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
click here to read article
Again, the original meaning of the Fourteenth was to provide civil liberties to all those born in the US. Some people want to go back to the old system where some Americans are not considered to be legal persons. (not them of course!)
What your push does is precisely this. It sets up two classes of Americans - one who are citizens and one who are not. This provides a powerful incentive for abuse and exploitation - if you have Americans who cannot vote to protect themselves then they need their betters to protect them.
We’ve been there. It’s a bad road. Let’s not repeat the mistakes of the past.
Yes. And it bothers me that some who claim to be conservatives want to simply throw an accurate understanding of the Constitution out of the window and insist is says stuff it doesn't say, simply because they don't like what it does say.
This is not a conservative attitude at all. This is a "by-G*d-I-want-my-way-the-real-Constitution-be-d***ed" attitude. To me, it's the same attitude as that of many liberals.
Basing it on the citizenship of your parents, would have lead to a permanent underclass (a-la Europe).
To a significant degree, it could have. It's an absurdity.
Imagine the Amish who immigrated here from Germany starting back before there ever WAS a United States of America.
This is a very close-knit community of people. Suppose being a citizen required citizen parents, and suppose that many of the original immigrants never went through the naturalization process. We could have people being born now all of whose ancestors have lived their entire lives in the United States 7 or 8 or 9 generations, who were "aliens."
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.
I think it was radical to welcome immigrants in the way that we did, and to declare that all races were equal. But as for the citizenship, I don't think that was radical at all. It was simply the continuation of the policy and law as it had already existed for centuries.
There is absolutely no need to enforce things this way. Enforce immigration laws by deportation. This is just a fools errand that has deep and long lasting consequences. Negative ones that serve to help no one whatsoever.
For some of these people, radical indeed.
You don't get to redefine a term as defined in a law dictionary of that day for the purposes of supporting an argument.
I suggest you consult the same law dictionary for what "native" meant. "Native" and "natural born" were generally taken to be synonymous, although "natural born" is a slightly more expansive term that most likely includes the children born overseas of US citizen parents.
Neither "native" nor "natural" are in the citizenship clause. The latter was specifically omitted for purposes of extending privileges and immunities to corporations.
I don’t care where they are from, if parents are here illegally there should be no citizenship for the children for simply being born here and I do not believe the framers of the Constitution had that intent. If parents are here legally- foreign student, work permit, etc. then I could see it, but not if they are illegally here. That is like saying if parents rob a bank their children can keep the money.
At some point we have to see the damage done to this country by birthright citizenship for children of illegals or we are doomed as a country. At some point we need to apply some common sense.
It isn’t changing the law. The term “natural born citizen’, which the US Supreme Court has said included and excluded the same folks as the 14th Amendment did, NEVER included those kids born to a foreign, invading army:
“But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.”
Also, the WKA decision made much of the fact that the parents of WKA were DOMICILED here:
“The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution...”
“...whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
IIRC, domicile is mentioned 18 times in the WKA decision.
"Subject" as a noun has a specific meaning in law. That meaning is closely CONNECTED TO, but not 100% analogous to, the meaning of the word "subject" used as an ADJECTIVE.
Or, to put it another ways: "subject" means "obligated to act at the discretion, or according to the judgment and will of somebody else." This definition comes from Bouvier's definition of the VERY closely related word "subjection."
A "subject" is not the only person who is "subject to," or obligated to obey, the law of the United States. Persons who are not citizens (or subjects, if you will) but who are merely aliens, are also SUBJECT TO the laws and jurisdiction of the United States.
So I didn't "redefine" anything.
Neither "native" nor "natural" are in the citizenship clause.
Not of the 14th Amendment. But "natural born" is a key phrase in the Presidential eligibility clause of the Constitution. I assume that you are yet another birther making the patently false claim that "natural born citizen" means "born on US soil of two citizen parents." If you aren't, then I beg your pardon.
Show don’t tell.
Deport the parents. Let the child go with them. The child keeps his citizenship. He can come back when she’s 18 and live in America.
That’s one solution.
Another is if the parents are willing to give the child up to a foster home and the child can stay here while the parents are deported.
I agree- it is a problem, and we shouldn’t be rewarding those who break the law. The child is innocent and did nothing to warrant her situation. We need to draw a distinction between the two while respecting the rights of the child to American citizenship.
