GOP majority in House will push to end 'birthright citizenship'

[Danno 1,228]

GOP majority in House will push to end 'birthright citizenship'

By Rob Hotakainen

WASHINGTON – As one of its first acts, the new Congress will consider denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States.

Those children, who are now automatically granted citizenship at birth, will be one of the first targets of the Republican-led House when it convenes in January.

GOP Rep. Steve King of Iowa, the incoming chairman of the subcommittee that oversees immigration, is expected to push a bill that would deny "birthright citizenship" to such children.

The measure, assailed by critics as unconstitutional, is an indication of how the new majority intends to flex its muscles on the volatile issue of illegal immigration.

The idea has a growing list of supporters, including Republican Reps. Tom McClintock of Elk Grove and Dan Lungren of Gold River, but it has aroused intense opposition, as well.

"I don't like it," said Chad Silva, statewide policy analyst for the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California. "It's been something that's been a part of America for a very long time. … For us, it sort of flies in the face of what America is about."

Republicans, Silva said, are "going in there and starting to monkey with the Constitution."

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1868, guarantees citizenship to anyone born or naturalized in the United States. It was intended to make sure that children of freed slaves were granted U.S. citizenship.

While opponents say King's bill would clearly be unconstitutional, backers say the 14th Amendment would not apply. The amendment states that anyone born in the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a citizen.

King said the amendment would not apply to the children of illegal immigrants because their parents should not be in the country anyway. He said immigration law should not create incentives for people to enter the country illegally and that it's creating an "anchor baby industry."

"Many of these illegal aliens are giving birth to children in the United States so that they can have uninhibited access to taxpayer-funded benefits and to citizenship for as many family members as possible," King said.

An estimated 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in the United States in 2008 were the children of undocumented immigrants, according to an analysis of Census Bureau data by the Pew Hispanic Center done last year.

The issue is dividing Republicans, too.

"We find both this rhetoric and this unconstitutional conduct reprehensible, insulting and a poor reflection upon Republicans," DeeDee Blasé, the founder of Somos Republicans, a Latino GOP organization based in the Southwestern states, said in a letter to House Republican leaders.

Silva said the Republican plan is "not the fix," adding that the citizenship of children born to immigrants was never an issue during the immigration tide at the turn of the 20th century and that it shouldn't be now.

"That's our strength," he said. "And to start splitting hairs like that will only make the immigration issue worse."

Democratic Rep. Doris Matsui of Sacramento called King's plan "both unconstitutional and shortsighted."

"The 14th Amendment to the Constitution grants American citizenship to anyone born on American soil," she said. "I firmly believe we must reform the current immigration system, but we need to do so comprehensively with policies that respect our nation's history, strengthen our borders, and help our economy."

McClintock outlined his position last summer in a rebuttal to a newspaper editorial: "If illegal immigration is to be rewarded with birthright citizenship, public benefits and amnesty, it becomes impossible to maintain our immigration laws and the process of assimilation that they assure," he wrote.

McClintock noted that the United Kingdom, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, France and India have all changed their laws in recent years to require that at least one parent be a legal resident for the child to become a legal citizen.

Lungren, who served as California's attorney general from 1990 to 1998 introduced a similar bill in 2007, but it did not pass the House, which was controlled by Democrats at the time.

His bill called for defining what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. Lungren proposed that the clause would apply to any person born to a parent who is a citizen, a legal alien or an alien serving in the military.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/18/3194319/gop-majority-in-house-will-push.html#ixzz15hmLxQoM

[scandal 951]

I'd be in favor of having a bill like this pass, if only just to have SCOTUS rule on its constitutionality (it would certainly be challenged) and clarify once and for all the ambiguity of the the "jurisdiction" wording in the 14th amendment. If the bill passes constitutional muster - so be it. As stated, other countries have modified their birthright citizenship in recent years and it wouldn't be an outlandish thing for the US to do so too, provided it's constitutional. If however a law as proposed is tossed out as a 14th amendment violation, then it will make it very clear that the only pathway to deal with this issue is through a further Amendment.

