Skip to comments.Babies and Immigration Reform (Not one word in the 844-page law mentions Birthright Citizenship)
Posted on 04/24/2013 6:53:09 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Not a single word in the 844-page "Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act" introduced by Senator Marco Rubio and the "Gang of Eight" addresses the controversial practice of "birthright citizenship."
Birthright citizenship is the common description given to the automatic grant of U.S. citizenship to babies born in the U.S. regardless of the citizenship status of the parents. Many experts agree with the verdict of law professor Lino Graglia -- that the practice generates "perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry."
The failure of Congress to confront the subject is nothing new. The "four pillars" of the reform framework floated by Senators Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham back in 2010 also avoided mention of the gaping "hole in the fence" created by the "magnet" of the birthright practice.
While Rubio touted the newest bipartisan proposal and appeared to "backtrack" on the border fence as illegals continue to climb over it, our government creates even more incentives for illegals to have children here. Besides potential ObamaCare benefits, many provisions in the Gang's new package increase the allure and impact of the birthright magnet.
Conservative columnist Ann Coulter penned a scathing analysis titled "If Rubio's Amnesty is So Great, Why is He Lying?" Near the end of her litany of damning facts and figures, Coulter wrote: "The children of illegal aliens become automatic citizens under our current insane interpretation of the 14th Amendment."
The insanity, however, goes beyond the "illegal" argument. Coulter noted statistics and dollars relating to the children of illegals; however, she didn't mention that the practice also awards citizenship to the babies of virtually anyone legally but temporarily present, including "birth tourists."
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
That quote was made by Senator Howard after the following exchange, which took place during a Senate session in which Howard was present:
Senator Fessenden: "Suppose a person is born here of parents from abroad temporarily in this country."
Senator Wade: "The Senator says a person may be born here and not be a citizen. I know that is so in one instance, in the case of the children of foreign ministers who reside 'near' the United States, in the diplomatic language. By a fiction of law such persons are not supposed to be residing here, and under that fiction of law their children would not be citizens of the United States, although born in Washington."
Senator Howard was there, but he made no objection to that definition.
And shortly after that, Howard made his statement that you quoted (which does not include the word "AND" between the 2nd and 3rd clauses - indicating that's not a LIST of 3 separate things, but a RESTATEMENT of the same thing 3 times.
As well, Senator Conness of California had this to say:
"The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.
So Senator Conness says the law will declare that children born in the United States of Chinese, non-citizen parents will be citizens.
This is in direct and absolute contradiction to the way you are interpreting Senator Howard's words.
But Senator Howard makes no objection at all.
Why not? It's obvious. Jacob Howard wasn't saying what you claim he was saying.
Neither the grammar of his sentence, nor the exchange that came before his quote, nor the discussion that came after his quote, support the interpretation that you have given it.
When Sen. Howard said, "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 is clear that he was simply restating three things that meant the same thing:
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.
You gave it a good shot, Carry_okie!
I’m not going to waste hours arguing with anyone about the meaning of the 14 th amendment. To anyone who isn’t an open border hack, the meaning was NEVER to allow illegal aliens to drop babies here and have them be citizens. NEVER!
DONE with this discussion!
The Senators passing the Amendment, at the time, seem to have felt that it would declare the children of foreigners TEMPORARILY in the country to be citizens. They don't seem to have contemplated the issue of illegal aliens.
So yes, I agree with you that the intention was not to allow illegal aliens to drop babies here and have them be citizens.
Historically, if you go back into the origin of our rule of citizenship, it required "allegiance" or "obedience." I think prohibiting the children of illegal aliens from being US citizens at birth is certainly within the spirit of the citizenship rule, and it might even clear the "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" hurdle of the 14th Amendment. I'm not sure whether it would or wouldn't, but Congress could pass such a law and then we could hand it over to the courts to find out.
This is a tacit admission that the 14th Amendment does not extend birthright citizenship to the children of aliens. He wants it to be that way.
In fact, the citizenship clause is written in the present tense. The overt reason was to deal with the uncertain state of affairs pursuant to the end of the Civil War and the emancipation of slaves. In fact it was an unnecessary statement for people pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The real reason for the clause was to extend the protections of the Bill of Rights to persons other than natural persons, i.e., corporations. It was later admitted by Senators Bingham and Conkling.
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" meant those that were American 'subjects.' It did not mean that one became "a subject" by merely being within the national boundaries. One was "subject" by virtue of citizenship. I suggest you consult a law dictionary of that time to confirm the meaning of the term.