The solution is to prevent them from entering America in the first place. If this had been done - then the child wouldn’t be an American citizen, and they wouldn’t be in America.
Changing the law won’t help things even if it is changed.
“Changing the law wont 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...”
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.
Whats 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 Kings permission. WKAs 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.
“Thatll 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.
That in itself disqualifies him from birthright citizenship as the 14th Amendment was written and intended to require "the complete jurisdiction thereof" of the U.S.
Sources: Judiciary Committee Chairman Trumbull, Senator Howard, originators of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause.
And so do they. They meet the legal requirements as well.
There is no requirement that your parents must be citizens in order to become a citizen of the US. None whatsoever. What you are proposing is to strip citizenship from certain citizens of the United States.
Actually, American law presumes that American citizenship prevails for those born in America.
And unfortunately for you - American law prevails for those born in America. They can exercise their British citizenship - but in situations where you have dual citizenship - the American law prevails. Every time.
The child is a citizen - by law of the United States.
According to what?
Cite it, specifically.
There is no need for American law to "prevail" as those born subject to another country's nationality law are not birthright citizens per the 14th Amendment as written and intended.
The Supreme Court has loosened the 14th Amendment's requirements somewhat in ruling that children born in the U.S. to parents who were permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of the child's birth also confers birthright citizenship. - U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark
Those born in the U.S. to a temporary resident alien are not legally born U.S. citizens at all, let alone natural born citizens.
That in itself disqualifies him from birthright citizenship as the 14th Amendment was written and intended to require "the complete jurisdiction thereof" of the U.S. Sources: Judiciary Committee Chairman Trumbull, Senator Howard, originators of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause.
How long will you people keep repeating things that aren't so?
There have been thousands, if not millions, of Americans born here from the founding of our country, that other countries gave citizenship at birth to as well.
I think there was even a freeper here whose grandmother or grandfather was from Italy, and by the laws of Italy that person was born an Italian citizen as well as a US one.
And it doesn't matter one damn bit.
As far as "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof," when Trumbull said those words, who exactly was he talking about?
You never mention that, do you?
Was he talking about the children born here, in American society, of non-citizen parents?
No. ABSOLUTELY NOT.
He was speaking about INDIANS, who had been BORN IN INDIAN TRIBES.
Here's the entire quote:
Now, does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajoe Indians are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. Can you sue a Navajoe Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we would not make treaties with them. If we want to control the Navajoes Do we pass a law to control them? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in that sense?
This is what people who make the kinds of claims you're making do. Take a quote, strip it of its context, and make it say something that IT NEVER SAID IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Trumbull NEVER, EVER said that non-citizens living in our society were not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States," and he NEVER, EVER said that the children born here of non-citizen parents were anything other than natural-born US citizens.
In fact, he said the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you claim:
Trumbull: I should like to inquire of my friend from Pennsylvania, if the children of Chinese now born in this country are not citizens?
Cowan: I think not.
Trumbull: I understand that under the naturalization laws the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it, at the present time. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.
Cowan: The honorable Senator assumes that which is not the fact. The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese; Germans are not Australians, nor Hottentots, nor anything of the kind. That is the fallacy of his argument.
Trumbull: If the Senator from Pennsylvania will show me in the law any distinction made between the children of German parents and the children of Asiatic parents, I might be able to appreciate the point which he makes; but the law makes no such distinction; and the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.
Now he got it slightly wrong: It wasn't under the naturalization laws that such people were born citizens, but under the rule of citizenship that had always prevailed here. It was a matter of definition and of American common law.
But in general, he got it right: the children of immigrants are, and always were, natural born citizens.
I think there was even a freeper here whose grandmother or grandfather was from Italy, and by the laws of Italy that person was born an Italian citizen as well as a US one.
Such a person must APPLY for Italian citizenship. They do not automatically acquire it at birth as Obama acquired his British nationality automatically at birth.
Read Italy's Ministry of Foreign Affairs info on this. Scroll down to "Who can apply for Italian citizenship?"
Do we make treaties with the British? If so, Brits are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Obama was born a Brit.
Obama was born a Brit.
Fallacy. The children born here of non-citizen parents have always been US citizens. It doesn't matter whether another country also extends citizenship to them or not.
