.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Posted on 05/27/2010 4:32:12 AM PDT by Altura Ct.
If you're born in the U.S.A., you're an American citizen. Some lawmakers, however, plan to challenge that basic assumption.
In what might be the next great flash point in the nation's ongoing debate about immigration policy, legislation has been introduced in Congress and a pair of states to deny birth certificates to babies born of illegal-immigrant parents.
"Currently, if you have a child born to two alien parents, that person is believed to be a U.S. citizen," says Randy Terrill, a Republican state representative in Oklahoma who is working on an anti-birthright bill. "When taken to its logical extreme, that would produce the absurd result that children of invading armies would be considered citizens of the U.S."
Bills to challenge the fact that citizenship is granted as a birthright in this country have been perennial nonstarters in Congress, although the current legislation has 91 co-sponsors. As with other issues surrounding immigration, however, some state legislatures still might act, if only in hopes of bringing this issue before the Supreme Court.
"That was the primary purpose of the bill, for someone to sue us in federal court, and let's resolve this issue once and for all," says Texas state Rep. Leo Berman, a Republican who has introduced a bill to deny birth certificates to the newborn children of illegal immigrants. "I believe we are giving away 350,000 citizens a year to children born to illegal aliens."
What The Constitution Says
Berman faces an uphill battle. For more than a century, courts have held that citizenship is granted to anyone born within the territory of the United States.
The 14th Amendment, which was ratified in the wake of the Civil War, overturned the Dred Scott decision, clarifying that the children of former slaves were citizens and entitled to constitutional protections: "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."
Since then, courts have made it clear that this applies to the children of American Indians, visiting diplomats and Chinese guest workers, among other groups. The principle of birthright citizenship has never been successfully challenged, according to immigration lawyers.
But the federal courts have never specifically addressed the question of whether children born to those in the country illegally should be entitled to citizenship, says Michael M. Hethmon, general counsel of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, which favors tighter restrictions on immigration and has advised the state legislators on their efforts.
Berman says the 14th Amendment was meant to clarify the status of freedmen and "does not apply to foreigners. The 14th Amendment, which is being used to provide citizenship, is the last thing that should be used."
Subject To What Jurisdiction?
The authors of the 14th Amendment, he argues, intended to make citizenship contingent on allegiance to the country. The congressional debate at the time makes it clear that this did not apply to foreigners, Berman says.
"There cannot be a more total or forceful denial of consent to a person's citizenship than to make the source of that person's presence in the nation illegal," Lino A. Graglia, a professor at the University of Texas law school, wrote in a law review article last year. "This would clearly settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens."
Opponents to granting birthright citizenship often grab hold of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," saying that those in the country illegally are by their nature not subject to the jurisdiction in question, whether it's the U.S. or a particular state.
Many other lawyers say that's a false reading. "Of course they're under our jurisdiction," says Michele Waslin, senior policy analyst with the American Immigration Council, which works to protect the legal rights of immigrants. "If they commit a crime, they're subject to the jurisdiction of the courts."
'Who Is An American?'
Not every nation grants citizenship as a birthright. Sometimes it is an inheritance from one's parents, based more on blood than land.
But challenging the traditional expectation that anyone born within the physical territory of the U.S. is automatically a citizen represents a "major change in a bedrock principle that has lasted for decades," says Karen Tumlin, managing attorney for the National Immigration Law Center, a public interest legal group based in Los Angeles.
"It's a core American belief that those who are born here get integrated into our society, no matter where your parents are from," she says. "This would be an erosion of the core principles about who belongs in this country."
That's precisely the argument opponents of birthright citizenship want to start. If a law denying birth certificates to the children of illegal immigrants passes — and it's written in such a way that it gets argued in federal court, rather than being dismissed out of hand — it will have more of a "galvanizing effect" than the recent passage of a strict anti-immigration law in Arizona, says Hethmon, general counsel of the Immigration Reform Law Institute.
"All the interested parties, which in the case of birthright citizenship includes everyone in the country, would have to respond to it, either supporting it or opposing it," Hethmon says. "Who is an American? If that question can't be answered, it's hard to conceive of a greater constitutional crisis for a democratic republic."
Would you care to elaborate?
legislation has been introduced in Congress and a pair of states to deny birth certificates to babies born of illegal-immigrant parents
_____________________________________________
about time...
Really...nullifying illegal alien birthright is just one righteous Supreme Court decision away. Arizona’s rep Russell Pearce just might get that case going if his law passes
Godspeed to Pearce!
save for later
Ah, thanks.
Not being familiar with all the abbreviations can cause one to come up with a whole host of words to fit the bill. :-)
Ping!