JCB: I would argue that its no such thing
You'd be WRONG!
Take a peek at what the IRS is doing to "Accidental Americans"...
The term Accidental American refers to the millions of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs) residing outside the U.S. Many of these individuals were born in the U.S. or acquired derivative citizenship based on a number of factors via one or both parents. However, other than their U.S. citizenship, they typically have no other direct family, business or personal ties to the U.S. Many LPRs who worked in the U.S. for a few years or who acquired their green card through their U.S. parents have long ceased to live in the U.S., returning to their country of origin. The author refers to each of these types of U.S. individuals as Accidental Americans throughout this article.Accidental Americans Rush to Renounce U.S. Citizenship to Avoid the Ugly U.S. Tax Web, But There's a Ten Year Tax Penalty
The Accidental American is subject to U.S. income tax on his or her worldwide income, and to information reporting requirements
Born in the U.S. when your non-citizen parents were just passing through or were just here on vacation? Shut up and pay the IRS your taxes, "citizen"!!!
WHAT IS DERIVATIVE CITIZENSHIP?
A child born outside the U.S. may become a U.S. citizen by operation of law via the childs parent
REQUIREMENTS OF DERIVATIVE CITIZENSHIP
A child can derive U.S. citizenship if all the following conditions are met:
One parent is a U.S. citizen
Are you still keeping that comprehensive list of all Obama’s constitutional violations? I know how much it pains you, when he uses the Constitution for t-paper.
The question I have is this: is a person who snuck in illegally under the jurisdiction of the United States or still under the jurisdiction of their homeland?
I would think that the only way to be under the jurisdiction of the United States is for the United States to affirmatively approve of the alien's being here, meaning they entered legally, they provided proper documentation, and they received an identification number from the United States.
Failing that, the children of illegal aliens who are born here would NOT be birthright citizens because they are not under the jurisdiction of the United States. How can they be if the United States doesn't even know of their existence?
ELIGIBILITY OF UNLEGITIMATED CHILDREN FOR DERIVATIVE
It is distinct from the acquisition of citizenship at birth, including the citizenship by descent that may be conferred on a child born abroad to a citizen parent.
id.; see also INA § 301(c), (d), (e), (g), 8 U.S.C. § 1401(c), (d), (e), (g) (2000) (examples of INA
provisions conferring citizenship by descent).
If an illegal alien murders someone in the U.S., we can prosecute him. If a foreign ambassador murders someone in the U.S., we can't prosecute him because he has diplomatic immunity. So yes, illegal aliens are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.
See post 25.
So your argument is:
1, these people were born in America.
2, these people, despite no longer residing in America are considered be American citizens and pay taxes.
What’s the problem here - it verifies my position.
How can a child who did not sneak in be considered ‘under the jurisdiction of their homeland’, a country they have never set foot in?
“the children of illegal aliens who are born here would NOT be birthright citizens”
Actually, they are citizens, for the very reason that they were born here.
The problem is, as Coolidge once wrote - either the Constitution is the highest law of the land, or it is not.
The Fourteenth - the purpose was to provide citizenship for slaves (who most certainly were born here), and for those who had, up until then - been born outside America, and were presently residing in territory that was now America. This is the only good way to accomplish both of these goals at the same time.
Basing it on the citizenship of your parents, would have lead to a permanent underclass (a-la Europe). Something - at the time, was not what America granted. Is it radical to provide citizenship to someone without regard to their country of origin? Absolutely - but that is part of what made America what it is.
There is absolutely no need to ‘enforce’ things this way. Enforce immigration laws by deportation. This is just a fool’s errand that has deep and long lasting consequences. Negative ones that serve to help no one whatsoever.
“No one will ever convince me”
Thankfully, it doesn’t matter what you think. It matters what the constitution says. Constitution sez - born here in America- you’re a citizen. Doesn’t matter if your folks were from Mexico or England.
“By a crooked progressivist court.”
Ah. I see. So we’ve moved on from, “the Constitution doesn’t say this, to, “the courts got it wrong”. If you want to change the constitution to read what you want it to say, there’s always the Amending formula. Good luck with that, btw.
The law doesn't say "under" it says "subject," which, given that I posted a link to an 1856 law dictionary above AND that definition is in the article you clearly didn't read, renders your "question" baiting and misdirection on a foundation of ignorance.