Saturday, November 26, 2005

Eliminating birthright US citizenship

According to foxnews, birthright citizenship is the right in which babies born in the United States, even to parents in the country illegally, automatically become American citizens.

Critics call them anchor babies, and say the laws should be changed to prevent automatic citizenship that could, in the end, reward illegal immigrants. You have to be a citizen and 18 years old to sponser a family member into the USA. This means that the child or children would be entitled to live and work in the USA, but the parents are still illegal till sponsered in by the child. This is going to change.

"By granting the child citizenship, that child then is able, down the road, as he becomes an adult, to legally make the parents citizens of this country as well," said Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga.

Now, a bill sponsored by Deal is gaining support in Congress. It would deny automatic citizenship to children born to undocumented immigrants. A good call I think... there is a lot of illegal people here, and it has always been a way around immigrating the right way by having a sneeky child in America.

"The idea that somebody could come here, five minutes later give birth and have a brand new United States citizen is simply something that most people in their gut feel is wrong," said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman at the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

"It would be just wrong for us to deny such a basic right to just this population," said Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, or CHIRLA.

Critics of the plan also warn that denying birthright citizenship to illegal immigrants could result in a divided culture such as the one that was demonstrated so vividly in the recent wave of arsons and vandalism in France....... BUT these people are illegal...... They have NO rights. They should go home to their country.

The 14th Amendment states, in part, that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the U.S." Backers of birthright policy say changing the way that clause is interpreted would be unconstitutional and un-American.

"It goes against a tradition of really integrating immigrants into our society in order to unify us as a nation, and what it actually does, it further marginalizes a whole community," Salas said.

Deal says supporters are missing the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which he argues excludes anyone in the United States in violation of the law — like illegal immigrants.

"If you look at the original debate of that amendment in the Congress, it was obviously not intended to give carte blanche birthright citizenship to anyone who happened to be born on American soil," Deal said.

Provisions to drop automatic citizenship are also part of several other immigration reform plans circulating on Capitol Hill, and the idea is gaining public support. A recent poll shows 49 percent of Americans oppose automatic citizenship for everyone born on U.S. soil with only 41 percent in favor.

I was not born here, but I am here legally, therfore if I was to father a child in this country, it currently is and still would be the childs right to have US citizenship.


Chris Laurel said...

Unfortunately you are incorrect, or more accurately, Representative Nathan Deal is incorrect and should be voted out of office. He is elected to uphold the Constitution, not circumvent it in the name of a policy goal.

The issue here is not whether birthright citizenship makes sense or whether we should continue to enshrine it in our Constitution. The issue is that those who are sworn to uphold the integrity of our Constitution, are salivating over crafty ways to legislate around it. This is ethically wrong. The fact is birthright citizenship was always the law of this land, and in the 1860s was enshrined as a right because of its lack of universal application (slaves). Back then it was not “terrorists” who were used to scare people out of supporting the 14th Amendment, but American Indians, Gypsies and the Chinese that were the bugaboos to justify the rationale. Regardless, on May 30, 1866, the Senate overwhelming voted 3 to 1 to give this right to us, without qualification.

It was a common law principle we inherited from England. It also fit with the policy of rapid population for a young country quickly expanding its borders. It was explicitly stated in the Senate floor debate, without qualification, that the children of illegal aliens are citizens.

The Supreme Court said in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that the United States government could not deny citizenship to anyone born in the United States — even children of foreigners. Don't believe me? Look at what Congress's own reporting service wrote on the subject November 4, 2005.

There is no justification for our leaders elected to uphold the Constitution to openly flout its procedure when thinking of ways to defeat its principles. Rep. Tom Tancredo’s efforts are worthy of contempt and the voters should hold him accountable.

Or, here's a quote from Senator Conness (with whom Senator Howard voted, 3-1, to make birthright citizenship a Constitutional right for illegals):

“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 be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instruments 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.”
If you would like to see a six page detailed analysis of the debate over birthright citizenship, feel free to check it out on

The Constitution has a method for altering it, and that our lawmakers, in this scandal-plagued time, don't follow it, it is up to the citizenry to throw them out of the office. Birthright citizenship now, what next...?

domingo said...

Citizenship Clause: The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is enclosed within a PAIR OF COMMAS. Thus, the phrase is "non-restrictive"; it is placed NOT to modify or qualify the element preceding it--"All persons born or naturalized in the United States."

1866 Civil Rights Act: The phrase "and not subject to any foreign power" is NOT enclosed within a pair of commas. Thus, the phrase is "restricive"; it is placed to MODIFY or QUALIFY the element preceding it--"All persons born in the United States."

The Citizenship Clause consists of a compound subject and is actually intended to be read, grammatically, as:

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

During the debate, Senator Doolittle was apprehensive of the "very language" Senator Howard (the author) used: "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the Citizenship Clause and just the words "subject to" employed in the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

Senator Doolittle (at p. 2897, 1st col.): "But, sir, the Senator has drawn me off from the immediate question before the Senate. The immediate question is whether the language he [Senator Howard] uses, 'all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' includes these Indians."

The phrase "all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" is printed in "quotation marks" which means that Senator Doolittle merely quoted it.

The phrase "all persons subject to the jurisdiction thereof" confesr a still unrecognized, now-forgotten category of citizens of the United States.

At that time, persons NOT "in the United States" but "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" included those within the 12 territories awaiting statehood (even including the 11 Confederate States) and the District of Columbia.

By the way, can a person be "naturalized" without having been required to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? Redundant?