GOP mulls ending birthright citizenship

THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | November 4, 2005 | By Stephen Dinan

[.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.

[Killborn]

Wording aside, should foreginers born here be immigrants?

[BikerNYC]

In order to qualify for American citizenship when born, the MOTHER must be a legal resident at the time of birth.

When is that determination made? Do I, as an adult, have the right to prove that my mother was a legal resident and have any previous determination that I am not a citizen changed? Is the burden on the mother to prove that she is a legal resident or on the government to prove that she is not?

[highball]

Wording aside, should foreginers born here be immigrants?

If they're born here, by definition they aren't "foreigners."

Personally, I would like to change the law to only bestow citizenship on children who are born in this country to at least one parent who is a citizen or legal resident. But I'm not kidding myself - that will take a Constitutional amendment, and isn't likely.

[HiJinx]

But lots of our illegals don't come across the border but simply overstay a valid tourist visa past its expiration date. What will we do about them?

Put Blockbuster in charge of Visa Control. /sarc (For those for whom it isn't obvious)

[Rockitz]

How about eliminating the undeserved benefit to children who bring their foreign parents over here to collect social security even though the parents never paid a dime?

[Congressman Billybob]

Embassies are not just "considered" foreign property. They are defined as foreign property by law, from Congress. You are missing the whole point.

John / Billybob

[highball]

How about eliminating the undeserved benefit to children who bring their foreign parents over here to collect social security even though the parents never paid a dime?

That's a good idea, and that wouldn't require an amendment.

[jackbenimble]

Wording aside, should foreigners born here be immigrants?

In my opinion, if they came here legally on a tourist or immigration visa then they have consented to be subject to the jurisdiction of our laws and yes, if they were to have a baby they would be BOTH born on our soil AND subject to our jurisdiction.

On the other hand, the child of an illegal who chose to live outside the jurisdiction of our laws only meets ONE of the TWO requirements.

I think there is lots of room for argument on these points. The other side can also make some very valid points. The Constitution puts sole authority for determining our immigration policies in the hands of Congress. They, rather than the courts, should decide what the clause means.

[sheana]

yes, people that argue that babies born here are citizens via the Constitution are wrong. It was another bad Supreme Court decision that has put us in this mess.

[thoughtomator]

I don't believe it takes an Amendment to get rid of the illegals-born-into-citizenship problem. See, the 14th also contains the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", something that could be established does not apply to those who criminally invade our country (and the spawn thereof).

[ModelBreaker]

I have seen successful indian (from India) have kids here and make something valuable of themselves and become productive segment of society.

As I understand Tancredo's proposal, kids of folks who are here legally would be citizens.

[ladyjane]

The Indian babies you refer to, they were born to illegals?

[GrandEagle]

OK, I'm not spoiling for a fight here. If an illegal is not "subject to the jurisdiction of" then we have no authority to arrest them, or do anything what so ever with them no matter what they did.
In times past, "subject to the jurisdiction or" is used to include territories and possessions of the U.S. government. This is necessary when the clause applies the them because the Constitution is an agreement between the states, and doesn't include possessions of the US government.
The 14th is very clear unless the Klinton rule "it depend what you mean by sex" rule is applied.
The 14th was never intended to provide cover for illegals to enter and stay. As another poster pointed out, it was intended to correct the issue of what to do with the newly freed slaves. Until then, the states determined who was a citizen. "We the people", for better or worse, have now given that authority to the Federal Government. I simply suggested we correct the wording so that "we the people" are protected from a Federal Government that refuses to do its job and protect our border.

Cordially,
GE

[jackbenimble]

who bring their foreign parents over here to collect social security even though the parents never paid a dime?

Great idea. The guiding principle of our immigration policy should be to benefit the citizens that are already here. Almost nobody benefits when we bring in old people who will never contribute as much as to our treasury as they will take out. There should be an age cut-off on immigrants and it should be fairly young so we can get some work and taxes out of them.

[GrandEagle]

Again, if one is physically present in a country, you are "subject to the jurisdiction of" unless you have diplomatic immunity. If not, then we would be helpless to do anything with them no matter what they did. If they are not "subject to the jurisdiction of" then we cant arrest them, detain them, or do anything with them - they are not subject to the jurisdiction of out nation.
Again, this clause is included so that US possessions are included in the clause, not just States.

[tiki]

It would really help.

[thoughtomator]

But if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US, then they wouldn't be here in the first place. So the actions of the illegals themselves deny the basis on which citizenship is granted to the anchor children.

[Killborn]

I'm 60/40. I do think something needs to be done regarding anchor baby prob. I kind of like that people born here are automaatic citizens but if this is better for America, I'll take it.

[conservative physics]

Congress has the authority to strip anyone of their citizenship.

So no constitutional amendment is required.

They would technically be US citizens when born according to the constitution... but then would have that citizenship stripped from them by congress.

[adam_az]

"I know, I know they were legal aliens but I'm speaking about how it would be spun in the media. We'd see one story after another about some poor "immigrant" (aka crimalien) who just came here to work to feed his hungry children, blah, blah, blah... big bad mean xenophobic conservatives...blah, blah, blah..."

Funny, the MSM never seems to track down a MS-13 member in prison for chopping someone to pieces for these interviews.