To clarify: what I would favor is a limited law that restricts citizenship by denying it ONLY to children provably born to 2 parents both of whom are illegally in the US. A child born to parents legally in the US clearly is granted citizenship under any possible reading of the 14th Amendment.

Further, since proving the illegal status of the parents at time of birth is not going to be easy and certainly not something we want to burden the nation's hospitals and county registrars with , the result of such a law would invariably be that birth certificates will continue to be issued, and will no longer serve as prima facie evidence of citizenship for any of us. Not sure if that's the consequence intended by those pushing for such a law, but consequences are often unintended.

[TBoneTX 45,865]

restricts citizenship by denying it ONLY to children provably born to 2 parents both of whom are illegally in the US.

Excellent discussion, si man. In regard to the quoted phrase above, however, what about unwed mothers (here illegally) who could claim (in their non-English language only) that the father was "an American citizen" who raped her, loved-her-&-left-her, or similar? What a can of worms, oof man. And who defines "illegally here" -- would that be EWI only, or also overstay of legal entry? Edited November 19, 2010 by TBoneTX

[JoannaV 174]

Being from the UK and used to this, I feel it makes sense in this highly-mobile world. In 1868 people couldn't fly in and give birth.

On the other hand, I'm used to a different kind of constitution. I'm not going to get into any discussions in which the US constitution is important.

On a slightly related topic, some people think there is nothing wrong with deporting a US citizen baby to its "home land" and then allowing it back in when it turns 18 and is free from its parents.

[Danno 1,228]

I'd be in favor of having a bill like this pass, if only just to have SCOTUS rule on its constitutionality (it would certainly be challenged) and clarify once and for all the ambiguity of the the "jurisdiction" wording in the 14th amendment. If the bill passes constitutional muster - so be it. As stated, other countries have modified their birthright citizenship in recent years and it wouldn't be an outlandish thing for the US to do so too, provided it's constitutional. If however a law as proposed is tossed out as a 14th amendment violation, then it will make it very clear that the only pathway to deal with this issue is through a further Amendment.

To clarify: what I would favor is a limited law that restricts citizenship by denying it ONLY to children provably born to 2 parents both of whom are illegally in the US. A child born to parents legally in the US clearly is granted citizenship under any possible reading of the 14th Amendment.

Further, since proving the illegal status of the parents at time of birth is not going to be easy and certainly not something we want to burden the nation's hospitals and county registrars with , the result of such a law would invariably be that birth certificates will continue to be issued, and will no longer serve as prima facie evidence of citizenship for any of us. Not sure if that's the consequence intended by those pushing for such a law, but consequences are often unintended.

Interesting point you raise.

I'm sure some provision could be made for this.

I didn't get my Social security No.until I was 16, I believe they are registered at birth in the hospital now. (?)

Wonder how other countries made this change.

[George & Gina 29]

I believe citizenship should be granted to children born in the US of at least 1 US Citizen or "legal immigrant" parent. Please note the emphasis on "immigrant".

Citizen + ANY = YES

Legal Immigrant + Legal Immigrant = YES

Legal Immigrant + Illegal Immigrant/alien = YES

Illegal Immigrant/alien + Illegal Immigrant/alien = NO

Tourist/Student/Work/Diplomatic/etc. VISA + Illegal Immigrant/alien = NO

Tourist/Student/Work/Diplomatic/etc. VISA + Tourist/Student/Work/Diplomatic/etc. VISA = NO

Even though someone is here legally as a tourist, student, etc., that doesn't mean their children born here should automatically become US citizens. EXCEPTION: The other parent is a US Citizen.

Anything I missed?

Just my two cents...

George

Excellent discussion, si man. In regard to the quoted phrase above, however, what about unwed mothers (here illegally) who could claim (in their non-English language only) that the father was "an American citizen" who raped her, loved-her-&-left-her, or similar? What a can of worms, oof man. And who defines "illegally here" -- would that be EWI only, or also overstay of legal entry?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

A few of you have presented a very fair way of dealing with this. But how would this be enforced? Would anyone having a baby have to prove their immigration status, even 2 US citizens? How would you propose doing this in an efficient manner without having to make substantial changes in other laws and enforcement?

