Skip to comments.Are The Children Of The Russian Agents U.S. Citizens???
Posted on 07/11/2010 8:49:50 PM PDT by Lmo56
Ive been trying to figure this out
The 14th Amendment declares that anyone born in the US and under its jurisdiction is a citizen. But what about the children of the Russian spies, are they citizens?
Those that claim that they are citizens say that the 14th Amendment declares it so and that the only exceptions to U.S. jurisdiction are the children of ambassadors and children of enemies. But these childrens parents did not fall under those exceptions. They were not ambassadors [or have diplomatic immunity], nor is Russia a declared enemy of the U.S. They just did not properly register with the U.S. as Russian agents. Thus, the parents were illegal aliens.
If the government decides that the children of the Russian agents are not citizens because of this lack of proper registration, then are anchor babies of illegal aliens [mostly Hispanic] also not citizens? Their parents also have not registered with the U.S.
Why do I suddenly start to think about Clinton FBI files?
Using the logic of the illegal Immigration Crowd,YES.
They are as much citizens as those kids that have mothers who cross the Rio Grande and go straight to a US maternity ward and give birth.
Per the liberal definition, anyone who ever thought about visiting the US is an American citizen.
These kids have American birth certificates — does Obama?
I am SURE those kids are Americans. And effectively when they deported those spies, they deported those kids.
Just what we need..!!
No, foreign spies are unregistered agents of a foreign country and their children would not be 14th Amendment citizens.
Illegal aliens are...well, they have no status, and are breaking the law. Yet their kids are US citizens if born here.
These kids have social security numbers and may even have US passports. Will the Justice Department, even if the kids are white, risk getting bad press if it tries to revoke these kid’s US citizenship?
So, my point is that without proper registration [and permission of the U.S. government] to be in the United States, are illegal Hispanic aliens defacto "spies" or "enemies"?
Seems to me that if the United States does not have the parents officially registered, then they do not have de facto jurisdiction. And by jurisdiction, I mean the obligation to afford those parents [and their children] the privileges of the State [other than humanitarian].
Not disagreeing, just want to know how you back that position up. For my education and potential usage.
Yes - they’re anchor babies.
Makes one think that maybe that law should be changed, doesn’t it?
Yes, if they were born here, they are American citizens.
Hmmm....14th Amendment discussion from a slightly different angle.
If they were acting as agents of the Russian government and deported rather than tried, then they are immune, therefore not under the jurisdiction thereof, and neither would their children be.
Gosh..by deporting the parents, you’d think they were BREAKING UP FAMILIES, wouldn’t you?
Gosh how sad.......
How might we remedy policy to be more CONSISTENT? How might we change things around so that it’s less ad-hoc...?
Some of the Russian agents were naturalized U.S. citizens and were stripped of their citizenship prior to being shipped back to Russia. Ostensibly because they never registered as foreign agents of Russia.
My point is that they never were legally recognized to be in the country in the first place - therefore, there should be no jurisdiction as pertains to the privilege of their children being born U.S. citizens.
And the same would go to all illegal aliens [which the Russians were]. Registration with the government is a requirement to be in the U.S. and to enjoy its benefits ...
What sort of parent leaves their children behind anyhow? It’s not as if the US government owns their children. They’re citizens of Mexico due to being born to Mexican citizen parents, if nothing else.
It’s a false emotional dilemma masquerading as a legal concern, perpetuated by the usual suspects, cheap labor advocates on the right and “postnationals” on the left.
In theory, maybe. In practice tell that to all the kids who will soon be the majority of under-18 US citizens in the US...whose parents or grandparents came here illegally.
hate to separate families ... send the kiddies back too!
The fact that they were deported clarifies the whole false dilemma.
Can a natural-born citizen be deported? No. There is no other nation to which he belongs.
Can a naturalized citizen be deported? Yes, under certain extreme circumstances, this being an example.
What does the parents’ activity and the pretext under which that activity was pursued while in this country do to any presumed birth status of their children born here?
Their parents were deported. The condition of the children follows that of the parents. Diplomatic immunity, rather than trial.
Not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, clearly.
“Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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, but will include every other class of persons.”
Senator Jacob Howard,
co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
Reason I posted this is because AZ is considering a law that will declare "anchor babies" not to be U.S. citizens. If they pass it, it will certainly be challenged in court on the basis of the 14th Amendment.
If the federal government declares the citizenship of the children of the Russian agents null and void [due to the parents' lack of registration and, thus, lack of jurisdiction] - then AZ could challenge the court case on the basis that illegal alien parents are not properly registered either.
This is going to be very interesting to follow. Once again, AZ may force another issue to be dealt with.
But the absurdity of treating the children of foreign spies as citizens shows just how ridiculous the whole thing is.
Russia has been sending people here under false pretenses for a century. They are referred to as "illegals"...because they are. No one in their right mind would consider their children as Americans...they're Russian. Just like their parents.
And no one should consider the children of Mexican illegals to be Americans. They're Mexican, just like their parents, who are also illegally in the country.
Believe me, in Russia, there would be no debate about it.
Senator Howard one of the author's of the 14th Amendment said,
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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,...."
This is the meaning and intent behind the 14h Amendment.
