New Arizona bill would deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants

[Heracles 417]

There's so many flaws.

The baby will grow up and feed the government. Consider giving birth an initial fee to invest to give way for more money from the kid when he gets a job.

China and India have a large number of people yet the majority of people are dirt poor. This they will pay into the government does not hold water. Heck, most third world countries have extremely large populations. Whereas, most offering the highest standards of living - higher than the US - have a much smaller population.

Regardless of the quality of life or poverty argument, the fact stands that the majority of revenue for the government comes from wealthy people. Whereas, not only do the millions living in poverty pay little to nothing in taxes, they cost the country money - lots of money actually.

[Heracles 417]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

....

Looks like the loonies in Arizona have pretty basic reading comprehension difficulties! Makes sense, given the sorry nature of their educational system.

Actually the intention [context] was and is quite obvious. Then again context has been thrown out the window in this country; hello 1st and 2nd amendment.

Nevertheless, is it not time the United States enter the 21st century and join pretty-much every other first world country [inc Canada] that logically and rationally requires that at least one parent be a citizen?

Edited June 16, 2010 by Booyah!

[SupportGeek 21]

China and India have a large number of people yet the majority of people are dirt poor. This they will pay into the government does not hold water. Heck, most third world countries have extremely large populations. Whereas, most offering the highest standards of living - higher than the US - have a much smaller population.

Regardless of the quality of life or poverty argument, the fact stands that the majority of revenue for the government comes from wealthy people. Whereas, not only do the millions living in poverty pay little to nothing in taxes, they cost the country money - lots of money actually.

While I do feel its important that one parent should be a USC for the newborn to be counted as a Citizen, arent you making a leap to assume the child will grow up to become an adult living in poverty? Its just as (or more) likely they will be an average taxpaying citizen.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

(In case you don't recognize the language, which most of us birthright citizens learned in high school, provided we were paying attention, it is the First Section of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.)

Those words are pretty clear. If a State were to decide to deny birth certificates to a class of individuals born in the United States who are by definition citizens, then it is pretty clear that State would be on shaky legal ground. (Now, if that State wants to make sure that attorney's make money off of their stupidity, that may be possible for them but that would be weird public policy. Attorney's have plenty of other opportunities to make a living.)

A person who is born here is born here -- that fact is simple and clear, and it is the 14th Amendment, not merely US law, that defines that person as a US citizen. Next, the language "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens ..." is also pretty clear language.

Looks like the loonies in Arizona have pretty basic reading comprehension difficulties! Makes sense, given the sorry nature of their educational system.

Great post.

[Advanced Aardvark 82]

The key phrase in the 14th Amendment is "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...".

A quick google gave me this link:

http://www.14thamend...nal_intent.html

Original intent of the 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

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

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.

Free! Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

Supreme Court decisions

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. (See consequences.)

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.

[HappyKnappy 30]

China and India have a large number of people yet the majority of people are dirt poor. This they will pay into the government does not hold water. Heck, most third world countries have extremely large populations. Whereas, most offering the highest standards of living - higher than the US - have a much smaller population.

Regardless of the quality of life or poverty argument, the fact stands that the majority of revenue for the government comes from wealthy people. Whereas, not only do the millions living in poverty pay little to nothing in taxes, they cost the country money - lots of money actually.

Hold it right there chief, you may want to paddle back when calling China poor. Remember you are dealing with a communist system, so the State holds all the riches. I would think twice before calling them poor or third world, remember the US is in huge debt with them.

I disagree with your second point, how many rich people get tax breaks, and how many rich people are in the States in comparison with the middle cass folk. You know, the average Joe that works Mon-Fri to put food on the table and pay utility bills... I think that the middle class outnumbers the high class many times over, as well as outnumbering the seriously poor that costs the government money.

Edited June 16, 2010 by HappyKnappy

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Great post.

you would think so

[^_^ 5,021]

Hold it right there chief, you may want to paddle back when calling China poor. Remember you are dealing with a communist system, so the State holds all the riches. I would think twice before calling them poor or third world, remember the US is in huge debt with them.

I disagree with your second point, how many rich people get tax breaks, and how many rich people are in the States in comparison with the middle cass folk. You know, the average Joe that works Mon-Fri to put food on the table and pay utility bills... I think that the middle class outnumbers the high class many times over, as well as outnumbering the seriously poor that costs the government money.

wow that's the dumbest thing I've read on vj today.

of course i just got started. will catch up wit you fools later.

ps. that the Chinese feel the need to put so much of their assets in us treasuries is an indictment on their system. we have their money and they have our paper. who has who by the balls again?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Hold it right there chief, you may want to paddle back when calling China poor. Remember you are dealing with a communist system, so the State holds all the riches. I would think twice before calling them poor or third world, remember the US is in huge debt with them.

I disagree with your second point, how many rich people get tax breaks, and how many rich people are in the States in comparison with the middle cass folk. You know, the average Joe that works Mon-Fri to put food on the table and pay utility bills... I think that the middle class outnumbers the high class many times over, as well as outnumbering the seriously poor that costs the government money.

You can disagree all you want.. - http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html -

Define "tax breaks" as well. If you mean monies donated to charities, etc. I hope that's not what you mean.

[HappyKnappy 30]

You can disagree all you want.. - http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html -

Define "tax breaks" as well. If you mean monies donated to charities, etc. I hope that's not what you mean.

Liberty... Ain't it great?

A link to a union? Really?

Edited June 16, 2010 by HappyKnappy

[HappyKnappy 30]

Food for thought...

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/taxes/p94070.asp

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/26/gop-budget-proposal-massi_n_179598.html

Edited June 16, 2010 by HappyKnappy

[HappyKnappy 30]

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/02/02/you-re-rich-get-over-it.html

[SMOKE 1,426]

wow that's the dumbest thing I've read on vj today.

of course i just got started. will catch up wit you fools later.

ps. that the Chinese feel the need to put so much of their assets in us treasuries is an indictment on their system. we have their money and they have our paper. who has who by the balls again?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Food for thought...

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/taxes/p94070.asp

Perhaps people should save up and buy homes of a higher value?

This still doesn't change the fact of who pays the majority of taxes...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/26/gop-budget-proposal-massi_n_179598.html

what are you trying to say here? That people making under $100k shouldn't have to pay taxes at all? What's wrong with this proposal? 25% and 10%.... seems reasonable enough.

[Dan J 277]

Perhaps people should save up and buy homes of a higher value?

This still doesn't change the fact of who pays the majority of taxes...

what are you trying to say here? That people making under $100k shouldn't have to pay taxes at all? What's wrong with this proposal? 25% and 10%.... seems reasonable enough.

The fact that the wealthy are paying the largest share of overall taxes has less to do with tax rates and more to do with income disparates. As long as the income gap between the rich and poor keep increasing, this probably wont go away no matter what the tax rate is.

Of course many of the wealthy are in positions to change that, but do you think they will?