[scandal 951]

I believe citizenship should be granted to children born in the US of at least 1 US Citizen or "legal immigrant" parent. Please note the emphasis on "immigrant".

Citizen + ANY = YES

Legal Immigrant + Legal Immigrant = YES

Legal Immigrant + Illegal Immigrant/alien = YES

Illegal Immigrant/alien + Illegal Immigrant/alien = NO

Tourist/Student/Work/Diplomatic/etc. VISA + Illegal Immigrant/alien = NO

Tourist/Student/Work/Diplomatic/etc. VISA + Tourist/Student/Work/Diplomatic/etc. VISA = NO

Even though someone is here legally as a tourist, student, etc., that doesn't mean their children born here should automatically become US citizens. EXCEPTION: The other parent is a US Citizen.

Anything I missed?

Yes, actually. Quite a bit.

US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1:

Section 1. 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.

Pretty clear. really. All persons. Not "All persons except the following categories...". Just, "All persons". The only qualification is the "subject to the jurisdiction of" clause.

One might quibble or argue as to whether a child of parents both in the US illegally is "subject to the jurisdiction" -- that is precisely where a constitutional challenge will certainly arise to any such attempt to legislate.

However there is no conceivable basis to argue that an individual legally admitted and legally present in the US is not "subject to the jurisdiction" (with the exception of foreign diplomats or others explicitly granted immunity from US law), hence a child born to such a parent is itself "subject to the jurisdiction". That means the categories you listed above(Tourist/Student/Work visa etc.) are quite clearly covered by the 14th Amendment.

Don't want to take my word for it? That's fine. SCOTUS did already rule on that point quite decisively in the Wong Kim Ark decision of 1898:

Issue

In the Wong Kim Ark case, the U.S. Supreme Court identified the legal question presented to them as such:

[W]hether 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[.]

Opinion

In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

We go through this discussion repeatedly here, and the same points are raised repeatedly.

The Wong Kim Ark decision clearly provides for citizenship of children born to parents legally in the US. At the time (1898) the US did not have immigration controls as we know them today. While it did have the Chinese Exclusion Act which barred Chinese people from naturalizing in the US, SCOTUS ruled that this did not apply to Wong Kim Ark who was not naturalizing but who qualified for birthright citizenship. The only conceivable area in which present-day arguments could be made that Wong Kim Ark does not apply would involve the child of illegal immigrants, a concept which did not exist in 1898. To me, it would seem that the "subject to jurisdiction" clause applies to illegal immigrants as well: they can be (and are) arrested and tried for crimes in the US, hence are subject to jurisdiction. Still, I can see where a case could be mounted that existing precedent doesn't cover them and SCOTUS should be asked to make a new explicit ruling.

[scandal 951]

A few of you have presented a very fair way of dealing with this. But how would this be enforced? Would anyone having a baby have to prove their immigration status, even 2 US citizens? How would you propose doing this in an efficient manner without having to make substantial changes in other laws and enforcement?

I think that's the point entirely overlooked by those pushing these kinds of laws. The only way something like this could be enforceable would be to have a national ID used to identify citizenship. That's in fact what many other countries typically do: citizens are issued a photo-ID card identifying as such. Immigrants of various categories get a different ID card, and tourists/visitors are required to present their passport w/ valid visa as ID. Unless the US wants to adopt such a system it's pretty hard to see how any such a law is enforceable. Currently a US birth certificate constitutes proof of US citizenship since its bearer must have been born in the US. But birth certificates are routinely issued by local jurisdictions (county clerks etc.) who are not capable of determining the legal immigration status of the parents requesting a BC. If suddenly it were the case that not everyone with a US Birth Certificate is automatically a US Citizen, all 300+ million Americans would need some other way of proving their citizenship.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

So we'll pass a law to end birthright citizenship, but they can still get a drivers license without proving legality. And work illegally. And get in state tuition rates the same as a legal resident. And free health care while pregnant and for the baby. And they can still enter illegally. But at least they won't be citizens.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Even though someone is here legally as a tourist, student, etc., that doesn't mean their children born here should automatically become US citizens. EXCEPTION: The other parent is a US Citizen.

I don't agree with that part. Children born to legal aliens are cleary under US jurisdiction (Unless they are exempt from US jurisdiction, such as diplomats).

