’m imposing a citizenship requirement for the parents?
Question: Was Birthright Citizenship enshrined in their constitution, or was it simply a matter of passing a law by legislation?
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part,
“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.”
The “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause has always been understood to be - If you are born and still live here, you are under US jurisdiction.
Now, is it simply a matter of RE-INTERPRETING the clause? Or should we AMEND the constitution?
If the latter, you know the lengthy process it will take...
The U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling actually requires more than simply residence. It requires the parents to have an established permanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of the child's birth.
And in Obama's case, he had a citizen mother. So there's no argument there.
There actually is no law that supports your assertion. U.S. law covers derivative citizenship to those born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent but the requirement for birthright citizenship for those born in the U.S. is either that they are not subject to a foreign power at birth, or that their alien parent(s) was/were permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of their birth.
The circumstances of Obama's birth fit neither of those criteria.
No, it hasn't. Why would you think such a thing?
Judiciary Committee Chairman Trumbull in the Congressional Record, 1866:
"The 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."http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14
RE: Jurisdiction
Aren’t babies born in the United States subject to US jurisdiction?
If they're subject to a foreign power at birth, they owe allegiance to a foreign power and are not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the U.S. as required by the 14th Amendment.
How do you not know this?
If children of illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, can they be tried in an American court?
The intent of the 14th amendment is to prevent the creation of second-class citizens via legal obfuscations that pretend that some of the people in the United States are not the full kind of “person” who is entitled to the rights it guarantees.
We had some problems with that sort of thing for a century or so.
Babies brought into this world on American soil are exactly who this amendment is designed to protect. They start their lives here, they grow up here, and therefore they are called citizens BY LAW.
Now if you don’t want them to be citizens by virtue of their birth on American soil because their parents are not citizens or illegal, I am with you.
But the 14th amendment CANNOT BE USED for this purpose.
The constitution has to be amended.
Perhaps the defining Supreme Court ruling in this area is US v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 case in which justices upheld the US citizenship of a child born on US soil to Chinese immigrant parents. The parents were in the US legally, however.
Because you are? The 14th explicitly rejects this interpretation.
Yes, there is a reason for it to prevail. It is how dual citizenship works in the United States at least. This way the child is entitled to her rights as an American, and Americans give precedence to these rights over her rights and obligations as a British subject.
And how’s that workin’ out for them? Not well! You want to model America’s immigration system after the UK?
“In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.”
Which is not the case here.
Those who are born to an alien parent whose country has a nationality law that automatically makes them a citizen/subject of the alien parent's country are not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the U.S. and are therefore NOT born U.S. citizens.
U.S. Secretaries of State have been quite explicit about that.
See post 93:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3011750/posts?q=1&;page=51#93
Indeed, it is. Gray (the Justice who wrote the majority opinion) specifically stated that the ruling was based on the fact that Wong Kim Ark's alien parents were permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of his birth, among other facts agreed upon by all parties in the case.
For those who meet birthright citizenship requirements, yes. Not everyone born in the U.S. meets those requirements. See post 93:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3011750/posts?q=1&;page=51#93
Which is not the case here.
Indeed, it's not. Obama never qualified for birthright U.S. citizenship to begin with. He doesn't meet the 14th Amendment's requirements. See post 93:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3011750/posts?q=1&;page=51#93
And his alien father was not permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of his birth per the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling.
It is possible that he may have naturalized as a U.S. citizen at some point after the time of his birth. However, naturalized citizens are ineligible to be President.
It doesn't matter whether they cited it in support of their claim or not. "Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" was never intended to exclude domiciled aliens. Period.
That they misused the phrase it in support of their denial of citizenship to children of domiciled aliens really doesn't matter in terms of what it meant.
The U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling actually requires more than simply residence. It requires the parents to have an established permanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of the child's birth.
Arguably. Arguably, it didn't. It's arguable either way.
There actually is no law that supports your assertion.
There may not be any STATUTE that supports my assertion, but the rule of citizenship which has always applied supports it. The very definition of "natural born citizen" supports it.
Actually, that's not true. Birthright citizenship wasn't extended to the children of some aliens until the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision. And even then it was only extended to those whose parents had an established permanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of the child's birth
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.