Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

State Lawmakers Take On Birthright Citizenship
www.nytimes.com ^ | 1/5/2011 | JULIA PRESTON

Posted on 01/05/2011 12:19:36 PM PST by rxsid

"State Lawmakers Take On Birthright Citizenship

WASHINGTON — Conservative lawmakers from five state legislatures launched a joint campaign on Wednesday to try to cancel automatic United States citizenship for the American-born children of illegal immigrants.

At a news conference here, Republican legislators unveiled two model measures they said would be introduced in at least 14 states. One was a bill clarifying the terms of citizenship in those states to exclude babies born here of illegal immigrant parents. The second was a compact between states to adopt common positions on the issue.

The lawmakers acknowledged that the state bills were not likely to have a practical impact anytime soon, since they would be quickly challenged as unconstitutional. But the legislators — from Arizona, Georgia, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and South Carolina — said they chose the inaugural day of a new, Republican-controlled House of Representatives to open the first round of litigation they hope will lead to the Supreme Court and also spur action by lawmakers in Washington.

“We are here to send a very public message to Congress,” said Daryl Metcalfe, a Republican state representative from Pennsylvania. “We want to bring an end to the illegal alien invasion that is having such a negative impact on our states.” "

Continued: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/06/us/06immig.html

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; 14thamendment; citizenship; statesrights
"Original intent of the 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. (See consequences.)

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals."

From: http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

1 posted on 01/05/2011 12:19:41 PM PST by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: LucyT; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; MeekOneGOP; ...
Ping!

"State Lawmakers Take On Birthright Citizenship"

2 posted on 01/05/2011 12:21:07 PM PST by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Necessary to only allow those aliens who better this country to remain in it. It is not heartless to turn away the billions who also wish to become US citizens. As the crew of the Titanic knew well, there are just so many lifeboats available, so why not be choosy?

While they are at it, why don’t they all pass laws that proof of natural-born citizenship is required prior to any name being allowed to be placed on any ballot for POTUS?


3 posted on 01/05/2011 12:26:07 PM PST by bestintxas (Somewhere in Kenya, a Village is missing its Idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

I think conservatives should push several avenues here:

1: Test the courts wrt birthright citizenship (takes time, unclear outcome)
2: Congress can pass a law banning green card/citizenship sponsorship by anchorbabies (now they can start chain sponsorship when they turn 18)
3: Enforcement, maybe law by Congress mandating deporting illegal immigrant mothers who give anchorbabies within 3 days when caught (e.g. when caught in hospital - baby may stay, depending on the outcome of 1).
4: Constitutional amendment banning birthrigth citizenship

I think option 2 is extreme helpful and should be pushed hard. It is common-sense reasonable law, and clearly something Congress can pass. It would effect current 17-year US citizen anchorbabies too. It would make illegal immigration less desirable.


4 posted on 01/05/2011 12:33:21 PM PST by heiss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; Red Steel; David; theothercheek; LucyT; GreatOne; VirginiaConstitutionalist; ...
Although the goal of these state legislators is laudable, they would be flouting the US Constitution in the process they intend undertake in at least three different possible ways:

(1)Defining United States citizenship is a power assigned to the federal government exclusively, IMHO. That is implied in the explicit power given Congress to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" in Article I, Sec. 8, combined with the "necessary and proper" clause.

(2)Interstate compacts are explicitly prohibited without the consent of Congress. (Art. I, Sec. 10)

(3)State legislatures can't amend the US Constitution by themselves, which is what these legislators in effect intend to do. State legislatures can only ratify amendments to the US Constitution which may be submitted to them after being approved by at least two-thirds of each House of Congress.

At a time when the "conservative" movement is moving toward a greater respect for governance in accordance with the Constitution, this is not the way to go.

5 posted on 01/05/2011 1:56:20 PM PST by justiceseeker93
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93
What you say is true, however, the states may force the issue to get to the Supreme Court so they rule on illegal alien birth right citizenship.


