Citizens, All

Washington Post ^ | 11/12/5

[Crackingham]

Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) has a bold idea to stop illegal immigration: Deny automatic citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants. "There is general agreement about the fact that citizenship in this country should not be bestowed on people who are children of folks who come into this country illegally," he told the Washington Times. General agreement? Perhaps among Mr. Tancredo's friends in the House but not among the framers of the 14th Amendment. Indeed, any such modern consensus would have a small problem in the text of the Constitution, which is, inconveniently for anti-immigrant demagogues, not subtle on the point. The 14th Amendment begins: "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." Not "all persons except children of illegal immigrants," not "all persons except those Congress exempts in moments of nativism." All persons.

How does Mr. Tancredo propose to get around this language? Like diplomats, illegal immigrants are not truly subject to American jurisdiction, he contends, and their children therefore don't satisfy the constitutional test for birthright citizenship.

The Supreme Court rejected this thesis more than a century ago. "Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States," the court wrote. Diplomats, as a consequence of the lack of jurisdiction Mr. Tancredo would extend to aliens, cannot be arrested or charged with crimes. Is that what Mr. Tancredo has in mind for illegal immigrants? Members of Congress ought not follow him on this ugly and fruitless path.

[ketelone]

Thats hardly a reason to emulate anything. I could point out a million things that the Europeans do, that the United States (thank god) does not. Thats what makes this a much better place than europe.

I dotn agree with Tancredo on this one. If youre born in the United States, youre American, period. No matter what the circumstances of your birth.

[Bommer]

The 14th Amendment begins: "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." Not "all persons except children of illegal immigrants," not "all persons except those Congress exempts in moments of nativism." All persons.

How does Mr. Tancredo propose to get around this language?

Same way you liberal idiots get around this one:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[R.W.Ratikal]

I am all for stopping illegal immigration. But to deny citizenship to those born in this country is not only wrong, it is impossible. Anyone born in America is, by definition, a native American and is automatically entitled to citizenship.

What makes it wrong is that the illegal parents are here in the first place, and that the newcomer and its family are immediately plugged into the welfare system and taken on the backs of the rest of the country.

Immigration reform should include:

1. Deport all illegal aliens if it takes ten years.

2. Build an electronic wall along all of our borders.

3. Deny Constitutional protection to non-citizens.

4. Deny welfare benefits to illegal aliens.

5. Require all applicants for citizenship to prove that they are able and willing to assimilate, speak, read and write English, and possess the education and skills needed to be self-reliant.

6. Restore immigration quotas to pre-1970 numbers.

[andyk]

Thanks, you saved me the trouble of citing the Slaughterhouse case, along with finding the original debate materials. I'd be interested in knowing what case they're citing.

[Carry_Okie]

I'd be interested in knowing what case they're citing.

[WatchingInAmazement]

See post #15. The statute was NEVER meant for those crossing our borders illegally.

[HiJinx]

Interesting. Carry_Okie has again posted the particulars at #15 that the press blithely choose to ignore. And so, the 'debate' continues.

FWIW, IMO I don't agree with conferring citizenship on anchor babies.

[MamaTexan]

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

(sigh)

Everyone insists on putting more into this sentence than is actually there.

The United States does NOT mean the entire country...if it did, the additional qualifier of 'and of the State wherein they reside' would be redundant, but it's not.

The *United States* and it's jurisdiction is defined by Article I, Section 8,paragraph 17:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

__________________________________________________

Even though the extent of the United States is CAREFULLY outlined in the Constitution, NO politician or anyone else in the federal government will EVER admit to it. To do so would greatly diminish governmental control.

"When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
– Thomas Jefferson

_________________________

Oh.... and claiming to be a *US citizen* is not necessarily a good thing:

"... a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that `citizen' means `citizen of the United States,' and not a person generally, nor citizen of a State ..."
U.S. Supreme Court in US v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542:

______________________________________________________________________

The US Supreme Court in Logan v. US, 12 SCt 617, 626:
"In Baldwin v. Franks ... it was decided that the word `citizen' .... was used in its political sense, and not as synonymous with `resident', `inhabitant', or `person' ..."

______________________________________________________________________

14 CJS section 4 quotes State v. Manuel 20 NC 122:
"... the term `citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government."