Another problem would be that not all countries recognize citizenship passed through parents either. Are you proposing those children have no citizenship anywhere or just that it's not our problem?

It's interesting that the Internation Convention on Children's Rights would eliminate the problem of children not having any citizenship. Countries which have ratified this convention are bound to ensure that no child born within their borders is allowed to become stateless. This would mean granting citizenship to a child born in that country if no other countries laws allow citizenship to pass through the parents.

Unfortunately despite being a major contributor to this treaty, the USA is one of only two countries which have not yet ratified it (the other being Somalia whose transitional government is barely functional).

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Both parties ARE the same! They BOTH do stupid things that have nothing to do with illegal immigration.

STOP THE INCENTIVE to come here and they will all have their babies elsewhere!

1. HUGE fines and revocation of business license for hiring illegals

2. Absolutley NO medical care (except lifesaving treatment) for illegals

3. Absolutely NO government benefits

4. Require I-9 documentation for renting or buying property

5. NO enrollment in school for children

The parties simply propose laws that will MAKE NO DIFFERENCE because they DO NOT WANT to end illegal immigration.

Both parties are perfectly happy with continuing the brutality of illegal aliens coming here to work so our businesses can avoid all the labor laws passed to protect citizens and workers. Democrats want future votes after an amnesty, Republicans want slave labor.

They come here for ONE thing...money. They have babies here because it can help them to stay here and MAKE MONEY. If they CANNOT make money, they WILL NOT come. If the risk of hiring them outweighs the benefit NO ONE will hire them.

Seems like the goverment can invent ebery other form of "tax incentive" knowing that money talks and money gets results...but when it comes to illegal aliens they all get a brain-fart and forget how they got people to buy cars, homes, insulation, etc. They want people to quit smoking? Tax. They want you to drive eco-friendly cars...tax. They all GET the concept very well.

They want illegals gone? TAX! Tax a business right out of business if they hire even one. Let this woman governor candidate in California LOSE HER HOME for hiring an illegal and we will see how many more illegal maids get hired.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Gary and Alla

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

That means the categories you listed above(Tourist/Student/Work visa etc.) are quite clearly covered by the 14th Amendment.

Don't want to take my word for it? That's fine. SCOTUS did already rule on that point quite decisively in the Wong Kim Ark decision of 1898:

Slow down there, buddy. What the SCOTUS ruled on were not temporarily admitted foreign nationals but foreign nationals with permanent residence in the United States. Note that there are four distinct criteria listed that all have to be fulfilled. The conditions are linked with an "and" not an "or" - i.e. all need to be fulfilled not just any one of them.

Guest workers, students and tourists do not meet the permanent residence and domicile portion of the qualification stipulated by the court.

Issue

In the Wong Kim Ark case, the U.S. Supreme Court identified the legal question presented to them as such:

[W]hether 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[.]

Opinion

In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

Edited November 19, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[^_^ 5,021]

... the Internation Convention on Children's Rights would eliminate the problem of children not having any citizenship. Countries which have ratified this convention are bound to ensure that no child born within their borders is allowed to become stateless. This would mean granting citizenship to a child born in that country if no other countries laws allow citizenship to pass through the parents

...

... the USA is one of only two countries which have not yet ratified it (the other being Somalia whose transitional government is barely functional).

We are in great company!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It's interesting that the Internation Convention on Children's Rights would eliminate the problem of children not having any citizenship. Countries which have ratified this convention are bound to ensure that no child born within their borders is allowed to become stateless. This would mean granting citizenship to a child born in that country if no other countries laws allow citizenship to pass through the parents.

Unfortunately despite being a major contributor to this treaty, the USA is one of only two countries which have not yet ratified it (the other being Somalia whose transitional government is barely functional).

Looking at the current state of affairs in the US, what's the point of the US ratifying the treaty. Any child born here is a US citizen and hence in no danger of being stateless. So, we're ensuring that no child born here is allowed to be come stateless - without that depending on any treaty. Now, if birthright citizenship as we know it today would end - which I don't think will acually happen - we would have to ratify that treaty. Otherwise, we'd be in odd company for sure.