GOP mulls ending birthright citizenship

[Cosmoline]

It helps the understand the context if you want to interpret the Constitution. The 14th Amendment was never intended to apply to illegal immigration.

You are utterly WRONG. The first clause of the 14th DEFINES WHO IS A CITIZEN. This is the bedrock principle for determining who is or is not a legal immigrant. A child born in the US is not an illegal immigrant. They are breaking no laws. Under the Constitution they are citizens. PERIOD. There is no ambiguity in the 14th's provision. If the drafters wanted to only make freedmen citizens they COULD HAVE SAID THIS. But they did not. They said anyone born in the US is a citizen. If you want to play games with these words and try to bend them because of a deep personal hatred for illegals, you are no better than an anti trying to bend the plain language of the Second because of a deep personal hatred for you and me.

 

[longeyes]

I'll say it again, Cosmo: the 14th Am. was never intended to apply to illegal immigrants.

And the 2A was never intended to apply to the National Guard.

Get the parallel? Go back to the original context.

 

[Cosmoline]

The same walls, minefields and machinegun towers that keep illegals out...will be used to keep Americans in. The same iron fist you want to give to the "gubmint" to protect you from the flood of brown men from the south...will be used to break your nose.

Not really. Many nations that have had to cope with illegal immigration and invading armies for much longer than the US have opted for the fence and minefield option without sacrificing their freedom. Try sneaking across the Swiss border and see how far you get before you've got a hund removing parts of your arm and a very nice assault rifle pointed at your head. But I've never heard Switzerland described as a police state. They just keep a close watch on their borders AS IS THEIR RIGHT.

Protecting the nations' border is one of the most basic elements of being a nation in the first place. We've just been spoiled in the US because for most of our history we haven't had to worry about our neighbors much. I don't think Mexico poses a military threat, but clearly the illegals pose an economic threat and burden. We have every right to build a fence on our side of the border and put mean people there to patrol it with fierce hounds. Mexico's government clearly cannot or will not control its own side, so it's up to us to do it.

But this attack on children born in the US is not helpful. It stinks of racism and nativism and needs to be kicked in the teeth until it spits blood.

 

[Cosmoline]

I'll say it again, Cosmo: the 14th Am. was never intended to apply to illegal immigrants.

And the 2A was never intended to apply to the National Guard.

Get the parallel? Go back to the original context.

You're as wrong as you can be. Let us turn again to the language of the 14th:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

WHAT PART OF THIS ARE YOU UNCLEAR ABOUT?

WHERE IS THE WORD "FREEDMEN"?

I'm not seeing it in there. Am I blind? I mean it doesn't say "All slaves freed by Act of Congress are citizens of the United States."

I've taken courses on Reconstruction. I'm well aware of the context. But I'm also aware that PLAIN LANGUAGE TRUMPS INTENT. The intent is only used where the language is vague or ambiguous. In this case we're dealing with one of the most crystal-clear parts of the Constitution, which no court in this nation has EVER SEEN FIT TO QUESTION. You want to ignore it because you want to kick BABIES BORN IN THE US out of America.

 

[longeyes]

The answer to this squabble is, it seems, amending the Constitution. So be it.

 

[Cosmoline]

You would try to change what it means to be a US Citizen in order to deport infants?

 

[c_yeager]

You would try to change what it means to be a US Citizen in order to deport infants?

It seems that illegal aliens are the new communists, and that they will make a suitably bogeyman to be used to strip Americans of yet more of their liberty. The solution to illegal immigration is simply enforcing existing laws, not making new ones, and sure as hell not altering the constitution.

 

[RealGun]

you are no better than an anti trying to bend the plain language of the Second

You mean like the Supreme Court?

 

[RealGun]

You're as wrong as you can be. Let us turn again to the language of the 14th:

WHAT PART OF THIS ARE YOU UNCLEAR ABOUT?

If this was inevitably literal, then children born to diplomats would be US citizens, even if they didn't care to be.

 

[Don Gwinn]

There's no such thing as being a citizen even if you don't care to be. If you don't care to be an American citizen, you simply renounce your citizenship. It's no big deal.

Are you under the impression that the children of foreign diplomats, born here in the U.S., are not granted American citizenship if they or their parents wish it? Can you provide some evidence for that claim?


Now, folks, we've been amazingly civil about this for four pages now. Let's back off a notch on the ALL CAPS YELLING AND SCREAMING! It isn't necessary. I don't want this to get flushed down the toilet of personal attacks. What I've read so far has been the essence of The High Road. You are all to be congratulated!

 

[c_yeager]

Are you under the impression that the children of foreign diplomats, born here in the U.S., are not granted American citizenship if they or their parents wish it? Can you provide some evidence for that claim?