If children of accredited (or registered) foreign agents, IE ministers and ambassadors of other governments would not be citizens of these United States under the 14th Amendment, why would the children born here of uncredited or unregistered agents of foreign agents [spies] be allowed US citizenship? The answer is that they would not.
agents of foreign agents = agents of foreign governments....
The intent of the 14th Amendment was never to grant children of foreigners automatic citizenship. But as it is interpreted today, I would have to say yes.
They were agents of a foreign government. That puts them in the "foreign military or diplomat" category, and way out of the "subject to the jurisdiction.
Might be a good case to take to court to serve as later precedent.
I read an article addressing this issue. They are and will be allowed to stay, or go.
As to the subject of jurisdiction [other than criminal and humanitarian protections], it seems that the government has to have knowledge that a foreigner is in the country in order to confer the "privileges" that are conveyed by jurisdiction. That is why the government requires registration of visitors at customs, etc.
So, I would say that all illegal aliens [ie: non-registered] are not entitled to the privileges that come with jurisdiction and that their children are also not entitled.
My goodness, an “article” now decides citizenship issues in this country.
A link seems to be in order for this precedent-setting publication with the force of law.
I never claimed that an article DECIDES citizenship in this country. Your miscomprehension.
If I see it again, I’ll post it. Actually, it may have been on the radio.
It's really simple. If the spies were not subject to US jurisdiction, then the FBI could not have arrested them. Instead, they would have to have been declared persona non grata and expelled. But that's not what happened. The cuffs went on, and they appeared in court in prison attire, very much in custody and very subject to US juridicion indeed! Criminals, not diplomats!
So, under the 14th, that means their kids are natural born US citizens, eligible to run, upon attaining the age of 35 (assuming they've been hear 14 years).
Would love to see the article ...
Which brings up another point - are they considered natural-born???
Lets say that they go back to Russia, get indoctrinated, and have kids in twenty years. They go to the U.S. on vacation for the kids to be born. Those kids would be natural-born. Then, they go back to Russia.
Repeat the cycle for one more generation, and most in the U.S. will have forgotten about the Russian agent mess. Then, a child in this last generation [Russsian-indoctrinated] comes to live in the U.S. for 14 years after he is 21.
This child rises in politics - then runs for POTUS and is elected ...
Totally legal ...
Thank you. Radio stations typically have audio files for download, so that shouldn't be a hurdle, either.
I look forward to seeing something other than more agenda-driven speculation. The law as written would preclude citizenship for children born here to agents of a foreign government.
The rights and responsibilities are pretty much inherent - but the privileges come only when one fulfills the responsibilities assigned to them. Such as being properly registered with the government in order to claim one's children as U.S. citizens.
You’re an a— if you think I am searching for anything.
Thank you for your opinion. We all know what opinions are like, and that everybody has one, since you’ve delved into crudity yourself.
I never had an opinion. I told you what I heard or read. You have no comprehention skills!
A 15 second search: Children of spies bears this out/
If the children were born here, then they are citizens. If they are citizens, then they can’t be deported. Either they are foreign nationals and so they don’t have a right to be here, or they were born here and so they’re citizens and they have a right to stay, regardless of what happens to their parents.
we got a muzzie in the white house with intent to demolish the USA and CHANGE it into a socialist autocracy! !
"AOL News spoke to Jane Spinak, a law professor and the co-founder of the Child Advocacy Clinic at Columbia University, to learn about what may be in store for the children of the accused agents.
What's the legal status of the children?
If the children were born here, then they are citizens. If they are citizens, then they can't be deported. Either they are foreign nationals and so they don't have a right to be here, or they were born here and so they're citizens and they have a right to stay, regardless of what happens to their parents."
Not true Spinak.
Regardless, it was not MY OPINION. Got it?
I merely read or heard something and repeated it. I’ll let you “experts” expound in it now.
Thank you for living up to my expectation and searching by the way, but the analysis is laughably amateur. We routinely see better on FR both pro and con.
AOL ain't what it used to be, and it never was much.
I never said it was your opinion.
There are two types of spie: the ones who are attached to an embassy and are accredited diplomats and the ones who are simply in-country, masquerading as something they are not.
The first category are diplomats not subject to the jurisdiction of the host country. If they get caught, diplomatic immunity means the worst punishment is they get sent home. They don't even have to pay their parking tickets. (And their kids, if any, are furriners, as would be expected.)
However, the second category are subject to the jurisdiction. If they get caught, the Justice Department can land on them like a ton of bricks, and they are screwed blue and royally tatooed, unless an exchange or such can be negotiated. (But their kids, if any, are eligible to become president, such is 14th Amendment law.)
Once again, I have not given my opinion on whether the children are citizens.
I entered into this thread merely repeated what I heard or read and you come out ready to paint me as a heretic.
Are you drinking or drunk? You are not using normal judgment.
Ms. Spinak is apparently unaware that some of these Russian spy parents were naturalized, stripped of their citizenship and deported to their nation of origin rather than tried in a court of law.
Well, we have someone here on this thread that is going hog wild that I am somehow “guilty” because I posted what I read or heard. And smearing me in the process.
The opinion for which I thanked you was your calling me “an a—,” BunnySlippers. Isn’t that fairly clear?
Now, you have a good night, you hear?