Posted on 09/30/2005 6:50:15 AM PDT by jagusafr
Groups upset about illegal immigration and some Republican lawmakers say that any reform — such as the one proposed by President Bush — must include a provision to end birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants and temporary workers.
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., who heads a 90-member caucus pushing to tighten immigration laws, has introduced his proposal to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of temporary immigrant workers. He said the provision was vital because immigrants do not want to leave after their visas expire if their children are U.S. citizens.
"The only thing that this kind of change gets you... is stateless people, which doesn't solve any problem," said Cecilia Munoz, vice president for policy at the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights organization.
"This is not a matter of immigration policy, this is a matter of changing who we are fundamentally as a nation," she added.
Spiro said proposals to change the birthright citizenship have been around since the mid-1990s and have never come to fruition.
"It's part now of our entrenched constitutional tradition that all children born in the territory of the United States are deemed citizens at birth," he said.
The tradition dates to English common law, and the right has been ratified through several court decisions, he said.
In addition, the 14th Amendment states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Colorado Rep. Tancredo and others contend that the amendment does not apply to children of illegal immigrants because they are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.
Spiro said the amendment's wording is ambiguous but that the courts would likely strike down any legislation that tried to change the granting of birthright citizenship.
The "anchor baby" issue now has some 8-10 pieces of legislation going on. I heard a list given out this morning on the radio.
Do you have a link for this?
The problem as I see it is the fact that illegals are coming here specifically to have children for the citizenship.
There are two ways I see of dealing with it. Number one is an unlikely constitutional amendment. Number two is what we should be doing but are failing to do and stopping the illegal enties to begin with.
I think it would make a big difference if the only aliens having babies in American hospitals were those who are here legally to begin with.
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
-Jacob Howard, coauthor of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment
I agree with Tancredo that children of illegal immigrants (as well as guest workers/visitors) should not automatically become citizens when born on our soil.
If this is going to be enacted as legislation (and not as an ammendment to the constitution) Congress would need to pass the law and make it not subject to review by the courts ... otherwise it would be found unconstitutional via the 14th ammendment.
I THINK this is his logic....that children born in the U.S. of ILLEGAL immigrants, do NOT have automatic citizenship.
This isn't a new OR unique position in the world.
We are one of the few, in fact, who does allow for this stupidity.
Born here = citizen. PERIOD. Anything less is unacceptable.
Eliminating that standard amounts to a quick fix to a larger problem which shouldn't be there anyway (the welfare state).
Don't f with citizenship. EVER.
"Congress would need to pass the law and make it not subject to review by the courts ... otherwise it would be found unconstitutional via the 14th ammendment."
Congress cannot strip the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction. They would likely hear the case, and rule it unconstitutional.
...but did that make it into the final cut?
Today's Iwon.com daily survey:
Survey for Fri, Sep 30, 2005
Leaky Borders?
According to a report released this week by the Pew Hispanic Center, illegal immigrants to the United States are increasing despite tighter border security and now outnumber foreigners moving to the country legally. Last month, the governors of Arizona and New Mexico declared states of emergency on their borders with Mexico, citing security shortcomings by the federal government. (AP)
How concerned are you about illegal immigration into the United States?
56% - Very concerned
32% - Somewhat concerned
8% - Not very concerned
2% - Not concerned at all
1% - I'm not sure
Foreign military stationed here as well. I don't believe the issue of "jurisdiction" is related to diplomatic immunity, not that you suggested that, so legislation presumably could be crafted granting similar status to temporary workers. Of course, it will be challenged in the courts.
>Born here = citizen. PERIOD. Anything less is unacceptable.
The ammendment granting citizanship to anyone born here was written for the sake of the children of former slaves. Right?
>Congress cannot strip the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction.
>They would likely hear the case, and rule it
>unconstitutional.
I thought Congress had Constitutional oversight of the Supreme Court.
No,
The Constitution gives Congress "control" over courts created by Congress.
