Skip to comments.14 states may target birthright citizenship
Posted on 01/03/2011 1:38:47 PM PST by Lmo56
Arizona state politicians will introduce model legislation this week to encourage states to prevent children of illegal immigrants from being granted citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
God bless em.
The question is, are illegal immigrants, by entering the United States illegally, attempting to avoid being "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" ? If that's the case, then they aren't covered by the 14th amendment.
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.
Too bad this story isn’t in the past tense.
We, sir, are blessed. Thank God for the super majority recently obtained in the TX state House of Reps.
Now we might actually get something done. Illegal immigration and the second Texas/ Mexican war is being talked about daily.
Now, if we can get that dolt RINO of a Governor to sign it, our actions will truly speak louder than our words.
From where I sit, surrounded by mental flat-liners, I can only watch with envy.
You mean Gov. Good Hair is not a true supporter of the TEA Party?/s
LOL.... Even the implication of such is too funny.
Round up enough states and you can amend the Constitution.
That is EXACTLY my point ...
The Wong Kim Ark Case  concerned a child of LEGAL immigrants and the Court cited heavily from Calvin's Case  in England. It stated that children of aliens born within the realm WERE natural-born subjects.
But, Calvin's Case also stated that children of enemies COULD NOT be natural-born subjects. And, an enemy [in 1607] was anyone residing within the realm WITHOUT the express permission of the Sovreign. Which is the case with children born to illegal immigrants ...
Two thirds of fifty seven?
“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
Subject: to owe allegiance to.
The correct reading of this 1868 wording IS ALL PERSONS BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES WHO OWE THEIR ALLEGIANCE TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF ARE CITIZENS.
Liberals have been trying for a long time to change the original intent of the 14th to allow the children of illegals to have automatic citizenship. Granting citizenship to the children is only a government policy, not a law.
If Arizona enacts such a law first this gives illegal aliens a strong incentive to burden Texas hospitals with their babies and all the expenses that entails. What illegal alien has ever paid for this? Never happens
Also gives illegal aliens incentives to not live in Arizona at all. This further burdens Texas and other states with these parasites
So all in all by being first to pass anti-birthright law might push other states to emulate Arizona
Legal immigrants, sure.
But I think one of the blessings for the US is that those born on US soil are considered citizens of the US. This isn’t true in other countries.
I’m not sure how you can work it to be fair to the child, who has done nothing wrong, and ought to be entitled to American citizenship.
Is it the child’s fault that they were born in America? No. Is it the status of the child that is at stake here? Yes. So why are we punishing the child?
Give the child American citizenship, and give the parents two options. 1, deportation en masse to their home country, or two, placing their child up for adoption to an American family.
It is not punishment. It is just not a award. Either to the child or its parents.
Fruit of the poisonous tree - people should not be able to benefit from their crimes. If the child is declared to be United States citizen, per current law, he is entitled to sponsor [at age 18] his entire family [and extended family] to become U.S. citizens ...
So, even if you deport the parents, 18 years later, they benefit [as well as his aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.] ...
So why should the child be rewarded for their parents’ crime?
Lets assume my parents were to rob a bank, but then they gave all the money to me. Should I be allowed to keep that money? I didn’t rob the bank...
There are specific measures specifically designed for lawful immigration. Someone should not be granted US Citizenship simply because their parents claim they were born here, or they were born here. Children of visiting dignitaries/embassy staff aren’t given citizenship (that I know of) and they’re here legally. So why should some illegal alien’s kid be given that reward?
One of the biggest problems is that Mexicans are having children in the U.S. just so that they can use those children to stay in the U.S. Many of the children are being raised to consider themselves as Mexicans not Americans. Recent polls show that over half of Mexican “immigrants” have no desire to become Americans, they just want the benefits of living on American soil. One of the most basic laws of our country is that allegiance and citizenship must go hand in hand. You can not have one without the other. When children are born here and been here for many years and still do not speak English fluently, they should be considered Mexican citizens.
“Someone should not be granted US Citizenship simply because their parents claim they were born here, or they were born here. Children of visiting dignitaries/embassy staff arent given citizenship (that I know of)”
Actually, children of visiting dignities that choose to accept American citizenship, can and do receive it.
