Posted on 11/04/2005 5:54:41 AM PST by .cnI redruM
House Republicans are looking closely at ending birthright citizenship and building a barrier along the entire U.S.-Mexico border as they search for solutions to illegal immigration.
A task force of party leaders and members active on immigration has met since the summer to try to figure out where consensus exists, and several participants said those two ideas have floated to the top of the list of possibilities to be included either in an immigration-enforcement bill later this year or in a later comprehensive immigration overhaul.
"There is a general agreement about the fact that citizenship in this country should not be bestowed on people who are the children of folks who come into this country illegally," said Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, who is participating in the "unity dinners," the group of Republicans trying to find consensus on immigration.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Agreed.
We don't visit the sins of the fathers on the sons.
That doesn't mean I think the fathers should ever be able to benefit from their sons' citizenship - I think we should change the law to prevent that. But until we re-write the Constitution to revoke natural-born citizenship, the children are blameless in this matter and deserve citizenship as much as my kids do.
"What is written down and passed as law is the only thing that actually IS law, and is binding."
But you don't understand how "jurisdiction" is defined in law. Jurisdiction is DEFINABLE by Congress. For example, Congress has full authority to pass laws regulating interstate or not regulating commerce depending on how they define goods that are "subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States".
In the case of the 14th amendment, Congress also has full authority to define "Subject to the Jurisdiction" as applying only to people lawfully present within American territory. Likewise, they can define Jurisdiction to mean anyone born in the US regardless of lawful presence is under US "Jurisdiction".
"I'd expect that any effort to simply legislate that away would be struck down by the Courts as unconstitutional."
Congress can take away Federal and Supreme Court "Jurisdiction" to review birthright citizenship changes as per Article III Section 2 of the Constitution.
For example, the Congress last year took away the Federal and Supreme Courts "JURISDICTION" to review a bill that blocked people from being able to sue Gun manufacturers under certain circumstances. That law is now completely unreviewable by any Federal Court.
The same thing can be done to any bill denying birthright citizenship, and there is no Court that could strike down that bill IF Congress wants to do this.
If anyone thinks this law is unconstitutional, the only way to change it would be for the people to vote in Legislators that will restore birthright citizenship to Illegals.
Thanks to you and the dozen other posters who posted this. As previously stated, we've all gone around in circles about this and the meaning of the clause. Any law passed by the Congress is going to be up for the same debate and end up in the SCOTUS precisely because of the "under the jurisdiction thereof" clause.
It'd almost have to be *either* parent.
I'm recently married, but let's pretend my wife was a foreign national, legally living in the US as my wife. "Mom only" would mean that my child would not be a US citizen.
That may be a recent change but I don't believe it is widespread.
Immigration attorneys can delay deportation of the mother until she qualifies for reunification even while her status in the USA is illegal.
Th problem for over a decade is illegal mothers having children that are at once given US citizenship, then enrolling them in WIC programs, medicaid, then preschool, food stamps, subsidized Sec. 8 housing, welfare TANF programs, then regular public school and so on.
What has happened is the emergence of an entire government unionized workforce in certain regions and districts to 'service' the illegals and their 'citizen' children.
Government employee unions have a vested interest in seeing that the anchor baby industry continue.
So it's more than just attempting to deport illegal mothers, it's also about cutting government.
I think cutting government is much harder to do. If Arnold Schwartzenegger gets his reform propositions passed, it should become easier.
Funny, isn't it, that the ones who love it don't have to live with it or pay for it?
I hope they do more than "mull it"!
Thank God for Congressman Tancredo and the Minutemen, some of the very few heros we have on immigration.
I hope the repeal of "birthright" citizenship is put in motion soon, the borders will be sealed, and next we tackle other problems with legal immigration (like who do we want to move into our country and how many of them do we want).
Thanks for your insight.
"then a child born of illegal Mexican immigrants would be citizen of nowhere."
The responsibility for that would rest soley on the shoulders of illegal immigrants now wouldn't it?
Yes, you absolutely DO need to eventually regularize the illegals' CHILDREN. Otherwise you will get an hereditary class of illegals, who can be exploited without protection.
The reason these illegals are in America, 20 million of them, is that America is ravenously hungry for cheap labor on which social security taxes need not be paid, and which can't unionize or sue or otherwise cause problems. Illegals want the money, so they come to an America that, at all levels, from middle class people needing nannies, house cleaners and yard mowers to restaurants needing busboys, delivery staff and dishwashers, to distribution centers needing stockers - is willing to pay them to do all of these jobs. There are 20 million illegal aliens working in America, and probably 100 million Americans who benefit directly from their work (everyone benefits indirectly from it).
Democrats don't close the borders for their own reasons.