He had an American mother. But even if both of his parents had been un-naturalized British immigrants, and even if the laws of England therefore made him a British citizen by birth, he would still be a natural born US citizen.
You might not like that, but that's the way it is.
As far as "dual citizenship" is concerned, that doesn't matter either. 3 of our first 4 Presidents were dual citizens of France, while serving as President. Nobody cared.
Just as nobody cared when John Charles Fremont, the first Republican candidate for President, ran for the nation's highest office while proudly touting that he was the US-born son of a French citizen who never naturalized and never intended to.
As far as the point you're trying to make here, it's completely invalid.
Trumbull was clear that Indians born IN THE TRIBES were not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States. They were PARTIALLY subject to US jurisdiction, because they were on United States land.
That's what the entire "subject to the complete jurisdiction" discussion was all about.
But Trumbull was equally clear that when those "wild Indians" left their tribes, their de facto separate nations, and came to dwell among the white man, in United States society, they BECAME subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States, and their children born in US society were citizens.
Similarly, the children of British people in Britain were not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States. In fact, they weren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at all.
But when British people came and lived among us, they became subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States, just as members of Indian tribes who came and lived among us became subject to our complete jurisdiction.
So I understand the argument you're trying to make here, but it's completely invalid.
Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien father.
Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Clearly NOT, as U.S. Secretaries of State have CONFIRMED what I've stated. See post 93.
In the late 1800s (1880s and 1890s) some US Secretaries of State began to increasingly deny citizenship to people who had been born here to alien parents and then left the country, mostly by being carried abroad as children. But as long as they stayed in the country, no one ever pretended they were anything but US citizens.
There were several examples of this, culminating in the case of Wong Kim Ark, who was denied reentry to the United States on the supposed grounds that he was not a US citizen.
Wong’s case was decided by the Supreme Court in 1898.
They decided that from the beginning of the country, the same rule had always applied. In fact, they decided that not only was the child born here of non-citizen immigrant parents himself born a citizen, it didn’t even matter whether his parents were themselves legally capable of ever becoming US citizens or not.
It was legally impossible for Wong’s parents ever to become US citizens. But Wong himself, born here, was a natural born US citizen.
And yes, that’s how it ALWAYS was, from the beginning of the country. That some Secretaries of State tried to change the rule, outside of law, in the 1880s and 1890s, doesn’t change what the law itself actually was.
The Supreme Court said, in essence, that those Secretaries of State were completely wrong about what “not subject to a foreign power” and “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” actually meant. And if you read the history, the law, and the debates in Congress on the Civil Rights Act and 14th Amendment - the US Supreme Court was absolutely correct.
So... NOT everyone born in the U.S. was a U.S. citizen.
And the reasons the Secretaries of State explicity gave for that was that such persons weren't U.S. citizens because they were born "'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"
FACTS are a bi*ch, huh Jeff...
Here's what the Supreme Court actually said...
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
In the cases I cited, both men had alien fathers who were not permanently domiciled in the U.S.
Not everybody born in the US was a US citizen, but some or most of those particular people, legally speaking, actually were. Even if the State Department denied the fact.
This is according to the ancient rule of citizenship which the Court (accurately) told us had always applied.
People who were NOT US citizens included:
There's an argument to be made for children of illegal aliens and even of temporary visitors as well.
I think there's actually at least SOME argument to be made against people here on temporary visas. I think the argument is a weak one and would likely not stand. But I think there's enough wiggle-room in Wong Kim Ark that the argument could at least be MADE.
There is no longer any such wiggle room when it comes to the children of aliens who actually reside here.
And in Obama's case, he had a citizen mother. So there's no argument there. That's plenty. Like it or not, he's a natural born citizen.
[snip]Birthright Citizenship is the automatic granting of citizenship to children born within a nation’s borders or territories. The United States and Canada are the only developed nations in the world to still offer Birthright Citizenship to tourists and illegal aliens.
The following are among the nations repealing Birthright Citizenship in recent years:
* Australia (2007)
* New Zealand (2005)
* Ireland (2005)
* France (1993)
* India (1987)
* Malta (1989)
* UK (1983)
* Portugal (1981)
PSSST!! They repealed it because it’s INSANITY!