______________________________________________________________________

125 Fed 322, 325:
"The thirteenth amendment is a great extension of the powers of the national government."

______________________________________________________________________

U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794:
"The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution"

______________________________________________________________________

Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520:
"... the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not be protected from state action by the privileges and immunities clause" [of the fourteenth amendment]

[blackie]

Protect our borders and coastlines from all foreign invaders!

Support our Minutemen Patriots!

Be Ever Vigilant ~ Bump!

[thoughtomator]

Until I see a solid argument otherwise, I will maintain the position that it is perfectly Constitutional - and more than that, proper - to deny citizenship to the US-born children of illegals. Illegal aliens, by entering this nation in felonious violation of our law, by their own actions deny the jurisdiction of the United States. They cannot then justly claim that very same jurisdiction as a basis for citizenship for their children.

[brytlea]

which is, inconveniently for anti-immigrant demagogues, not subtle on the point.

After I read this sentence, I didn't really need to go any further.....

susie

[brytlea]

THank you. Very clear.
susie

[Col Freeper]

Excellent Post.

Thanks.

I learn something new here at FR everyday.

[azhenfud]

"How does Mr. Tancredo propose to get around this language?"

The same as how the Second Amendment is prostituted by federal and state firearms controls, or as Campaign Finance Reform restrictions infringe upon the First Amendment rights of free speech, or as property tax laws allow seizure of property without just compensation crossgraining the Fifth Amendment.

The key? "subject to the jurisdiction". No citizen birthright certification ought to be issued without first one parent present their own birth certificate and/or a certificate of naturalization if issued outside the United States.

IMO, ALL marriage certificates issued to illegals ought also be voided whether the other is a legal resident or not. That "legal" person ought be prosecuted for aiding and abetting an illegal alien's stay.

[junta]

Liberals are taking alot on with this since so many instances of fraud exist to make this a ten ton millstone about their necks.

[junta]

You must be in some trance not to realize we are being had.

[rmlew]

The Constitution and its associated essays on the 14th is quite clear. We cannot violate it, but use the process to change it. Propose an Admendment and have Congress pass it and the states ratify it. Let us not act like liberals.

When the text of the Constitution, Ammendments, or laws are unclear or debated, one must look at the intent and words behind the law.
Please see post 15.
To accept a false interpretation of an Ammendment to the Consitution is to damage the document. Thus Congress is under no olbigation to hold that children of illegal aliens or any aliens are citizens.

[planekT]

I'll have to read the post again and the related links later, but a question comes to my mind.

If two U.S. citizens (or let's say even just one of the parents is a U.S. citizen) have a baby born abroad, is that child automatically considered a citizen of the United States?

I would think that the child would be a U.S. citizen. It would seem funny to me if the child were not.

This is how I think it should work. In other words, a child born of citzens of Mexico should be considered a citizen of Mexico as well. A child inherits the family name, fortunes, etc. But the family cannot pass on what it does not have, in this case, citizenship which does not belong to either parent.

If the U.S. were invaded by an army from abroad, would children born of that army while hostily on U.S. soil be a U.S. citizen? That wouldn't make much sense.

[Carry_Okie]

If two U.S. citizens (or let's say even just one of the parents is a U.S. citizen) have a baby born abroad, is that child automatically considered a citizen of the United States?

Yes.

This is how I think it should work. In other words, a child born of citzens of Mexico should be considered a citizen of Mexico as well. A child inherits the family name, fortunes, etc. But the family cannot pass on what it does not have, in this case, citizenship which does not belong to either parent.

Here is the key distinction: The parents need to be naturalized to be citizens and so should their children, born here or not. The child of naturalized parents may choose to become an American citizen at the age of majority, but must himself go through the same process as the foreign born.

Frankly, I wish it were the case that even native born citizens went through a process requiring a commitment to gain full voting rights. The current practice of offering voting rights to the insane or the mentally incompetent must end. There are supposedly cases wherein the nurses hold up photographs of candidates in front of the patients and supposedly write down whatever person the patient supposedly preferred.

[Fee]

Thank you for the post. I was always taught that if you are born on US soil, you automaticly are a US citizen. Where did this interpretation of the 14th Admend come from?