Republicans don't close the borders because, in the balance, they know that the economic interests of millions upon millions of people assisted by illegal labor WANT THAT ILLEGAL LABOR. Middle class people don't want to hire some ghetto queen to watch their kids or clean their house when they're not there. They'll trust Conchita with their house and kids, but not Boweesha. People in the suburbs will let Juan cut the grass, but aren't going to bus in Americans from the inner city projects out to see their nice houses and cut their grass (and come back later).
You know it and I know it.
Bitching about how it's illegal isn't going to change the economic realities on both sides of the border that drive illegal immigration.
And the Republicans are, uber alles, a party of economic realists. They are not going to deprive all of middle America of child and lawn care, and the big distribution industries and agriculture of hard laborers and stockboys. Illegals cost a quarter of what a legal costs, and for certain things, like child care for $10 an hour that working middle class people can afford, there are no Americans who will take that job for $10 an hour that you want anywhere near your home or kids.
So, the Republicans don't close the borders either, for that reason.
And so there are 20 million illegals working in America.
They have kids.
You cannot allow the establishment of an hereditary unprotected servile labor class. It's wrong.
So you've got to figure out a way to make sure that the irregular, illegal status does not become hereditary. Citizenship of those born here does that. That is regularization in the long term. You don't have to give citizenship to the illegals. But you can't let their status become hereditary unprotected workers. America uses - and needs - their labor. You can't, morally, turn that into an hereditary status of countryless laborers.
If you want to stop the influx, close the border with a guarded fence. Those who are inside the fence now, you can regularize or leave illegal. Their children will be citizens, and in a generation the problem of illegals will disappear.
So? That's their problem, and it's a direct consequence of their actions in leaving their country illegally.
"but we don't allow them to deny that right to their children."
Yes they do, until they are 18 year old.
No problem.
Precisely. Let the child retain citizenship, but eliminate the parent's ability to exploit that citizenship for his/her own benefit.
So are you going to deny that anchor baby citizen access to welfare programs like foodstamps and assistance to children programs that other minor citizens are eligble for? It seems then that you would be treating one citizen child very differently from another citizen child. If you deport the citizen child's illegal parents the child can either stay in America with legal relatives or go back to the parents country of origen. You are either denying the anchor citizen the opportunity for an American education or the opportunity to be raised by its parents.
Not at all. The child would need a guardian who is a US citizen or resident to care for it, or it could be placed in foster care, if it is to remain in the United States. If care is found, then the child would have all the same legal rights.
If care cannot be found or the parents are unwilling to give up custody, then the child can't stay. Citizenship does not confer an automatic right for children to live on their own in the US. The child would then have full rights to return as an adult.
So we can treat the children as we do all other US citizens while simultaneously denying the parents' right to exploit that citizenship. Just because the kid is a US citizen doesn't mean that the parents can get food stamps or welfare for themselves.
I would also change the laws making any illegal immigrants permanently ineligible for citizenship or residency, so the child can't sponsor the parent 18 years later. Again, the parent can't exploit the child's citizenship.
I would prefer to not open these cans of worms by just giving the child the same citizenship as its parents.
Then you're opening another can of worms - hospitals will be required to certify the citizenship of parents before issuing birth certificates. That seems to me a dicey proposition.
Anyhow, thanks for the note.
then a child born of illegal Mexican immigrants would be citizen of nowhere.
So? That's their problem, and it's a direct consequence of their actions in leaving their country illegally.
The child didn't do anything illegal, and in this country we do not visit the sins of the parents on the sons. That's not a good solution.
Another example of the "Living Document" theory.
You don't give the courts enough credit for being able to tear that argument to shreds.
Congress doesn't have the power to pass laws that violate the Constitution. If it does so, and attempts to prevent judicial review by asserting that the courts don't have the jurisdiction to overturn an unconstitutional law, well, you'll see how fast that holds up. The Supreme Court will rule that it is the fundamental role of the court to decide on matters of constitutionality, and while Congress has broad discretion within its sphere, it does not have the authority to amend the Constitution by simple legislation, but must follow the Article V amendment procedure. The Supreme Court would find that attempting to deprive those born on US soil of citizenship was legislation contrary to the 14th Amendment, and beyond the power of Congress. The Court would also dismiss any argument that Congress can prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing ANY law for Constitutionality.
As to the gun manufactures, Congress can certainly say that the Courts don't have jurisdiction to hear such cases, but Congress cannot prevent the Courts from reviewing that law itself for Constitutionality. Congress cannot prevent the Courts from throwing out unconstitutional laws. The Courts won't permit that override of their authority.
First off, this whole question is based on a hypothetical - what if Mexico denied citizenship to children born of Mexican parents outside of Mexico. I don't think there's any nation on earth that would ever do that, so it's a moot point.
Either way, the child isn't being punished, but simply not being rewarded. There's a difference.
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.