Skip to comments.GOP majority in House will push to end 'birthright citizenship'
Posted on 11/18/2010 8:20:29 AM PST by SmithL
WASHINGTON As one of its first acts, the new Congress will consider denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States.
Those children, who are now automatically granted citizenship at birth, will be one of the first targets of the Republican-led House when it convenes in January.
GOP Rep. Steve King of Iowa, the incoming chairman of the subcommittee that oversees immigration, is expected to push a bill that would deny "birthright citizenship" to such children.
The measure, assailed by critics as unconstitutional, is an indication of how the new majority intends to flex its muscles on the volatile issue of illegal immigration.
The idea has a growing list of supporters, including Republican Reps. Tom McClintock of Elk Grove and Dan Lungren of Gold River, but it has aroused intense opposition, as well.
"I don't like it," said Chad Silva, statewide policy analyst for the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
I do agree with your assertions with respect to "jurisdiction", but I'm not entirely convinced that the Constitution needs to be changed, although that would certainly eliminate all doubt.
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court decision that gave young Ark (a baby born to explicitly foreign nationals, US citizenship), the Court draws no distinction between someone here legally, or illegally. Why? Primarily because the concept of "illegal alien" wasn't quite as developed then, as it is today. In large part, the Court presumed that so long as you weren't a child of a diplomat, or the child of an invading army, then your parents were here "legally". In any event, that doesn't mean a future Supreme Court case couldn't draw that distinction. I think given the make-up of the Court, it's possible they could - although, Kennedy doesn't give me great confidence in this regard.
The Congress could also move to narrow that distinction, legislative. Surely, such legislation would be challenged, and either struck down or affirmed by the Court. So, back to your original point, this is going to end up back at the Court unless the Constitution is amended.
You are confused. Scenario: British couple is here on holiday... they have a child. Child is therefore not British (like his parents), it is American. Sorry, mom and dad.
Simple changes can have a profound effect. This is one of them.
I see the defeatists here wondering how we could turn this country around. Sometimes it’s a matter of knowing where to apply the pressure.
Pardon me for butting in, but the argument being made is with respect to the child born to the alien, not the alien. So, your comparison to the Singapore kid is way off (not to mention we don't have a Singaporean constitution to reference). But let's assume Singapore has an identical constitution to ours. No, the Singapore kid would not be their citizen. However, if through the miracle of science, the young man were to give birth between lashes of the cane, the little miracle would in fact be a citizen of Singapore. At least, that's the argument. I can see both sides, but I tend to lean in favor of this view.
Give me a break!
This is your logic?
No one said that getting arrested made you a citizen. You are an absolute moron if you believe that. Your assertions are weak and without merit so you attempt to create strawmen to rail against.
Something from DU, not Freerepublic.
See my answer in post 62. This is complete idiocy and we are the only country on the planet with this citizenship-debasing mindset.
I’m thinking there was a Supreme Court case that stated that benefits couldn’t be denied to illegal aliens.
Plyler v. Doe. Yes, such a case exists. It held that Texas could not deny public education to an illegal alien minor child.
Moreover, today MANY illegals file tax returns, legally. And, MANY of those filing claim dependent children, and many of them then qualify for the associated child credits. IOW, we - the FedGov - are actually subsidizing the aliens to be here through the child credit, and any other federal tax credit for which they'd qualify.
The total amount must be valued in the billions, perhaps hundreds of billions each year.
The last refuge of a flailing mind. :)
No one said that getting arrested made you a citizen.
My arguments are specific to the word "jurisdiction." Being "subject to jurisdiction" is more than simply being able to be arrested. My wife and I can be arrested in the UK, but my child born in prison doesn't automatically get British citizenship simply by virtue of my ability to be incarcerated.
Jurisdiction, in this usage, is about allegiance and loyalty as understood by the sponsors of this Amendment. My examples are taking an extreme position, but have a point to make. If breaking our laws confers citizenship (illegally crossing our borders to have children) then our citizenship is worthless.
Look, I understand where the courts have taken us with respect to the language in this Amendment. But just as they were in Dred Scott, Kelo and many others... they are wrong. It's going to take patriots with backbone to get it changed to what it was meant to be... what its writers and sponsors intended according to their own arguments.
We are the only country on Earth that holds its citizenship so cheap as to give it to all comers, regardless of parental allegiances. It was never meant to be this way.
I do like your idea for changing the Immigration and Nationality Act, I just hate to see us hand the liberals a stick to beat us with. Rather than having to defend ourselves against lines likes “Those evil conservatives want to take away their rights”, I’d much prefer to make them play defense by pointing out “They have no rights. If you think that’s unfair then change the Constitution.”
Birthright citizenship is the law right now in the U.S., it's always been the law, and I'll be very happy if they change it. I've known about this since the sixties, I wanted this changed even then. But there has been no serious interest until now.
The passage of this bill would help to prolong this Republic, and therefore, should be considered and enacted with great speed.
Remind me not to rely on any legal briefs written by P.A. Madison.
No, but being arrested for it does make you subject to our jurisdiction.
This issue is an absolute winner for the GOP.
"Jurisdiction" and "allegiance" are two different concepts.
And I thought duels had already been outlawed.
Nobody is suggesting that it is. But 'subject to the jurisdiction' means subject to our laws and liable for penalties for breaking those laws. That exists regardless of national origin. I read the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction of' in the 14th Amendment as meant to exclude diplomats, foreign heads of state, prisoners of war, and any other person not answerable to our laws.
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.