I disagree with your premise. If it can be proven that the child was in fact born in America, they ought to have citizenship. Punish the parents but not the child.
“Lets assume my parents were to rob a bank, but then they gave all the money to me. Should I be allowed to keep that money? I didnt rob the bank...”
Well for one, granting citizenship to the child isn’t theft.
The crime is the breach in the laws. To commit a legal act through illegal means, would be like robbing a bank in order to feed the homeless.
Who is responsible? The bank robber. What would the punishment be if the robber could not pay the money back? the thief would go to jail. Do you take the food from the homeless and let the thief go? No. You punish the one responsible.
Suppose I were to say the following:
“One of the essential beliefs in America is that all people should be considered equal. Including homosexuals.
Anyone who believes that homosexuality is abhorrent is not an American citizen because they reject the allegience of the nation.”
So they would be deported and citizenship stripped.
Yes, it has and does happen. In totalitarian countries all around the world, to strip political dissidents of their citizenship rights.
Citizenship isn’t a right *granted* by the state, but is God-given upon birth in the nation. Permitting the state to strip citizens of their status is wrong, and troubling.
Yes, you are right that immigrants ought to assimilate. That they ought to learn the language. That their first loyalty ought to be to America, and if it isn’t that they should return to Mexico. Or Haiti, or wherever the case may be.
Birthright citizenship is revolutionary in that it hinders tyrants. Do you really expect the left, when given the ability to strip people of their citizenship is going to do it in the manner you would like? No. They will strip political dissidents for shock and awe, while opening up the borders (offering honorary citizenship to all).
Provided of course you are reliable support for them.
Yeah, birthright citizenship isn’t perfect, but it’s much better than the alternatives.
Stripping the child of their citizenship is wrong. It is not the state’s to take away.
You are not "punishing" a child by not giving them what they are not due. The only way I would be willing to allow them to be citizens is if their parents gave them up for adoption, the adoptive parents are citizens, and the birth parents removed themselves back to Mexico.
Birthright citizenship is for those born here of parents SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the United States. That means foreigners are NOT eligible unless they are here LEGALLY, as IMMIGRANTS. Foreigners do NOT owe their allegiance to these United States so their downloads do not qualify for citizenship. Period. That you advocate such speaks poorly about your judgment and knowledge.
“Yes, you are right that immigrants ought to assimilate.”
First question on the “assimilation” exam:
Do you believe that citizenship in the United States is, at least, worth following the process to legally become a citizen here?
Accepting a gift of money from a bank robber isn't theft either.
I love dominos.
What you write is nonsensical. Most countries dont grant citizenship just because youre born there if your parents are foreigners. The 14th amendment was not intended to enable illegal invaders.
Exactly. Well said. There seem to be a plethora of addkebrained liberal posting tonight.
Most countries aren’t America. There’s a reason why they are stagnating.
Do you think it would benefit America to do things their way? No. It’s a competitive advantage.
“You are not stripping a child of their citizenship. They are citizens of Mexico, born to 2 parents who are Mexican citizens.”
How is the child a citizen of Mexico when she hasn’t even stepped foot in Mexico. She’s just as much a citizen as anyone.
The parents, yes, they are citizens of Mexico. But the child is an American. Do you think it’s going to help assimilation if people have to wait generations before they become ‘american’? No.
“You are not “punishing” a child by not giving them what they are not due.”
The law as it reads, states that anyone born in America is an American. Period. You are stripping their citizenship away from them for something they have no control. Did they tell their parents to come illegally? No.
“The only way I would be willing to allow them to be citizens is if their parents gave them up for adoption, the adoptive parents are citizens, and the birth parents removed themselves back to Mexico.”
This is precisely what I suggested. The parents have two options. One, give their child up for adoptions to another American citizen, or leave the country. However, the child would still retain their status as an American citizen and would get to choose when they reach the age of majority.
It is not fair to deprive the child of their citizenship for something they are not responsible.
“have no loyalty to or interest in the US”
Great. Sounds like an excellent argument for deporting everyone who has no loyalty or interest in the US.
What if I don’t even know the money has been placed into my account? How am I accepting the money when it was deposited in there without my knowledge?
A child has no clue that their parents are illegal aliens.