Congress can limit the jursidiction of courts it created, and might, under some people's interpetation limit the Supreme Courts APPELLATE jurisdiction.
But the fact that the Supreme Court "shall have ORIGINAL juridiction" is beyond dispute.
That may have been the final initiating event, but culminates a standard presumed and unwritten long before. It was enacted because politically-motivated "keep 'em out" types were twisting the norm; now politically-motivated "keep 'em out" types are trying to get it eliminated so they can twist the norm.
ping
For the fiftieth time, there is a legal difference between being WITHIN the jurisdiction as opposed to being SUBJECT to the jurisdiction.
Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) (USSC+)Second, Senator Jacob Howard, Co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
Opinions
MILLER, J., Opinion of the Court
"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."
The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
Unless one is willing to believe in a "living Constitution," the original meaning of the law is that the children of illegal aliens are NOT legally citizens of the United States of America. Further, given that the Constitution is a limiting document, Congress has no lawful power to declare them to be citizens.
In a word, no. See Post 20.
No matter how much you post that quote or others like myself explain the purpose of the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act there will be those who'll continue to believe the Constitution needs to be changed. As long as Congress and the courts interpret the jurisdiction clause as intended by Jacob Howard no Constitutional amendment is needed to fix the problem with anchor babies.
At the time the amendment was approved, the author of the clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard, said the phrase relating to jurisdiction meant, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners...." ...In subsequent years, the courts invalidated the assurances of Howard; at this stage, an amendment to the Constitution seems the only means available to change the law...
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/003368.html
I agree with your assessment of the first option. I feel that a Constitutional Amendment is unlikely and I have little confidence that the courts will uphold any law that limits birthright citizenship.
I also agree with your second option which is to stop the illegals.
But there is a third option which is not perfect but which would help a lot which is to reform our laws for family reunification. There is nothing in the Constitution that says an anchor baby or any other new citizen has a right to sponsor his parents into America and in many cases put them on the taxpayer dole.
We should make family reunification for spouse and minor children easier then the ridiculous process we have now but we should eliminate family reunification for parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters and cousins. This type of legal immigration often brings in people that contribute little and burden us a lot. It would not solve the anchor baby problem but it would make an anchor baby a lot less valuable to an illegal parent because it would not be a ticket to citizenship 21 years in the future. It would also end chain migration where whole primitive tribal societies (who are all interrelated and qualify for family reunification) end up migrating to America.
I think you've got it right.
I am not convinced the courts would agree with you.
I am resigned to that, however annoyed. I heard Michael Savage blather the same stupid claim yesterday, having already emailed him the same information.
The term, "foreign subjects," is apparently beyond the modern ken.
Of course not, which speaks volumes about their sense of judicial entitlement, of which, unfortunately, Justice Roberts is an apparent adherent.
Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., who heads a 90-member caucus pushing to tighten immigration laws, has introduced his proposal to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of temporary immigrant workers
Good post.
I think you know as well as I do, that the plain language of the Constitution is quite often not the controlling factor in the courts decision.
Even Scalia has no problem with ignoring the plain language if that is what it takes to get the result that he wants.
Much to our detriment.
Even Scalia has no problem with ignoring the plain language if that is what it takes to get the result that he wants.
Rare but true. In his defense, however, is a body of plainly contradictory constitutional language between the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and the Fourteenth. You might find this article interesting in that regard.
Yeah, well the tension between the ninth and tenth isn't going away anytime soon. Even if one accepts incorporation of amendments 1 through 8 completely, the ninth and tenth would present a problem. Some will even say that they are mutually exclusive.
As Carry_Okie's omnipresent post shows, you have no idea what you're talking about.
If we agree with your notion, then we accept colonization as legitimate - any foreign power could simply push as many people as they can across our borders, let nature and the U.S. welfare state take its course - and Voila! They run the country, as long as they can run an active program to maintain group loyalty to them and their nationality.
Which is precisely what Mexico is doing!!!
The fact is, "Counselor", the status of the children of illegal aliens has never been adjudicated at the highest level, except peripherally - such as in Hamdi:
and
Let us all know where the former Attorney General's logic is faulty in this brief, since he disagrees with your interpretation, or rather lack of it.
Note that he starts off by correctly interpreting "all men are created equal", which means "no man is born a king", not "everyone on the planet is an American 'cuz we're all equal, but 'specially 'cuz my mommy had me in a Border Patrol helicopter".
This point is rather central to the whole idea of American nationhood. Casually dropping it in favor of Mexico's expansionist territorial dreams is just a little dangerous.
They are, unless all we want States to be is administrative districts of Federal courts.
We are already half-way there, I suppose. I rather like the balancce that is being struck now.
Stupid ass, they aren't stateless. Their illegal Mexicans taking over America with the aid of their friendly penises, and our "free" health care system.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
And:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
One of the objections to the Bill of Rights was that it was redundant - the government only had those powers granted to it by the Constitution, so if they weren't granted the authority to infringe on those rights listed in the Bill of Rights, those rights were protected by default. Madison (IIRC) feared that enumerating certain rights would lead people to believe that those were the only rights protected, leading to an expansive view of governmental authority. Hence the 9th amendment - "just because it isn't listed here, doesn't mean it isn't a right". But the Constitution only applied to the federal government. Thus, while the 9th made it clear the federal government could not infringe on a right just because it wasn't listed in the Bill of Rights, it shouldn't be taken to mean that the States themselves were prohibited from restricting those rights (or, if the States so desired, leaving those rights to the people).
I'm no expert on Constitutional law, but the two amendments seem perfectly compatible to me.
Free exercise and the right to free assembly have been gutted in favor of a distorted establishment clause. Just compensation for regulatory asset depreciation is non-existent, while just compensation for the value of bonds is a done deal.
I don't like the system because an expensive, slow, and whimsical single-point decision-making architecture is structurally incapable of the array of competing claims and risks it purports to adjudicate. That's why we had Federalism, where natural law competition moderated such variation.
I was referring to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in conflict with the Fourteenth.
Protect our borders and coastlines from all foreign invaders!
Support our Minutemen Patriots!
Be Ever Vigilant ~ Bump!
Sorry about that. From JusticeForAll76's post, it seemed the two of you believed the 9th and 10th themselves were in conflict.
As to the 14th, I've always assumed an amendment implicitly overrode any existing clauses that were in conflict.
Personally, I am happy with the current establishment clause/free exercise jurisprudence.
THe rest of your post went right over my head.
You would deny people the right to assemble in a city that conforms to their moral and religious preferences and force them to admit residents whose expressed intent is to destroy that amity. Is that right?
As opposed to federally enforced compliance to secularly-determined uniformity, how are we then to learn what moral principals are most constructive to liberty if such true diversity is not permitted?
I don't think you've thought this through.
"You would deny people the right to assemble in a city that conforms to their moral and religious preferences and force them to admit residents whose expressed intent is to destroy that amity. Is that right?"
A "city" is public. Of course I say that a "city" must admit anyone. (Providing, of course, that they are law abiding.
I am completely free to associate with like minded people, and I have never heard of any government attempt to deny anyone that right.
Traditions don't mean squat senor. You've got a country and you need to go back home. What part of "you're NOT welcome here" don't you people understand?
Then you are dead set against the founders' vision of religious liberty. In your world there would be no Mennonites, no Oneida, and no Amana.
To the founders, you are a tyrant.
In my world, there are Mennonites, Hassidic Jews etc.
There seem to thrive here.
See, this is the kind of thing that the constitution SHOULD be amended to fix. It's an obvious loophole. It was never intended that Mexico would come here and drop millions of anchor babies. It's something that needs to change. What's the deal today. Are there just too many people to effectively change the constitution? Because if that's the case we need to be seriously looking at a different form of government. I'm all ears.
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.