And take your anchor baby human shields with you!
Posted on 07/17/2007 1:37:54 PM PDT by westcoastwillieg
To buy into this notion of automatic citizenship for children born here of illegal immigrants is to overlook least three points:
1) it ignores the history and intent of the Fourteenth Amendment;
2) it ignores John Locke's social contract and his discussion of tacit consent and sovereignty;
3) it forgets that a person not here legally is not legally here.
Starting with the first point, the 14th Amendment was drafted to make it explicitly clear that two classes of people who were in America legally, but who lacked either citizenship or residency status, would now be citizens. These two classes were American Indians and blacks. The former were here before we arrived, and the latter were brought here against their will.
The man who drafted the citizenship clause of the Amendment, Sen. Jacob Howard, noted that it '... 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.' If the Amendment was not intended to bestow citizenship status on the children of foreigners and aliens who were here legally, it certainly was not meant to confer citizenship status on those born here out of an illegal presence.
To ignore Sen. Howard's intentions about who is entitled to citizenship by birth is to reject a constructionist interpretation of the Constitution and to adopt the expansive view of the late Chief Justice Earl Warren. To do that, Justice William O. Douglas said, relies on 'penumbras formed by emanations'. His quote was in reference to other loose interpretations of the 14th Amendment by the Warren Court.
The second point goes back to John Locke and his Two Treatises of Government. Locke's theories were well known to the founders. He said that when in a state of society one chooses to live under a government, he gives his tacit consent to obey the laws of that government. He further said that 'foreigners, by living ... under another Government ... are bound even in Conscience, to submit to its Administration' (emphasis in original).
When foreigners enter our country illegally, they have rejected the principle of tacit consent forthwith. They have demonstrated that they have no intention of obeying the laws of our government. They have refused to 'submit to its administration', much less to recognize our sovereignty. Further rejecting Locke's state of society, they do not 'consent with others' to put themselves 'under an obligation to every one of that society', but rather demand that society has an obligation (citizenship for their children) to them. This is a complete reversal of Locke's arguments for the social contract.
Lastly, in the eyes of the law, they have no legal presence. Therefore, none of their deeds has legal status. Even though they are physically here, they are not legally here. Even though they physically give birth here, they do not legally give birth here. Since no legal birth can occur, there can be no legal status conferred upon the child born of that legal non-event.
Certainly illegal immigrants are entitled to due process under the 14th Amendment in terms of deportation hearings and criminal proceeding. To expand that - - to mean that their children are deserving of citizenship in contradistinction to the words of the author of that clause - - is folly. for strict constructionists, one cannot get there from here."
Which one?
And take your anchor baby human shields with you!
I think it would be simplest to treat such children as naturalized. TThe only real disability is inelligibility for the presidency. But, heck, John Peter Altgeld was 3 years old when he was brought to America by his parents. In justice, does any child born to other foreiengers deserve more?
I didn’t say the Supremes couldn’t do it, I just don’t see that happening.
Isn't that the situation as it stands right now? Except no one is being deported and more continue to come here to have their children.
In any case, he doesn't go far enough. Which is to say he does not solve the problem for all time.
He could not possibly have anticipated the more complex immigration laws and controls imposed in the twentieth century.
Isn't this the guy who invented political corruption in Illinis?
Nobody saw Brown v. Board of Education coming either ~ except the civil rights movement second echelon folks. The leaders made noises but they didn’t really think it would happen ~ then it did.
How can you not be if you're illegal?
That phrase was intended to exclude children of foreign diplomats or foreign soldiers on US soil (and also Indians). If you want to argue that illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction, well, then they wouldn't be illegal, would they? And, not having jurisdiction, the US would lack the authority to deport them.
Except children born to foreign diplomats or occupying armies or certain Indians. That's why they added the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction [of the US]". There's not a lot of wiggle room in that language.
However 100% of all Mexican nationals, whatever their status in the United States, are entitled to consult with their consulate WHEN we prosecute them for crimes.
They never really leave Mexico's jurisdiction ~ undoubtedly other bi-lateral treaties with other countries have similar provisions.
This doesn't mean the US doesn't have jurisdiction, but it's a shared jurisdiction, and we might find the USSC quite happy to parcel it out in different ways for any number of purposes.
No doubt some poor staff guy in some obscure (but otherwise infinitely powerful) office in the immigration apparatus is already tasked with the question I have raised.
His work may never see the light of day.
This only shows you that there are laws on the books now that explain in detail many issues the propagandist, progressive, revisionist, pc liberal skunks choose to ignore and write in thier own interpretive bill to blind side the American people. One tactic disgusts me is the hiding of certain bills within a vital one such as the military funding for our boys! These unpatriotic selfish UnAmerican weasels need to know the full strength of the American voter! don’t you think?
That's a really good point.
We are all stumbling around this thing and it has already been commented on by the Supreme Court! This is the actual text of their commentary on the actual meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" which the libs all wanna scream about but the SC commentary is what they never talk about.
It is in regards to the 14th amendment case which examined the issue of equal protection. Specifically, weather the State of Texas can legally withhold funds to schools to cover the extra costs of education illegal alien children and children of illegal aliens.
If one actually reads the entirety of Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 the question of "birthright NON-citizenship"is right there.
News/Activism 06/23/2007 10:01:07 AM CDT · 97 of 104
“...subject to the jurisdiction thereof" Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202
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 OF 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
*************
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.
Very clear and very simple. And it has been there all along.
But the libs are really good a pushing a catch phrase and "subject to the jurisdiction" from the 14th amendment is it on this issue.
Why? If they are born and raised here, what's the difference between them and any other U.S. citizen?
Once someone immigrates to the United States for the purpose of living and working here on a permanent basis, learns the language, obeys the law, and "assimilates himself to us" (T. Roosevelt)--why then should we continue to treat him (and his children) as foreigners?
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.
I will agree that the "appellees" in Plyler v. Doe are of Mexican origin and citizenship.
The second sentence does seem to imply that the class of appellees in the case includes children of illegal aliens who are born on U.S. territory. There are two ways I can read this:
(1) The class of appellees consists of children born on U.S. soil who are of Mexican origin (but may hold U.S. citizenship) and children born on Mexican soil who hold Mexican citizenship and are of Mexican origin.
(2) The class of appellees consists of children who all are of Mexican origin and hold Mexican citizenship.
I would have to read the surrounding context of these two sentences to definitively say something, but your argument is quite compelling.
too bad this his words here weren't documented in the constitution.
What makes it compelling (to me) is an entire sitting Bench of SC Justices never mentioned any distinction between children brought to the US by illegal aliens and children of illegal aliens born in the US of illegal alien parents even when they are specifically speaking of children of illegal aliens that were born in the US.
Somehow the excuse of "they all forgot to bring it up" does not pass the smell test with me!
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.