While I happen to agree with your take on this situation, in the interest of accuracy the statment was actually true. here is a source:

http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/natz/citizen.htm

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship at birth to almost all individuals born in the United States or in U.S. jurisdictions, according to the principle of jus soli. Certain individuals born in the United States, such as children of foreign heads of state or children of foreign diplomats, do not obtain U.S. citizenship under jus soli.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

That is an interesting reference, c_yeager. I wonder what part of the US code stipulates that children of foreign diplomats are not granted citizenship if born on US code. The 14th Amendment does not make that exception, as far as I can tell from reading it.

Considering the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to all people born on US soil, then I would say that the federal code that denies citizenship to children born to foreign diplomats is patently unconsitutional.

Just because it is federal law doesn't mean its constituional. As 2nd Amendment supporters, we more than most people, should appreciate that.

 

[gc70]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."

It makes perfect sense to me that children born in the US to foreign diplomats do not receive US citizenship - because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

When people in my agency have resident postings in other countries, they and their families have diplomatic status and are not subject to the jurisdiction of the foreign country. When one of my friends posted in the UK recently had a child, the child was automatically given diplomatic status, which meant that the child was not subject to the jurisdiction of the UK. I would imagine that the process works the same for foreign diplomats in the US.

 

[RealGun]

There's no such thing as being a citizen even if you don't care to be. If you don't care to be an American citizen, you simply renounce your citizenship. It's no big deal.

Are you under the impression that the children of foreign diplomats, born here in the U.S., are not granted American citizenship if they or their parents wish it? Can you provide some evidence for that claim?

Here's a start from the fed website:

http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/citizenship_faq.html

"(1) By being born in the United States - If you were born in the United States (including, in most cases, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands), you are an American citizen at birth (unless you were born to a foreign diplomat). Your birth certificate is proof of your citizenship."

More research would be needed to determine the actual rules for diplomats or to find further comment about the exclusion.

 

[gc70]

Try sneaking across the Swiss border and see how far you get before you've got a hund removing parts of your arm and a very nice assault rifle pointed at your head. But I've never heard Switzerland described as a police state. They just keep a close watch on their borders AS IS THEIR RIGHT.
...
But this attack on children born in the US is not helpful. It stinks of racism and nativism and needs to be kicked in the teeth until it spits blood.

The Swiss are diligent about their border and even touchier about Swiss citizenship. Even third- or fourth-generation residents do not automatically receive Swiss citizenship. The Swiss voted in 2004 to retain their strict citizenship requirements, even though the coutry was under intense pressure to adopt more lenient requirements favored by the EU.

 

[antarti]

Why should the children of illegal immigrants be entitled to privileges that children of American citizens--and that includes, of course, legal immigrants--are denied? It won't wash; only a matter of time before people have really had enough.

Unfortunately, I see very few in fedgov trying to avoid precisely that train-wreck ("feel-good" measures aside). Left as things are, that's not going to take long to come to a head. It's going to be as ugly as it was avoidable. :banghead:

 

[ctdonath]

Criminal acts of the parents must not punish the children.
If a kid is born in the USA (aside from "diplomatic immunity" conditions), they're a citizen - the kid did nothing wrong, the parents were under US jurisdiction (illegal immigrants are illegal because they violated a law in this jurisdiction; if they were not under our jurisdiction they would not be guilty of illegal immigration); if the parents are here illegally, deal with them accordingly - but the kid, being a different person, did nothing wrong and gets the citizenship.

Methinks denying citizenship-by-birthright will open a can of worms we don't want - suddenly the nature of citizenship will be open to re-interpretation by people we don't want re-interpreting it. Do you really want Hillary et al feeling they can define citizenship as, say, Democrat?

What's pushing this is not concerns about parents having kids here to get the kids citizenship, it's that doing so gets the parents benefits that are not Constitutional. Terminate the welfare state (particularly for illegal immigrants), don't deny a newborn his best birthday present (citizenship in the USA).

 

[gc70]

I have no problem with the concept of abolishing birthright citizenship.

I have a big problem with the government trying to find a "hidden" clause that purports to say that birthright citizenship really didn't exist all along. Any course of action that would revoke a person's citizenship status as it exists today would be wrong.

OTOH, if the people of the US want to change the Constitution to remove birthright citizenship in the future... well, that is why there is a process to amend the Constitution.

 

[c_yeager]

Something to consider.

How many illegals do we really end up with due to birthright citizenship? I suspect that the number is dwarfed by the amount that we get as a result of our porus boarder and lax enforcement of immigration laws.

Most importantly, even if we eliminated birth-right citizenship what would we accomplish? Our patheticaly inept handling of the boarders already has shown that one DOES NOT NEED TO BE A CITIZEN in order to function here. SO how is stripping citizenship from children really going to help?

Honestly, it looks to me like the republicans are trying to alter constitutional protection for something that would accomplish absolutely nothing. The question we should really be asking ourselves is "why". Wouldnt it make a heck of a lot more sense to simply close the borders and keep the parents from getting here in the first place? Why are they trying to strip civil rights INSTEAD of performing this obvious task?