Absolutely. Have I said otherwise? The parents who come here illegally are breaking the law. I agree with you that under no circumstances should they continue to reside in America.
The answer isn’t a bad law when you cannot enforce the law as it stands. If you aren’t going to deport illegal aliens, then what’s the point of having an immigration law at all. The laws as they stand need to be enforced, and those who are obstructing the application of the law need to be replaced.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that there is a serious problem. Where we disagree is in the solution. I believe that the solution you suggest has serious unintended consequences that must be taken into account.
I do not believe the solution to the immigration laws is to build a walled garden. Rather than assisting assimilation, the suggested laws will hinder it drastically.
That was my point. If you know you're taking stolen money you're an accomplice. If you don't you're not charged with a crime but you do have to return the money.
A child has no clue that their parents are illegal aliens.
Is that the position you want to take? That the children of illegal aliens are dumber than fence posts? Regardless of that the law is the law. As they say; ignorance of the law is no excuse.
You just contradicted yourself. The entire basis of our law is based on the principle that citizenship is conferred by your parents. Naturalization is an exception to that but is quite precise in its requirements of application for citizenship and formal acceptance by our government.
“Is that the position you want to take? That the children of illegal aliens are dumber than fence posts? Regardless of that the law is the law. As they say; ignorance of the law is no excuse.”
I was unaware that infants were expected to understand the vagarities of immigration law. Yes, I’m sure that eventually they would come to understand that their parents came over illegally, provided that their parents actually tell them the truth. Remember that a child has no experience as to how anything is other than the life that they know. If your parents taught you, raised you as an American, you could go your entire life without knowing that your father or mother or both of them were in fact illegal immigrants without status.
If your father came to you and told you when you asked that he had a visa, what are you going to say? Are you going to deny that, or accept that as the truth?
Nor would infants know or care what country they are in or what their citizenship would be. Infants belong with their parents more than they do to any government or "society."
BTW there is no such word as “vagarities.” Maybe you meant vagaries?
“You just contradicted yourself. The entire basis of our law is based on the principle that citizenship is conferred by your parents.”
The law as it currently stands argues that citizenship is not conferred by your parents, and has absolutely nothing to do with your parents, but everything to do with where you are born. Irrespective of status, if you are born in an American jurisdiction, be it a military base or embassy overseas, or in America itself, you are a citizen, with the same rights and obligations as any other.
This is, I admit a radical principle. But it is not a new one, it is one that has served America well when coupled with a functioning state.
The problem with American immigration is not immigration, but welfare. The whole entitlement bloat. Get rid of welfare and the immigration problem will sort itself out as only productive immigrants will seek to make their home in America.
This is the key problem. Why are people not assimilating? The welfare check in the mail gives them no incentive to do so. Eliminate the check, and immigrants will have to assimilate in order to survive.
If eliminating welfare makes me a liberal, than so be it I am the happiest liberal alive. I would rather sacrifice the principle of the cradle to grave statist support in exchange for true liberty.
“Naturalization is an exception to that but is quite precise in its requirements of application for citizenship and formal acceptance by our government.”
Indeed, but those who are born in America are not required to proceed through the process of naturalization in order to become citizens. Why is this so? The first reason is to assist assimilation. It does not help America if the children of legal immigrants must go through naturalization in order to become citizens. It’s a hurdle that only hurts the people who are trying to do the right thing, not the folks who are trying to scam the system.
So you are suggesting that no one should be considered a citizen until they are old enough to, say, vote?
Interesting position. I suppose then child slavery would then be ok because they aren’t citizens and lack the same legal protections.
Yes, my bad. Vagaries of immigration law.
Where the heck did you get that nonsense? You're the one who brought up the age of the child. Which is irrelevant. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for child or adult.
I’m not going to answer a long-winded post that is nothing but a deflection about welfare. Don’t change the subject with straw man arguments.
“Where the heck did you get that nonsense? You’re the one who brought up the age of the child. Which is irrelevant. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for child or adult.”
Nonsense? When Heinlein advocated the very thing? A limited model of citizenship isn’t something new, it goes back to the Roman Empire.
One of the problems that arises is slavery. If you set something like this up, there is a market for non-citizen labour as there are fewer legal restrictions. Which is why the 14th explicitly says that it applies to everyone born in the United States.