May not be illegal, but for sure can't be citizens without denouncing Islam, because Sharia Law is superior to any manmade law. They can not possibly swear allegiance to the Constitution, and the Flag, because their religion prohibits that.
More likely he will wind up being charged with hate crimes. Nothing will happen to deter this progressive onslaught until we recapture the house and a 61 seat senate, and I don't see that happening, at least not in my lifetime.
“May not be illegal, but for sure can’t be citizens without denouncing Islam, because Sharia Law is superior to any manmade law. They can not possibly swear allegiance to the Constitution, and the Flag, because their religion prohibits that.”
Thanks for the (((((ping)))).Now as to the article I belive this part is 100% wrong:
I'm taking 'a break' after working 21 days straight and staring at 4:00 am today :-)
Since then, courts have made it clear that this applies to the children of American Indians, visiting diplomats and Chinese guest workers, among other groups.
I'm Positive that children of "visiting diplomats" born here are NOT US citizens. As their parent, the 'Diplomat' is NOT under, nor subject to, 'the jurisdiction of the USA'. They are "immune" (exempt) from all our laws and can only be asked to leave the country -- even if they murder a 6 year old boy live on the 10:00 o'clock news.
The same goes for 'adult' children of Diplomats. They can go on crime sprees and nothing can be done as they are also covered by their 'Diplomat' parent's immunity.(1)
So whomever did the research for Alan Greenblatt screwed up. Plus this is from NPR. Those left-wing moonbats would give US Citizenship to Mao, Stalin or Pol Pot.
(1) Would CSI Miami screw up on a fact of law? I don't think so.
They had an episode or two on that subject - of Diplomats and their criminal 'children'.
That doesn't make any sense.
Only if you reach the absurd conclusion that an invading army is subject to our laws.
When they ask are you a citizen of the United States, everyone says 'yes'.
Not that we really are.....it's just the reply our public school educations taught us to give.
The Founders repeatedly used the term Citizen of a State, as have several courts.
From the California Supreme court:
I have no doubt that those born in the Territories, or in the District of Columbia, are so far citizens as to entitle them to the protection guaranteed to citizens of the United States** in the Constitution, and to the shield of nationality abroad; but it is evident that they have not the political rights which are vested in citizens of the States. They are not constituents of any community in which is vested any sovereign power of government. Their position partakes more of the character of subjects than of citizens. They are subject to the laws of the United States**, but have no voice in its management. If they are allowed to make laws, the validity of these laws is derived from the sanction of a Government in which they are not represented. Mere citizenship they may have, but the political rights of citizens they cannot enjoy until they are organized into a State, and admitted into the Union.
[People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 342 (1870]
If you are a State Citizen, you are one of the People and have all you inalienable right attached.
If you claim to be a citizen of the United States, or a 'U.S. citizen', you are a subject, and government tells you what part of your property you get to keep.
Your posting shows exactly what the paroblem is :
The correct wording for the 14 th is Born in the U.S
AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF
Liberals like to use the wording:
THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION.
These two sentences have opposite meaning. In the correct meaning of the 14 th. “SUBJECT” refers to a citizen having allegiance.
Any child born in America with allegiance to America is a citizen. Children of illegals have no allegiance to the U.S.
We were deporting children of illegals until the 1980’s when the INS decided it was too expensive to deport them. At no time was it offically stated that they are Constitutionaly citizens of the U.S. This has only been a unoffical policy by the INS( now ICE)
Let's get rid of this invader, first.
I would be grateful if you would provide a link.
Thank you.
As much as I would like to post the court documents, I have yet to find them in their entirety on the web.
However, the pertinent quote is referenced in "California Jurisprudence," by William M. McKinney, 1922 at footnote #16.
It can be found here at the bottom of page 744 and the beginning of 745.
There are three criteria for being defined as a citizen in the letter of the Fourteenth Amendment:
1) All persons ... born in the United States
2) All persons ... naturalized in the United States
3) All persons ... subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
The first two conditions are OR -- if one, the other, or both are met, the condition applies. Babies born in the United States, regardless of their parentage, qualify under the first condition. The second condition is an AND. It has to be met along with one or both of the previous conditions. Babies born of parents who are in this country illegally are still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Therefore, babies born in the United States, regardless of parentage, are citizens of the United States. That is a syllogistic conclusion that cannot be refuted by logic.
However, it does not take into account the INTENT of the authors of the Amendment, which, arguably, did not confer citizenship on the children of people in the country illegally, or of parents who were not themselves citizens. The courts would have to decide that matter, and precedent has not looked kindly on exclusion.
Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just telling you the realities. The law has little use for wishful thinking.
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.