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 ...
“Changing the law won’t help things even if it is changed.”
Not a change. The children of those who are not here “in amity” with the government, to use the term from the WKA decision, are not born citizens.
“...but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects...”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
Interesting. So what if Obama states that these people are ‘In amity’?
Would that make them citizens?
Sure, there are problems with birth citizenship - but there are also benefits - it eliminates shenanigans. Obama wants to give them citizenship outright, but birthright citizenship stops him.
Your change in law? Gives him this power 100 percent. Voila - instant Amnesty.
“Gives him this power 100 percent. Voila - instant Amnesty.”
Where do you get that?
If the people are here legally, then their kids are already born citizens. If they are NOT here legally, they are not, by definition, here in amity - and thus their kids do NOT meet the requirements, per the US Supreme Court, for birth citizenship.
However, under current usage, they are accepted as citizens - just without any factual basis in US law.
What is your solution for women who live in Mexico, have no desire whatsoever to live in the US, never have and never will- yet they sneak in to have their babies so they will be US citizens? Those babies can claim all their rights as citizens whenever they choose, many cross the border every day to attend school in the US and their parents do not pay taxes to support the schools. What is your solution to wealthy people from other countries planning vacation births here so their children will be citizens? This is a much larger problem than illegals that have been here for years having a baby here that is a citizen at birth. I don’t agree with giving citizenship to children of illegals at birth even if they live here, but the problem is actually far bigger than that.
“What is your solution for women who live in Mexico, have no desire whatsoever to live in the US, never have and never will- yet they sneak in to have their babies so they will be US citizens?”
Turn them away at the border. Deny them entry. How are they getting over the border in the first place? Someone is helping them. Find that person. Deport them if not a citizen - arrest them if they are. Keep doing that until it stops.
“Those babies can claim all their rights as citizens whenever they choose, many cross the border every day to attend school in the US and their parents do not pay taxes to support the schools.”
The solution for those already here, is to deny the parents entry. The kids can either live with social services or with family legally in America.
“What is your solution to wealthy people from other countries planning vacation births here so their children will be citizens?”
Gosh. That one is simple. Deny them entry. I must seem like a broken record.
“the problem is actually far bigger than that.”
I agree. The solution is to actually enforce the laws on the books.
You eliminate birthright citizenship, you will regret it. Even I can see what’s so blindly terrible about that. You are undermining what your own access to citizenship comes from and are expecting to profit? Really?
What would stop Obama from stripping citizenship from folks like you on the grounds that you are ‘seditious’, and giving it to the righteous folks like the palestinian terrorists?
Don't these guys read Vattel?
After more than 250 years of benign neglect, doesn't Vattel deserve something better than abuse like this??
First, they twist and distort Vattel and so eviscerate the one and only true meaning of the Natural Born Citizen requirement that it now seems to mean nothing more than Birthright Citizenship.
Second, they now want to grant Birthright Citizenship to the most worthless protoplasm and defective DNA, all of which was conceived elsewhere but illegally imported and harvested here.
Is there anyone present in this country who could be unqualified to be president under these new rules?
Elimination of Birthright citizenship to non-us citizens should be required as well as a real border wall. Both need to be done before anything else is discussed.
RE: Elimination of Birthright citizenship to non-us citizens should be required as well as a real border wall
The latter can be built. The former? That would require a constitutional amendment...
Try getting that passed in Congress today...
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
The problem is the assumption you're making in number 2. The "Accidental American" problem impacts people who've never lived in the U.S. and have NO ties to the U.S. other than the fact that their alien mothers gave birth in the U.S. while just passing through the country or in the country for a brief stay.
“In other words, this case was not decided on compassion; it was about MONEY, cheap labor for the owners of the largest corporations of their day. They diluted the principle of citizenship to its virtually meaningless level today. “
Good job! IT IS ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY...just as it likely is for anyone trying to defend ‘squat and drop citizenship.
Nationality law. For example, the British Nationality Act of 1948 establishes worldwide jurisdiction in the matter of British nationality. Obama was born under the U.K.'s nationality jurisdiction.
Much like the U.S. has established worldwide jurisdiction over its citizens in the matter of being required to pay federal taxes on their income regardless of source.
“You eliminate birthright citizenship, you will regret it.”
What planet do you live on?
I have not, in any way, suggested eliminating citizenship by birth, However, there has NEVER been a legal basis for saying those here illegally give birth to citizens.
“What would stop Obama from stripping citizenship from folks like you on the grounds that you are ‘seditious’...”
Ummm....because I was born here, to parents here legally? Because my Mom wasn’t a foreign citizen who came to visit the USA just before she was due to deliver? Because my parents’ presence in the USA wasn’t based on my being born here first? Because I meet the legal requirements for citizenship by birth, unlike the children born to an invading army?
Because I meet the legal requirements for citizenship by birth, unlike the children born to an invading army?
...........................
I have a hard time thinking that a court will decide that lettuce harvesters and chicken pluckers are members of an invading army.
If they have crossed the borders illegally, are they more like an invading army, or people here with the consent of the government? Not that any modern court will care.
But as a matter of law, the WKA case involved parents here legally, domiciled in the USA with the permission of the government. And those were factors in the decision, since English common law did not envision anyone being permitted to stay in 1600s England without the King’s permission. WKA’s parents were also working here with the permission of the US government. They were not tourists.
But as a matter of law, the WKA case involved parents here legally, domiciled in the USA with the permission of the government. And those were factors in the decision, since English common law did not envision anyone being permitted to stay in 1600s England without the King’s permission. WKA’s parents were also working here with the permission of the US government. They were not tourists.
Please understand that the WKA ruling explicitly stipulated that parents be PERMANENTLY domiciled in the U.S. at the time of their child's birth to constitute the child's birthright citizenship.
A temporary student visa that had to be renewed every year and terminally expired in 1964 does NOT evidence a permanent domicile in the U.S. for the parent of one born in 1961.
Several different phrases have been used throughout history. “Aliens in amity.” “In obedience to the king.” “Under the protection of the king.” “Subject to the jurisdiction of.”
And the misleading “not owing allegiance to any other sovereignty,” which the birthers make much of and which was pretty quickly replaced with “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
All of them were pretty much intended to mean the same thing: Legal presence, subject to the laws of the country.
I agree with you that citizenship for children of illegal aliens violates the historic principle, since the parents are not “in obedience to” or “under the protection of” our laws. They are not here legally.
And it seems to me that JCBreckenridge’s solution is a reasonable one: Deport the parents. The child can go with them, or if they desperately want the child to stay, they can find a foster home and the child can stay.
That’ll never happen, of course. But it makes sense to me.
“That’ll never happen, of course. But it makes sense to me.”
As a partial solution, and the toughest one likely to pass in modern America, I agree. However, I continue to see no basis in the law for believing those born in America to illegal immigrants are born citizens. I would argue the best solution is to deport both the parents, and the child, since the child is not an American citizen. But I also understand that no court, and probably no legislature, is willing to do that...
;>(
We’ve built an administrative system that assumes that all persons born in the United States are citizens whether their parents are here legally or not. They get a US birth certificate, and they’re good to go.
I’ve suggested elsewhere that Congress could pass a law denying US citizenship to the children born here of illegal aliens. It would have to create some administrative system where we checked for parents’ legal status before issuing a birth certificate. Any such law would be challenged in court and might or might not be struck down.
All of this is theoretical, and presumes the political will to pass such a law. It’s not there now, and I doubt it ever will be.
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.