Citizenship-By-Birth Faces Challenges

NPR ^ | 5/25/2010 | Alan Greenblatt

[MamaTexan]

sfl

Would you care to elaborate?

[Tennessee Nana]

legislation has been introduced in Congress and a pair of states to deny birth certificates to babies born of illegal-immigrant parents
_____________________________________________

about time...

[dennisw]

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

[stephenjohnbanker]

Godspeed to Pearce!

[phockthis]

save for later

[MamaTexan]

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. :-)

[HiJinx]

Ping!

[itsahoot]

So are the Muslims, illegal or not.

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.

[itsahoot]

Arizona’s rep Russell Pearce just might get that case going if his law passes

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.

[jamese777]

“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.”

---

And yet from 2007 until 2009 a Muslim was United States Ambassador to the United Nations, Dr. Zalmay Mamozy Khalilzad. Go figure.
I don’t know whether he ever denounced Sharia Law or not.

[Travis McGee]

Exactly correct. They ARE invaders!

[Condor51]

Thanks for the (((((ping)))).
I'm taking 'a break' after working 21 days straight and staring at 4:00 am today :-)

Now as to the article I belive this part is 100% wrong:

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'.

[lucysmom]

Ever wonder why they say taxes are 'voluntary'? Because we voluntarily claim to be citizens of the United States

That doesn't make any sense.

[Non-Sequitur]

“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.”

Only if you reach the absurd conclusion that an invading army is subject to our laws.

[MamaTexan]

That doesn't make any sense.

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.

[omegadawn]

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)

[Yosemitest]

And here's the worst invader of them all.

Let's get rid of this invader, first.

[lucysmom]

People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 342 (1870

I would be grateful if you would provide a link.

Thank you.

[MamaTexan]

I would be grateful if you would provide a link.

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.

[IronJack]

The two meanings are not opposite. The first has a compound modifier (born in the boundaries of the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) while the other has a simple predicate nominative (they ... are subject). But that's not relevant.

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.