Posted on 06/22/2007 1:26:59 PM PDT by nancyvideo
Most respondents to a UPI-Zogby International poll want to repeal the law granting automatic citizenship to anyone born in the United States. More the half of the overall pool of 8,300 U.S. residents said if parents who are illegal aliens are deported, their children should go with them -- even if they are U.S. citizens
(Excerpt) Read more at rightbias.com ...
YAY, now we can be just like France.
Wait, that’s not a good thing...
LOL
It’s not like it was written by lawyers...oh, wait, it was. =)
That reads to me like children born to parents who are foreign, especially those who are not here legally, should NOT be considered automatic citizens. So when did it get started that they were?
No he did not say "foreigners, aliens, *and* families of" diplomats. He said "foreigners, aliens, families of" diplomats. Without the "and" it means that "foreigners", "aliens", and "children of diplomats" are all referring to the same group. You have to remember he was speaking, not writing, and what we are reading is a transcript. The commas indicate pauses, not separators of a list of separate things, as they would if there was a final "and".
It would have been clearer, but the meaning would not be changed if he had said something like: "foreigners, aliens, that is, families of...".
Sounds like a perfect example of mis-applied commas. Could have been a good example for the book, Eats, Shoots and Leaves
Whatever
WRONG. There does not need to be a conjunction between "foreigners, aliens," and "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers" given the fact that he was speaking, not writing. Right off the bat, the actual number of children born to ambassadors who are visiting the United States constitute such a microscopic percentage of the general population that the prospect of them being given/denied birthright citizenship would make little difference either way. Secondly, visiting ambassadors/foreign ministers have always possessed their own special rights/privileges anyway (diplomatic immunity). No one in the Senate was worried about the prospect of the child of the French Ambassador being granted U.S. citizenship.
What they were worried about was Native American Indians and immigrants. There was a relatively thorough debate as to the dangers of reading the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” phrase too broadly. Senator Lyman Trumbull, who was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, at one point specifically said during a debate,
"[I]t is very clear to me that there is nothing whatever in the suggestions of the Senator from Wisconsin. The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' Now does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajo Indians are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them. … It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government [tribe] that he is 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.' … It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens."
It's fairly obvious that Trumball and his fellow Senators did not intend that the children of illegal immigrants should be rewarded with U.S. citizenship.
Yes I did, in the very next post. I agree with youi; the 14 amendment is fine, as is the rest of the US Constitution.
Talk about a rara avis.
Deport the ILLEGALS and make em take their baby’s with them. Anchor Babies are not a reason to keep the ILLEGALS.
What a heaping load. Take your "Amerika" to DU. The children we're talking about would not be stateless, they would inherit the citizenship of their illegal parents.
" This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, "
Makes sense. The 14th states: "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States" . . . you can't just ignore "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" . . .
Ok, let's just have a good look here...
" The court majority found that the Texas law was "directed against children, and impose[d] its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control" — namely, the fact of their having been brought illegally into the United States by their parents. "
Sorry, but the SC said nothing about the issue of are they or are they not citizens. It refers to Supreme Court of the United States striking down a state statute denying funding for education to children who were illegal aliens. It does NOT say they are citizens.
In fact, it does state the following...
" To be sure, like all persons who have entered the United States unlawfully, these children are subject to deportation. 8 U.S.C. 1251, 1252 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). But there is no assurance that a child subject to deportation will ever be deported. An illegal entrant might be granted federal permission to continue to reside in this country, or even to become a citizen. See, e. g., 8 U.S.C. 1252, 1253(h), 1254 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV)."
Clearly, anchor babies are NOT CITIZENS.
This is made absolutely clear further in the case...
" Children born in this country to illegal alien parents, including some of appellees' siblings, are not excluded from the Texas schools. Nor does Texas discriminate against appellees because of their Mexican origin or citizenship."
This is not saying that Children born in this country to illegal alien parents are U.S. citizens! It is clearly saying that they are MEXICAN CITIZENS.
one more time...
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...
Jacob Howard, 1866
The first section formally defines citizenship and requires the states to provide civil rights.
| “ | Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. | ” |
This represented Congress's reversal of that portion of the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that declared that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all people born in the United States; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment enshrined this principle in the Constitution in order to stop the Supreme Court from ruling it unconstitutional for want of congressional authority to pass such a law, or from a future Congress altering it by a bare majority vote.
The provisions in Section 1 have been interpreted to the effect that children born on United States soil, with very few exceptions, are U.S. citizens. This type of guarantee—legally termed jus soli, or "right of the territory"— does not exist in most of Western Europe, Asia, India, Sri Lanka or the Middle East, although it is part of English common law and is common in the Americas.
However, the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof indicates that there are some exceptions to the universal rule that birth on U.S. soil automatically grants citizenship. The following persons born in the United States are not considered "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]", and thus do not qualify for automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment:
The following persons born in the United States are explicitly citizens:
The Supreme Court's ruling in Plyler v. Doe[3] stated that illegal immigrants are "within the jurisdiction" of the states in which they reside, and added in a footnote that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." Some legislators, reacting to illegal immigration, have proposed that this be changed, either through legislation or a constitutional amendment. If the Supreme Court adheres to current interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment, then it may be that only an amendment would be effective to bar the children of illegal immigrants from citizenship, although Plyler did not explicitly address the question of children born in the United States to illegal aliens or other non-citizens; the children dealt with in Plyler were born outside the U.S.
The Fourteenth Amendment does not explicitly provide any procedure for loss of United States citizenship. Loss of U.S. citizenship is possible only under the following circumstances:
Children born in this country to illegal alien parents, including some of appellees' >>> siblings,<<< (thus including them as “appellees”) are not excluded from the Texas schools. Nor does Texas discriminate against appellees because of their Mexican origin or citizenship.
In other words the appellees children (siblings) are also considered appellees in the case and the appellees of the case are Mexican citizens.
So if the “anchor babies” aren’t legally entitled to citizenshp is it a matter of enforcing our citizenship laws then?
Actively barring them from voter registration, social security numbers etc?
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.