Posted on 04/06/2006 7:47:53 PM PDT by Porterville
You still miss the point. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not refer to the mere legal jurisdiction of the laws of the United States, as that would be true of virtually any child born in the United States, even the child of Diplomats.
Diplomats are not subject to our laws. They are not subject to our criminal justice system (except possibly in extremely limited circumstances). The worst we can do is send them home. The same is not true of illegals. We can throw illegals in jail (although we don't do that nearly often enough).
In fact, what this article and others have tried to convey with limited success is that the "jurisdiction" referred to is more than mere legal jurisdiction. It is "complete jurisdiction", that is, a singular claim on the loyalty and affection of the individual.
They've had limited success because it's a preposterous argument. It's absurd on its face.
I don't like the law as it stands. We should change it. But those of us who believe in the rule of law know that there's only one way to do that, and it isn't by bending the law to get the result we want.
Of course, everyone physically present within the territorial limits of the United States is to one extent or another subject to the jurisdiction of its laws.
Foreign dignitaries are not. Unless you're willing to stretch the word beyond all meaning.
Since the ratification of the 14th amendement in 1868 has any person who was born in the United States (other than the children of foreign dignitaries)not been a citizen of the United States?
Only a citizen can make a citizen through the process of childbirth.
I know plenty of American citizens who were born while their parents were legal immigrants, but not US citizens.
This article states that:
Only a citizen can make a citizen through the process of childbirth.Offspring of refugees, permanent residents, parolees, and other legal immigrants are not US citizens by birth, according to the author.
Do you think the author is wrong?
Yes I disagree with the author. A legal immigrant declares his subjection to our jurisdiction in the application for immigrant status and by adhering to the terms of that application (e.g. no illegal entry).
His whole argument is based on the premise that:
Only a citizen can make a citizen through the process of childbirthFor instance, look at this paragraph:
The Fourteenth Amendment framers did not recognize as a matter of law that an alien giving birth to a child within the limits United States, is by itself, an act of naturalization on the part of the mother. This is because the naturalization of aliens is a process of rules set forth in naturalization laws, and not something an individual can accomplish through their own acts outside of these rules of law.He does not distinguish between illegal aliens and aliens. He groups all of them together.
He says that the Fourteenth Amendment framers 'did not not recognize as a matter of law that a legal alien giving birth to a child within the limits United States, is by itself, an act of naturalization on the part of the mother.'
Do you see why some Freepers think that the whole article is thin on logic and thick on fallacies?
Yes, I agree that the article is poorly written. However, the challenge to the concept of the anchor baby is sound, even though this article is a terrible example of such a challenge.
For instance, I'll be interested in an historical analysis where you compare the contradictory Supreme Court decisions on this issue, and how it became current settled law that US-born children of illegal aliens are US citizens.
I enjoy your writing style.
I may just do that... I haven't written a blog post since I got my first kitten, so it's about time I put up something new, and it doesn't seem as if anyone has really written any solid analysis of this issue one way or the other.
The Constitution does not grant any rights. It protects them, sometimes it restricts them by granting a power to government, but it does not grant them. In Jefferson's words of the Declaration of Independence, they are "endowed by their Creator". Not all rights are expressly protected either, that's why the put in the ninth amendment.
This article confuses jurisdiction with allegiance, they are hardly the same thing.
Anchor babies are a creation of the law, and the courts, not the 14th amendment.
Even if a child born to illegals is a natural born citizen, it does not follow that the parents should be allowed to stay. They can leave the child with legals, or take it back with them, with the child having the ability to return as a citizen. I know at least two people whose parents did just that, that is return to their home country, with the child eventually returning as a citizen. Both good ones too.
That's a separate issue from the citizenship of the child. I know well to do Mexicans, with no intent of ever living in the US, who come to the US to give birth, which they pay the bills for. They do it not for themselves, but in fear that Mexico might someday descend into left wing chaos (and it could happen if the current PRI candidate gets elected this year, rather than the PAN cannidate (PAN is Fox's party, and Fox is the first President not from PRI since the last revolution). They want their kids to have somewhere to go, their own fate is entirely secondary.
Even if a child born to illegals is a natural born citizen, it does not follow that the parents should be allowed to stay. They can leave the child with legals, or take it back with them, with the child having the ability to return as a citizen. I know at least two people whose parents did just that, that is return to their home country, with the child eventually returning as a citizen. Both good ones too.
This I agree with.
That the baby is a US citizen cannot be denied by any serious reading of the 14th Amendment. But the parents are not citizens, and I do not believe that they should get any rights of residence based on relation to a minor citizen.
Let the baby stay, if it has a resident or citizen guardian. If not, then the baby must return to the parents' country, and may return when he reaches the age of majority.
If the baby has no legal guardian in the US, and the parents are willing to give up their rights to the child, then the child may stay, going to child services for placement with a new family.
Either way, the non-citizen illegals go home.
And I would add teeth to the law, and ban them permanently. They cannot be sponsored eighteen years later by their citizen child. The child, who is blameless, may reap the benefits of citizenship as an adult. The parents, who are criminals, may never do so.
Because there are exceptions, defined by law. Those are the children of diplomats, foreign military, etc. The cases that are cited in the quotes above by the CongressCritters debating the resolution. At the time, but not now, many of the Indian tribes fell into that category as well.
They are, but the child is not. The Child is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The Constitution says the person, not their parents, must be "subject to the jurisdiction". The only children born in the US who are not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the US are those covered by agreements with other countries, such as the children of ambassadors, military personnel, and some other expatriates.
But just because a child is a citizen, does not mean that he/she must be an "Anchor Baby". The status only accrues to the child, not to the parents.
The fact of being born on US soil does not automatically make the child a citizen. If it did there would be no need to add the "and subject to..." qualifier.
I didn't say it did. I'm saying *the child* is subject to the jurisdiction of the US, even if the parents are not. Only in those cases defined or international agreement with the parents country (or equivlaent multi-national agreement), is the child not "subject to the jurisdiction". The case of the Indian tribes is illustrative. Indian tribes were considered semi sovereign entities, and their members were not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, they could not be drafted for example, until the law was changed to make it so. But the law cannot go the other direction, making some group not citizens who heretofore were, that would be a bill of attainder, which is prohibited by the Constitution. Naturalized citizens can individually have their citizenship revoked, for crimes committed or fraud during the naturalization procedure, but natural born citizens cannot. More's the pity as I can think of any number of citizens who richly deserve such a fate. Michael Moore, Alex Baldwin, and several others who promised to leave the country if certain events came to pass, but when they did, reneged on their promise.
I don't think the child is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. A child born to US citizens abroad is a US citizen, and subject to our law, not the law of the nation in which he is born.
See if that holds if a kid born of US citizens, in say Turkey, violates their drug laws. It is not universally true, it depends on the circumstances and the country in question. It is true for children of diplomats, and in most cases US military stationed in a host country.
It's also irrelevant, it's our Constitution that controls, and it clearly states that if the child is born in the US and it, not its parent(s), is subject to the jurisdiction of the US, which it is unless exempted by international agreement with the country of its parents.
In many cases, the child may have duel citizenship if US law (including the Constitutional provision in question) says one thing, and the law of the Country of the Parents says another. I seem to remember that in such cases the child must declare one way or the other by a certain age, but I could be wrong about that.
Spoken like a true, blue socialist of the Peoples Republic of Mass.
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.