From an earlier article and thread that may sheds light on the issue:

- - - -

"Dr. John C. Eastman, Dean of Chapman University’s law school in Orange, California, is among the leading scholars in the nation on constitutional law and has testified before Congress on the issue of birthright citizenship. Eastman states plainly that the framers of the 14th Amendment had no intention of allowing another country to wage demographic warfare against the U.S. and reshaping its culture by means of exploiting birthright citizenship.

“We have this common understanding of when you come here to visit, that you are subject to our jurisdiction. You have to obey our traffic laws. If you come here from England, you have to drive on the right side of the road and not on the left side of the road,” he said. “But the framers of the 14th Amendment had in mind two different notions of ‘subject to the jurisdiction.’ There was what they called territorial jurisdiction— you have to follow the laws in the place where you are—but there was also this more complete, or allegiance-owing jurisdiction that held that you not only have to follow the laws, but that you owe allegiance to the sovereign. And that doesn’t come by just visiting here. That comes by taking an oath of support and becoming part of the body politic. And it is that jurisdiction that they are talking about in the 14th Amendment.”

Then by definition—and one would think common sense—legal tourists here to enjoy Disneyland and illegal immigrants who broke into the country clearly do not fall under this blanket of allegiance-owing jurisdiction. Accordingly, their giving birth on American soil does not make their children citizens. "


And furthermore from the article,

"Birth Is All You Need

According to Eastman, the real shift in popular perception began to take root in the late 1960s, when the idea that mere birth on American soil alone ensured citizen status.

“I have challenged every person who has taken the opposite position to tell me what it was that led to this new notion,” he said. “There’s not an executive order. There’s not a court decision. We just gradually started assuming that birth was enough.”

Eastman attributes some of it to our nation’s loss of an intrinsic understanding of the language that the framers of the 14th Amendment spoke and used in that era, ergo a century later the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” has been watered down in the collective American consciousness to require little more than an adherence to traffic safety laws. "

-end snip-

American Jackpot: The Remaking of America by Birthright Citizenship

6 posted on 01/05/2011 2:24:48 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

Agreed. The way to getvrid of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens (and tourists, for that matter) is for Congress to legislate pursuant to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to clarify what constitutes a person “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.


7 posted on 01/05/2011 7:59:00 PM PST by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
He is correct, in both citizenship cases at the supreme court neither used the 14th. The coolies were sent home and Kim was granted citizen because his parent came here legally and applied for citizenship and it was granted but they returned home before the final step. He claimed color of citizenship, and he was granted citizenship.
8 posted on 01/05/2011 8:40:50 PM PST by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

Thanks for the ping!


9 posted on 01/05/2011 9:27:43 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rxsid; Tribune7; Kid Shelleen
“We are here to send a very public message to Congress,” said Daryl Metcalfe, a Republican state representative from Pennsylvania. “We want to bring an end to the illegal alien invasion that is having such a negative impact on our states.” "

PA State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe is one of - if not the prime - mover behind getting this out to the public. Join his Email List for updates.

Note the following from above;

This is readily apparent from the decisions of the courts that have held that the Consulate of the illegal alien must be contacted at the time any judiciary action is commenced. Going forward the automatic issuance of birth place citizenship must be abolished.
10 posted on 01/05/2011 10:51:47 PM PST by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !! )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

This was on Greta last night!!!


11 posted on 01/06/2011 12:17:43 AM PST by danamco (')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle; brityank; Physicist; WhyisaTexasgirlinPA; GOPJ; abner; baseballmom; Mo1; Ciexyz; ...

ping


12 posted on 01/06/2011 4:48:17 AM PST by Tribune7 (The Democrat Party is not a political organization but a religious cult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rxsid

Bump!


13 posted on 01/06/2011 8:05:25 AM PST by Las Vegas Ron (The Tree of Liberty did not grow from an ACORN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; justiceseeker93
"What you say is true, however, the states may force the issue to get to the Supreme Court so they rule on illegal alien birth right citizenship. "

According to the article, that appears to be what the state legislatures hope to accomplish. Action either with the U.S. Congress and/or SCOTUS.

14 posted on 01/06/2011 12:32:04 PM PST by rxsid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: justiceseeker93

Thanks justiceseeker93.


15 posted on 01/06/2011 7:36:46 PM PST by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson