Posted on 01/03/2011 1:38:47 PM PST by Lmo56
If they were not born of citizens, they are not a citizen. They are as illegal as the criminals that concieved them, and should be returned to the country of their parents' origin until such a time as they pass through the proper naturalization proceedures and become a legal citizen.
Hallelujah! Let it be SO!
“Pearce argues that the “original intent” of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to freed U.S. slaves, and that it was never meant to apply to the children of foreigners.
A Phoenix New Times writer, however, argues that lawmakers who originally passed the amendment took into account the cases of children of Chinese immigrants in California as well as children of gypsies when drafting the measure.
A 19th-century Supreme Court precedent also backs that interpretation, though no Supreme Court case has yet dealt with the issue of offspring of illegal immigrant parents.”
“If they were not born of citizens, they are not a citizen.”
Not according to what the law actually says. They are a citizen if they are born in the United States.
“They are as illegal as the criminals that concieved them”
How is an infant who is born in America a criminal? They have done nothing wrong.
“should be returned to the country of their parents’ origin until such a time as they pass through the proper naturalization proceedures and become a legal citizen.”
They are already an American citizen by virtue of being born in America. Their parents are illegal immigrants. The child, is just as much an American as anyone else.
Since the whole "anchor baby" thing has been abused, it's time to change it. Why not give kids who are born here of illegals a sort of "provisional citizenship," while at the same time make it more difficult for the parents to stay? No bennies, no health care, no free schools, but a chance to become a citizen when said kid is 18. Here's a scenario: Juan y Maria come across the border, have little Lupe. Juan y Maria try to get Lupe enrolled in schools, but since we can't really afford it, we need to show them all the door. Lupe goes back to Mexico. When she turns 18, Lupe can come back, and, by means of the provisional citizenship, get a job (to support the system), get an education (again, while supporting the system), and takes citizenship classes. After she takes the test, she renounces her Mexican citizenship FOREVER, and must go through the steps the rest of us normal people take when they go south of the border. She is free to send money to her parents (at 15% taken off the top), and is free to sponsor another relative to immigrate LEGALLY.
To give carte blanche citizenship to any woman who leaps across the border, spits out a kid, leaps back to Mexico, then shows up when the kid is old enough to go to school/has the sniffles/needs new shoes is stupid. It's a drag on our system, which has been taken advantage of. I know. I've seen it. I work with the progeny of such unscrupulous persons every day. It has to be fixed, and I think something like a "you're not a citizen, and can't be one, until you start giving into the system" policy might be start.
Just my idea.
If you read the amendment, you’ll see that it has two requirements for citizenship...born here AND under our jurisdiction. If all you had to do to become a citizen was be born here, why did they add the second requirement?
To account for military bases and embassies abroad. ‘Under our jurisdiction’.
Not all places under American jurisdiction are in the 50 states. A substantial number of people live in these areas.
“Why not give kids who are born here of illegals a sort of “provisional citizenship,” while at the same time make it more difficult for the parents to stay? No bennies, no health care, no free schools, but a chance to become a citizen when said kid is 18.”
Would likely violate equal protection. There’s no ‘sorta citizenship’, or ‘almost citizenship’. Just citizenship. If you make this distinction, what’s to stop the expansion of this distinction, particularly if you bar people with ‘provisional citizenship’ from voting?
As a disabled person, there’s nothing from stopping this from being applied to us, making us effective non-persons. We can’t function as well as the cool kids, so we get provisional citizenship. See where I’m going here?
How is the child a ‘citizen’ of another country. She is an American, not a Mexican. That’s the whole point of birthright citizenship.
Her parents are Mexican, but she is not.
I agree, don’t confer citizenship on the parents, but the child is a whole different matter.
If you let the state decide who is and who isn’t a citizen, based on who their parents are, this is contrary to gaging people on their own merits.
I guess then hyphenation is the point here. Japanese-American, etc. If what makes someone American is that they were all born here, rather than Mexican, or Japanese or however, then they have no reason to call themselves Japanese-American.
Under this proposal, they cannot ever become true Americans, despite being born in America. This is a problem. It delays assimilation, because you are putting up extra hurdles for those who are already in America.
I posted about Venezuelan students who had a baby while here at school and then returned to Venezuela and raised her there.
Citizenship is determined through the status of the parents. It can't work any other way because a newborn infant is simply incapable of making any decisions for itself. Period.
The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment made it clear that in addition to being born within the United States, they also had to fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S., - and they stated that meant "completely" under the jurisdiction of the United States. And they specifically explained that meant, " ...not owing allegiance to anyone else.".
The Supreme Court got it right in the Slaughterhouse and Elk vs Wilkins decisions. Maintaining your principal loyalty to your home country does not make you any kind tribal Indian or foreign diplomat. My very own mother was a case in point.
My father was a U.S. citizen, btw.
“Citizenship is determined through the status of the parents. It can’t work any other way because a newborn infant is simply incapable of making any decisions for itself. Period.”
This is why citizenship cannot rely on the status of the parents. I don’t see why your status would be anything other than an American. It is precisely *because* the child cannot make their own decisions that their status should not be influenced by their parents.
“And they specifically explained that meant, “ ...not owing allegiance to anyone else.”
How does that apply to an infant born in the US? The infant does not have any other allegiance to anyone other than America. The parents do, which is why they cannot become Americans. The infant is a different case.
Ok. So should that American child lose her citizenship in America because of choices that her mom made? No. I don’t see how that’s fair.
Let’s look at it from another direction. Mom and dad are American citizens. Mom kidnaps child to Venezuela and keeps her there, despite the objections of the American father.
Fast forward 15 years. Mother dies. What happens to the child?
Please read my original post. You are going off on wild tangents.
NO, this is precisely why it must : the Law simply does not recognize a newborn infant's ability to make ANY decisions on it's own behalf, separate from it's parents. Period. ALL decisions involving the infant must be made on it's behalf by others; specifically the parents. That's the way the law has always worked.
This is how it goes for all newborn infants; and why citizenship is determined through the parents, wether they be citizens or illegals.
How does that apply to an infant born in the US?
Again, the Law simply does not recognize the ability of a newborn infant to make any decisions on it's own behalf, -separate from its parents.
The infant does not have any other allegiance to anyone other than America.
Nonsense. A newborn infant doesn't even have the slightest idea of what allegiance *is* ( or even in what country it's currently residing ).
Being born within the U.S., in and of itself, does not bestow allegiance. That is precisely why the 14th Amendment lists two criteria for birthright citizenship : being born within the U.S. AND "subject to the jurisdiction thereof.". It's not simply being born within the U.S.
Thus, the allegiance issue ( for all newborns) is determined through the parents.
The child is a citizen of Mexico the same way an American child is an American no matter where they are born as long as they are the child of two American parents.
They are NOT American. Their parents broke the law, they are here illegally. You keep saying we are "punishing" the child. What about the children of the people who are waiting in line to come here legally. You have punished THEM by forcing them to wait. They have to wait because too many have broken into the line. They wouldn't have to wait so long if it were not for those who pushed them aside and willing broke our laws. Talk about unfair!
The law is as it reads alright, it reads "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and being here illegally they are not subject tot he jurisdiction there of, any more then someone who breaks into your house is subject to your rules. They broke the rules.
We are not depriving them of their citizenship, they are citizens of Mexico.
“The child is a citizen of Mexico the same way an American child is an American no matter where they are born as long as they are the child of two American parents.”
Ok. But if a child is born in Mexico to two American citizens they are Mexican and have American citizenship.
“You keep saying we are “punishing” the child.”
Yes, the proposed law as written has one consequence. The child shall be punished by stripping them of citizenship. It does nothing to the parents, the ones who are responsible, but attacks the innocent.
You might as well mandate that everyone in the country illegally must have an abortion.
“What about the children of the people who are waiting in line to come here legally.”
What about them? They were born in another country.
“You have punished THEM by forcing them to wait.”
I’ve done no such thing. I’ve been a proponent of having no waiting period at all provided that the family pay a fee, and social assistance isn’t available for them, meaning they must work to survive.
It’s people like you who argue that those who want to become Americans must wait according to some arbitrary quota limit established by Woodrow Wilson.
“They have to wait because too many have broken into the line. They wouldn’t have to wait so long if it were not for those who pushed them aside and willing broke our laws. Talk about unfair!”
