Posted on 12/04/2007 11:29:33 AM PST by yorkie
Arizona voters may be asked to decide whether to prohibit the state from issuing birth certificates to children of non-U.S. citizens and require hospitals to check the citizenship of parents of newborns.
Those are key provisions of a proposed initiative filed Friday for possible inclusion on the November 2008 ballot, and a leading legislative critic of illegal immigration says he plans similar but separate legislation to take the issue to voters.
Della Montgomery, the woman who filed the proposed initiative with the Secretary of State's Office, did not immediately return a call for comment Monday, but the proposed “Birthright Citizenship Alignment Act” appears to be aimed at illegal immigration. “They are awarding the full privileges of United States citizenship of all persons born in the state without regard for the clear and equal requirements of federal law that a person born in the United States, shall citizenship be bestowed, shall not be subject to any foreign power and owe direct and immediate allegiance to the United States,” the proposed initiative's declaration of purpose states.
Some critics of illegal immigration contend that the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment has been misapplied and was never intended to automatically grant citizenship to babies of illegal immigrants.
The constitutional provision was enacted after the Civil War and was meant to apply to former slaves, said Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa. “It has nothing to do with aliens.”
Supporters of the proposed initiative would need to submit signatures of at least 153,365 voters by July 3 to qualify the measure for the ballot, while legislative approval alone would be enough to put a referendum being drafted by Pearce on the ballot.
While generally banning issuance of birth certificates to non-citizens, the measure would permit one to be issued to a child whose mother is a foreign citizen and whose father is a U.S. citizen if the father formally acknowledges parentage and agrees in writing to financially support the child until adulthood.
The initiative also would require that hospitals submit “certified documentation of the parents' United States legal status” to local registrars with birth certificates for newborns.
Tourists are not citizens.
The referendum is perfectly valid under the original intent and clear meaning of the 14th Ammendment as written. It is illegal under the leftist re-interpretation of the 14th Amendment now prevailing even with some conservatives.
You are either saying that -
a. All Americans arrested for drug possession in Turkey or Vietnam (etc.) surrender their American citizenship upon arrest. Or -
b. All illegals on US soil gain dual citizenship upon arrest. Or -
c. The spoils of a crime are legally the property of the criminal and cannot be seized or otherwise withheld. Or -
d. All illegal aliens should be kept on their side of the border and never allowed to enter our space unless we are willing to adopt them.
Which?
PS: NO one is 'subject to jurisdiction of the USA' under the well intended purpose unless that person was born here, naturalized and sworn to renounce allegiance to any foreign potentate (slight problem for Catholics - presumably resolved by JFK), or brought here and held as chattel (meaning, POW's and guerrillas don't count), against their will and due to the action or inaction of the US government.
So far we might agree (only) on the 'inaction of the US government' part.
You are correct. The idea of women crossing the border illegally, giving birth, and then claiming citizenship status for their children is ludicrous. The idea that the framers of the 14th Amendment intended such a thing is preposterous. They simply took it as a given that anyone giving birth in our nation has a right to be here.
People need to start using common sense and stop using Political Correctness when interpreting the Constitution. Does the 14th Amendment “Equal Protection Clause” guarantee a right to same-sex “marriage”? Of course it doesn’t. The amendment’s framers never imagined such an absurdity. Nor did they imagine the birthright citizenship to illegal aliens absurdity.
If V-DARE is a racist/white supremacist site, why do they carry Michelle Malkin’s columns? Why does black conservative Terry Anderson link to them?
V-DARE’s tame compared to the overt racism of groups such as La Raza and MeCHA.
It isn’t SCOTUS telling the states, it’s the Constitution.
Obviously the mods agreed with me.
The above was meant for you.
This is so clear to you? You’re clearly wrong. Take a look at these two for starters.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm18.cfm
See page 384 and 385 of the following book by Edwin Meese.
The Fourteenth Amendment was written for one purpose only to grant citizenship to slaves through the Constitution. That is clear. While doing this it laid out who was to be considered a citizen. For 40 years it was applied properly. Then the living document people came in and changed the meaning of subject to the jurisdiction.
They changed it from meaning truly subject to the jurisdiction which meant without owing allegiance to or without being subject to any other foreign nation, to meaning partially subject to the jurisdiction which meant you could still be subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign nation as long as you are subject to US laws. That misreading changed the whole meaning of the amendment. Some, not understanding the clause, leave it out entirely believing that there is only one requirement to become a citizen — being born on US soil. If that were the case, they would never have added the clause. The subject to clause was not part of the original amendment. It was added so that no one subject to the jurisdiction of another sovereign nation could be considered a citizen of the US.
Praise God for Arizona. I have been waiting for a state or some local government to finally challenge this decision to grant citizenship without having full allegiance to the US. You can never tell about these living document people though. They’ll twist anything to get the reading they want. But if the justices believe in returning to the original intent of those who created the amendment, there will be a permanent end to birthright citizenship.
I too believe in returning to the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. But I am fearful of any retroactive application. As a descendant of slaves, I don’t have to worry about anyone in my family. But I’m sure there are many who cannot say that.
I wonder how they would handle retroactive enforcement. Would people be required to research their roots to find out who was legal and who was not or would people just have to prove their parents are citizens. It could really be a nightmare for some.
I can see how you would feel that way.
That doesn’t answer the questions I asked. BTW, Professor Carol Swain of Vanderbilt, a brilliant black conservative, is also a favorite at V-DARE. She’s produced some excellent materials on the negative impact of illegal immigration on the black community and her works are often cited there.
What was supposedly racist about the material that was deleted? I never even saw it.
I think it would be enough if we just returned to the original intent of the 14th Amendment. I don’t think anyone would attempt to apply it retroactively if we did so. Clearly the authors of the amendment were not in their wildest imagination intending to give citizenship to babies born to women who are here illegally. What has happened is that the amendment is vague in some ways, and phrases which meant “x” in the 1860s have been interpreted to mean “y” today.
A good example would be the “equal protection clause”. It didn’t give blacks or women the vote. It took a separate amendment (15th) to give the vote to blacks and another one (19th) fifty years later for women. But courts today claim that that clause requires the Citadel to admit women. That’s an interpretation based on an ideological reading of that clause, not on the actual meaning of it. The actual purpose of that clause was to give the freed slaves equal access to the courts, not to require that any and all government policies must treat everyone “equally”.
Obviously - the point I was making is that even tourists are subject to US jurisdiction when they are on US soil - thus children who are actually born on US soil are subject to US jurisidiction as well.
First of all, I have given you the original meaning.
Second, ex post facto law is unconstitutional.
The US concludes different diplomatic agreements with every country.
When the US and a foreign country recognize each other and agree to exchange ambassadors/consuls, etc. there is a formal agreement/treaty between the State Department and the other country.
There is no single blanket treaty or agreement governing our relationship with all the governments we recognize.
right, yeah, sure
CNN will only pose this question to one party...
Don’t you think the framers of the 14th Amendment meant something a little more narrow when they wrote the phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? Surely they didn’t mean that if a fugitive from a foreign country crosses our border while pregnant, and fleeing from the law, happens to give birth, her baby is a U.S. citizen. If you follow this kind of reasoning it creates a paradox. If we arrest illegal aliens, then they must be “subject to U.S. jurisdiction”. The only we they wouldn’t be subject to our jurisdiction would be if we didn’t arrest them, deport them, or legislate against them in any way.
Who was it who once said the Constitution isn’t a suicide pact? They must have noticed nonsense such as this. This “broad interpretation” of the citizenship clause means we can’t legally protect our borders without giving status to anchor babies. Does that sound like something 19th century Americans would be stupid enough to support? (Granted, there are plenty of Americans today stupid enough to support it).
There is no paradox. To be a US citizen you must be both subject to US jurisdiction and born in the US (or naturalized).
This isn't what FC is saying.
Again, the citizenship language of the 14A is a two-parter.
One must not only be under US jurisdiction (as a Mexican arrested in the US is, and like a US citizen arrested in Mexico would be under Turkish jurisdiction) - one must also be born or naturalized in the US as well.
Being under US jurisdiction is only part of what is required for citizenship. It does not in and of itself constitute citizenship.
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.