Posted on 10/05/2014 6:15:08 AM PDT by Macoozie
In recent years, the concept of U.S. citizenship has figured in public debate largely in connection with immigration reform. Should immigrants who are in the country illegally be given a "path to citizenship"? Should children born to parents who are not here legally be entitled to "birthright citizenship"?
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Should their parents - illegal aliens who intentionally crossed into the United States willfully - be the ones who decide who the Americans are?
By acknowledging their children as Birthright Citizens, that's precisely what we are doing.
Since when do invaders choose the citizenry?
If your parents Rob a Bank should you as their child be able to keep the money?
this ‘nation of laws’ died when we didn’t follow Artilce II Section I of the Constitution.
the “living breathing document” appears to have been among the very first victims of the swine flu
There is no "second class citizenship" about it. They are VISITORS, not citizens. What's so damn wrong about being Mexican????
Many Mexicans who are here are still more proud of their mother country and are even encouraged to vote at HOME. No dual citizenship. No dual allegiance.
Time was we DIDN'T recognize dual citizenship. I think that changed (softly) in the 80s.
Where the hell can a "native American" like myself reap the benefits of dual citizenship or at least NATIVE AMERICAN benefits? This sucks.
And if they vote elsewhere, they CANNOT be permitted to vote here.
Peter Jennings became an American citizen sometime before the 2004 election. He said that he was still proud to retain his Canadian citizenship. I think his sole reason for becoming a US citizen was to vote against GW Bush's re-election. He'd already been here 20 years so it wasn't a big matter to him to become a citizen.
Why the hell should people on vacation (and there are tours specifically to reap this benefit) be entitled to “birthright citizenship” for dropping a young’un on US territory???
Jus solis has been US law since the Founding, and before that it was the common law of England, so it goes back many centuries.
Under common law all persons born "on the soil of the country" (jus solis) are subjects/citizens with two exceptions: children born to soldiers in an invading army, and children born to accredited foreign diplomats.
I suppose a somewhat strained case could be made to classify illegal aliens in group 1, but that doesn't really seem reasonable.
14A states, "All persons born ... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."
The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" phrase was not some new formulation, it was simply a reference to the two ancient common law exceptions for jus solis.
I would be perfectly happy to get rid of birthright citizenship for children born to illegal aliens, but doing so will require, I'm afraid, an amendment.
AFAIK, the US has never, and still doesn't, "recognize" dual citizenship. If I become a citizen of Chad without renouncing my US citizenship, it changes absolutely nothing about my relationship with the US. Our laws do not recognize dual citizenship, they ignore it.
To become a naturalized citizen, one must swear ""I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen."
However, there is no enforcement mechanism to ensure that other countries don't still consider them to be citizens. Nor, if you think about it, can there be. We have no way to force other countries to "disenroll" their citizens who are naturalized here.
FWIW, Washington and Madison were both citizens of France.
It will require an amendment to your highly distorted and incorrect understanding of the meaning of “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
That formulation is not and never was a reference to the so-called exceptions to jus solis, nor has the law of citizenship of the United States ever been exclusively that of English common law, although I will grant that the english common law tradition carried more weight in some States than in others. I will remind you that even after the founding, it was the STATES, not the federal government who determined their own citizenship, and most were more than just a little bit motivated to distinguish “citizenship” from “subject-hood.” Citizens are those who are tied to their country by ties of land and blood. They are not mere whelps of accidental or intentional invaders, and that is precisely what children of those here without permission or authority are.
Yeah, that meme is going around England, France, Germany, Australia, Sweden, and Holland these days. Things aren't working out so well for them as the new citizens don't care to merge into the society, they'd rather stake out colonies to settle there.
The State Department website recognizes the concept of dual citizenship in the US now...
A U.S. national may acquire foreign nationality by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. national may not lose the nationality of the country of birth. U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one nationality or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another nationality does not risk losing U.S. nationality. However, a person who acquires a foreign nationality by applying for it may lose U.S. nationality. In order to lose U.S. nationality, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign nationality voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. nationality.
In other words, native Americans are second class citizens because unlike Mexicans they MUST relinquish their birth nationality if they attain citizenship elsewhere.
The oath to become a US citizen contains language saying that you give allegiance ONLY to the United States. However, that is not binding and plenty of immigrants who take that oath violate it (including Peter Jennings).
The old Ask The Imam website had an “expert” say that muslims were permitted to take that oath so long as they didn’t actually side with the US over muslim nations should we go to war.
In reaction to this and abuses by States, 14A was passed and ratified. It permanently took away the power of states to determine citizenship.
As for "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," it needs to be looked at for their time, not ours. There were no illegal aliens at the time, because there were no restrictions on immigration.
Jurisdiction: the right, power, or authority to administer justice by hearing and determining controversies.
Illegal aliens are subject to this in our countries, though it is sadly often unenforced. Legal armed invaders and those with diplomatic immunity are not.
By your definition, we have no right to prosecute or imprison those here illegally. They are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
It means nothing when the President is NOT a US Citizen
It’s full of Mexicans? Just kidding.
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.