The sound to noise ratio that is coming from the republicans on this issue simply doesnt sit well with me, especially since we are talking about constitutionally protected issues.

Its a bad precedent to start mucking about with our RIGHTS simply because our lawmakers refuse to do the job that we pay them to do.

 

[longeyes]

it's not about birthright, per se

How many illegals do we really end up with due to birthright citizenship? I suspect that the number is dwarfed by the amount that we get as a result of our porus boarder and lax enforcement of immigration laws.

I think it's the other way around, especially if you look ahead, say, ten years. Most illegal immigrants are young and will have offspring, probably multiple offspring. If you have looked at our population figures of late you will have noted that most of the increase is due to immigration--and the lion's share of that is illegal.

If a kid is born in the USA (aside from "diplomatic immunity" conditions), they're a citizen - the kid did nothing wrong, the parents were under US jurisdiction (illegal immigrants are illegal because they violated a law in this jurisdiction; if they were not under our jurisdiction they would not be guilty of illegal immigration); if the parents are here illegally, deal with them accordingly - but the kid, being a different person, did nothing wrong and gets the citizenship.

It's not a matter of whether the child "did something wrong." It's a matter of whether we want that child to receive citizenship and full benefits therefrom. The simple, inescapable reality--all Constitutional wrangling aside--is we are being asked to educate, at American taxpayer expense, the next generation of Mexican kids. That is something that the American people should have a CHOICE about. Do we need to amend the Constitution? Maybe. If we do, we do.

I've said earlier that given where we stand now as a nation, as a society and a culture, the issue is not some theoretical citizenship birthright, it is adherence to certain principles and values that are radically "American." It is not our geographic integrity we wish to preserve, it is our spiritual and cultural integrity, for only that will ensure any kind of future for the America we have known. Yes, this is going to entail difficult public debate and a lot of soul-searching and, yes, it may be "politically dangerous." You think NOT doing these things isn't dangerous? Already millions of Americans are American ONLY because they were born here, not because they believe in the principles on which this nation was founded. America is an idea, not real estate. All of this comes down to survival and the preservation of a very precious legacy. We may have to be resourceful and ingenious and brave in ways we didn't expect to guarantee that.

 

[wingman]

It's not a matter of whether the child "did something wrong." It's a matter of whether we want that child to receive citizenship and full benefits therefrom.

True, it seems there must be limits as to how many we can provide for,
as the birth rate in third world countries climb can we continue to absorb
the flow 20-30 years down the road, should we destroy our country to
provide for others. I think we need to discuss it and make plans before
it's too late.

 

[RealGun]

I've said earlier that given where we stand now as a nation, as a society and a culture, the issue is not some theoretical citizenship birthright, it is adherence to certain principles and values that are radically "American." It is not our geographic integrity we wish to preserve, it is our spiritual and cultural integrity, for only that will ensure any kind of future for the America we have known. Yes, this is going to entail difficult public debate and a lot of soul-searching and, yes, it may be "politically dangerous." You think NOT doing these things isn't dangerous? Already millions of Americans are American ONLY because they were born here, not because they believe in the principles on which this nation was founded. America is an idea, not real estate. All of this comes down to survival and the preservation of a very precious legacy. We may have to be resourceful and ingenious and brave in ways we didn't expect to guarantee that. - longeyes

The US is not White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP). Forget it! That was lost a very long time ago. Culture, religion, and race have no place in defining the country, especially the government, other than in mentioning diversity. The best you can hope for are neighborhoods, local governments, or States where a particular culture has some collective, democratic influence.

 

[longeyes]

e pluribus UNUM

The US is not White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP). Forget it! That was lost a very long time ago. Culture, religion, and race have no place in defining the country, especially the government, other than in mentioning diversity. The best you can hope for are neighborhoods, local governments, or States where a particular culture has some collective, democratic influence.

I did not mention race, ethnicity, or religion. Note that. I do mention "culture" because that is what a nation is, a collection of people with like values and beliefs and, often, history. As for where the ideas embodied in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution came from, that has all been re-hased a thousand thousand times. More important is what those ideas are and what they protect, something that transcends "diversity" as it is today worshipped by our elites. We need to be damn clear about what the "unum" is in America; God knows we've had more than enough "pluribus" of late.

 

[Don Gwinn]

I should have known better than to think political expediency could trump clear Constitutional language. What was I thinking?

 

[gc70]

Culture, religion, and race have no place in defining the country, especially the government, other than in mentioning diversity.

I respectfully disagree.

A country is made up of people. Since the US is a democratic republic, the government reflects, or should reflect, the will of the people. Therefore, the country and its government are defined by its people, who inherently reflect their culture, religion, and race. That reflection may not be monolithic, but it is certainly not meaningless.