REGION: Birthright citizenship debate goes mainstream (Duncan D. Hunter)

North County Times ^ | 9/5/10 | Ed Sifuentes

[pissant]

A call to end automatic citizenship for the children of illegal immigrant parents is gaining momentum among leading Republicans in Congress, who recently called for hearings on the subject.

Some North County congressional representatives, who are among the most vocal against illegal immigration, have pushed for the public debate, but the issue seldom received much attention from the party's leadership.

Then last month, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he wanted to have hearings, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he would like to propose a constitutional amendment to prevent illegal immigrants' children from being declared citizens.

With a few exceptions, most children born in the U.S. are considered citizens under the Constitution's 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868. However, some of those who oppose birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants say the 14th Amendment does not cover those children.

The children of foreign diplomats and American Indians did not qualify for citizenship when the amendment was adopted. American Indians were later granted U.S. citizenship.

Some politicians and anti-illegal immigration groups would like to change the amendment, while others say only a federal statute clarifying who is eligible for citizenship is needed.

(snip)

Joe Kasper, a spokesman for Hunter, said the matter is getting broader attention because the federal government has failed to address illegal immigration.

"This would probably be much less of an issue if the government would simply do its job, secure the border and enforce the law," Kasper said. "But that's evidently an unlikely scenario under this administration, just like its predecessor, which hasn't shown any real interest in doing what's actually needed."

[pissant]

The farce of automatic citizenship has gone on WAY too long.

[wastedyears]

It was meant for the children of then-freed slaves. They should have put a sunset clause in it after a certain generation/year, or actively deleted that Amendment after a certain time.

[pissant]

Or they could just follow the original intent, which has zilch to do with illegal aliens’ kids.

[wastedyears]

It would have no use today though. It was meant for that time, for the children of freed slaves.

[RobbyS]

It could be slowed dow by the simple expedient of requiring the children of illegals to apply for citizenship. They may, I think, a, claim to citizenship because of their birth AND long residence.But at age 18 they should required to go through some sort of legal process to confirm their right. Say something simple: require them to apply for an American passport. That by itself would weed-out millions. In general, , I think Congress has the right to establish requirements that would make it hard for them to establish their claim. Say that on the passport application, they have to present a birth certificate and swear on oath that at least one of their parents is an American citizen. Of course the usual fees would apply. The State Department stands to make hundreds of millions in fees.

[RobbyS]

Past practice means a lot. The part that pretty definitely excludes people not under the national jurisdiction has been redefined by that practice. Lost a lot of its original force.