My family didn’t have to wait, because the policy of the time was that anyone could come to America to settle and live here. Wilson changed all that and lowered an arbitrary quota. You sir are advocating for an outdated and useless immigration policy that neither does what Americans desire in putting an effective limit on immigration, nor does it ensure effective immigration control.
“The law is as it reads alright, it reads “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and being here illegally they are not subject tot he jurisdiction there of, any more then someone who breaks into your house is subject to your rules. They broke the rules.”
The child broke no rules. It’s like being held at gunpoint and sent into a house to rob it. Is the infant child responsible for the break in? No. Do you punish only the child? No. But that is what this policy does. It punishes the only innocent without any consequences for the illegal aliens who committed the crime.
“We are not depriving them of their citizenship, they are citizens of Mexico.”
The child is a citizen of America, through the same way that many do, by being born on American soil.
“NO, this is precisely why it must : the Law simply does not recognize a newborn infant’s ability to make ANY decisions on it’s own behalf separate from it’s parents.”
Why the caveat? The infant can make only decisions in accordance with the parents? The newborn cannot make any decisions whatsoever. Either in favour of America or in favour of Mexico.
The child has known nothing but America, and I see no rationale to deny that the child is anything but American.
“Period. ALL decisions involving the infant must be made on it’s behalf by others; specifically the parents. That’s the way the law has always worked.”
That is not how the law has always worked. The law has been blunt, but clear. You are an American citizen if you are born on American soil. Period. Now you may wish to change the law, but arguing that the child must be born ‘under the jurisdiction’ of America, does not mean what you think it means.
You do realise that birthright citizenship is opposed by the system that came before it, that a certain class of people was not considered to be a citizen of America, simply because of the colour of their skin. That has changed. The inevitable consequence of eliminating the 14th is to bring slavery back to America.
If there are citizens and a class of ‘non-citizens’ who were born in America, who cannot vote, who cannot participate in civil society, then we shall return to the days where not all people are equal. We must gage people based on their actions, not the actions of their parents.
“Nonsense. A newborn infant doesn’t even have the slightest idea of what allegiance *is* ( or even in what country it’s currently residing ).”
Thank you. So the child then cannot be a Mexican.
“Being born within the U.S., in and of itself, does not bestow allegiance. That is precisely why the 14th Amendment lists two criteria for birthright citizenship : being born within the U.S. AND “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”. It’s not simply being born within the U.S.”
Yes, it is simply born within the US. Do you believe that the children of legal immigrants ought to be considered non-citizens? Do you believe that the children born to legal immigrants, who also immigrate with the family ought not to be considered Americans when they take the oath.
There are plenty of alternatives. Arguing that the 14th explicitly prevented birthright citizenship, when that is the entire purpose of the amendment, then I’m not sure what to say. In recognizing the status of everyone born in America, slave or free, they immediately closed the loophole of bringing in slave labour. Labour you seem to wish to see opened again.
Control the borders. Prevent people from getting into America without legal status. Don’t open a massive loophole to the use of undocumented labour.
Legally resident or otherwise, they're certainly "subject to the jurisdiction" of the states, in the sense that the laws of the state apply to them. For example, they can be arrested, tried, and imprisoned for any crime they commit within the borders of that state.
What you're really getting at, is the question of how to interpret the "all persons born" clause, in light of the enumerated power of Congress "to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (Article I, Section 8).
The Constitutional controversy over Congress enacting a "legal residence" requirement would be the fact that the 14th makes no exceptions about birthright citizenship -- it says, simply, "all persons born."
Nevertheless, Congress defined the terms and conditions of birthright citizenship in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, and there have been no Constitutional issues with them doing so. It doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility for them to amend the law to impose a "legality" requirement.
That said, I really don't think that "anchor babies" are as big a problem as they're made out to be. The kids will go where their parents go, and the parents are the ones who are here illegally.
If illegal immigrants can't find work, they won't stick around for long.
Welfare is one part of the demand side of the problem -- the other part being that Americans hire illegals to work for them. Either way, the fact is that illegals come across the border, because Americans are paying them to come across the border.
It's rather surprising to me how many folks only look at the supply side of the problem, and ignore the demand side.
I guess it's a visceral thing -- it seems more satisfying, somehow, to fight the symptom rather than the real cause.
I appreciate your reasoned approach to this discussion -- it's a breath of fresh air.
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.