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

[Dakine10 5,452]

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.

It's a comprehensive treaty regarding childrens rights. I was just pointing out how it would solve the problem of a child not having citizenship of any nation. The scope goes far beyond that.

It makes sense to ratify it, given the fact that the US was a significant contributor to the treaty, and signed it years ago.

Most of the opposition is from groups that do not want international law overriding US law.

[mawilson 2,133]

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.

Seems reasonable.

[mawilson 2,133]

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.

Not true. The UK manages just fine without a national ID.

See page 17 of this document here.

[SMR 368]

Yes, actually. Quite a bit.

US Constitution, 14th Amendment, Section 1:

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:

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.

While there was an act which barred Chinese from naturalizing, that doesn't mean they were barred from living in the US, only from becoming citizens. Wong Kim Ark's parents intended to live in the US indefinitely and were doing so legally. They just weren't granted the rights of citizenship. As you point out, things were different in 1898, but insofar as the ruling clearly states the fact that Wong Kim Ark's parents had permanent domicile in the US is part of the foundation for giving him citizenship, a similar requirement can be held today.

In terms of jurisdiction, there is a very real difference between the authority that the US government has over a US citizen and the authority over foreign nationals in the US, particularly those here on a temporary basis. While anyone who perpetrates on crime on US soil can be prosecuted for such, that is because the US has jurisdiction over the area. The US does not have jurisdiction over that person when they leave the country. Contrast that with a US citizen who can be prosecuted by the US for various crimes against the US even if he is in a different country, such as tax evasion or treason. For this reason, the US government has jurisdiction over this person, even if he or she is not on US soil. The same does not apply to foreign nationals, particularly those who are not in the US on a permanent basis (any illegal immigrant is not in the US on a permanent basis).

When dealing with a child born on US soil, if his parents are foreign nationals, a foreign government has jurisdiction over him.

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

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?

Yep. This is been brought up before - what happens when the mother is an illegal immigrant but the father of the child is a USC? Our constitutional birthright of citizenship is simple to avoid any possibilities of creating a class of people who have no nation to call their own.

And to the GOP - follow your creed and LEAVE THE CONSTITUTION THE ** ALONE!

[Dakine10 5,452]

When dealing with a child born on US soil, if his parents are foreign nationals, a foreign government has jurisdiction over him.

That's not how it actually works though.

Even if the 14th amendment was interpereted that way, a foreign government would only have jurisdiction if they recognize the child as a citizen. Not all countries do.

Lets say that child remains in the USA until adulthood. He has no citizenship of any country therefore he can't be deported. He is stuck in the USA unless some country agrees to take him. So by default he is under US durisdiction.

That is also why anyone renouncing their US citizenship must do so on foreign soil.

[Danno 1,228]

Yep. This is been brought up before - what happens when the mother is an illegal immigrant but the father of the child is a USC? Our constitutional birthright of citizenship is simple to avoid any possibilities of creating a class of people who have no nation to call their own.

And to the GOP - follow your creed and LEAVE THE CONSTITUTION THE ** ALONE!

Actually I wish Libs would try to change the Constitution... rather than redefine it and invent ####### thats not there.

Following the Constitution on Changing the Constitution..... would be a lot more healthy than finding a few Left-wing Judges who agree with you.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Actually I wish Libs would try to change the Constitution... rather than redefine it and invent ####### thats not there.

Following the Constitution on Changing the Constitution..... would be a lot more healthy than finding a few Left-wing Judges who agree with you.

Like what?

[luckytxn 2,265]

Right now there is a industry that brings people here to have anchor babies. If we allow at least one parent to be a citizen and that child becomes a citizen then we will be creating a new industry.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Yep. This is been brought up before - what happens when the mother is an illegal immigrant but the father of the child is a USC? Our constitutional birthright of citizenship is simple to avoid any possibilities of creating a class of people who have no nation to call their own.

And to the GOP - follow your creed and LEAVE THE CONSTITUTION THE ** ALONE!

The GOP creed is NOT "to leave the constitution alone" the GOP creed is to follow the constitution and there is a procedure for changing it. As long as what they propose is within the framework...that is fine. They are seeking to amend the constitution. Dems seek to avoid the amendment process and either legislate or litigate changes to the constitution. THAT is what Repubs object to.

As stupid, useless and simply a diversion this proposal is, at least it would have to pass the amendment muster...and that is not very likely.

It always amazes me that a one with empty arguments must CHANGE the position of their opponent and then argue THAT instead, completely, mentally bankrupt.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Right now there is a industry that brings people here to have anchor babies. If we allow at least one parent to be a citizen and that child becomes a citizen then we will be creating a new industry.

THAt industry is a subsidiary of the industry that smuggles humans here for earning $$$. The beneficiarues are NOT the children, they are the illegal parents. The fetus has no say in where it is born, the parent(s) choose that route so THEY can benefit. What is their benefit? Staying in the US. Why do they want this benefit? Financial reasons.

Whether their child ends up a US citizen, or the citizen of another country, the parents want to support that child. If it is IMPOSSIBLE for them to get work, get benefits or even get an education or home to live in...why on earth would they bring their child here to be born?

It is like saying that steel mills are a pollution problem so let's ban automobiles.

There is a leak in the roof and it is flooding the basement. FIX THE ROOF! Stop trying different ways to pump out the water! Stop the SOURCE. We KNOW the source, we know the reason they are here and we KNOW how to stop it. Fences, birthrights, all of that are simply buckets under the leaks placed at different points. STOP the reason they are here...money. CUT OFF the money. Businesses hire them because it is good business practice to do so. The BENEFIT of low wages and no payrol taxes, no regulations far outweight the miniscule (if any) risk of hiring them. A company could pay a fine and STILL be money ahead. Make it a BAD business decision to hire them and they will not have jobs. No money, no jobs no illegals to be abused.

These kinds of proposals come up when one side proposes an amnesty and the other side proposes a law that drives illegals further underground so they can be paid LESS, and can be abused MORE. Imagine how much you can abuse someone that is in a state that quickly arrests illegals.

All of these proposals are simply one party ,anipulating the status quo to their needs for illegals. Dems need them for votes and to be dependent on Dems(too bad they couldn't get an amnesty and make them citizens before November 2) and Repubs want slaves.

Edited November 20, 2010 by Gary and Alla

[Danno 1,228]

Like what?

Oh I don't know ....striking down Capital Punishment.. or finding Abortion in the Constitution.

If Enough people believe, scraping a kid out from the crotch of a woman should be a Protected Right of the Constitution.... then it will have the votes to make it part of the Constitution.

Edited November 21, 2010 by Danno

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Oh I don't know ....striking down Capital Punishment.. or finding Abortion in the Constitution.

If Enough people believe, scraping a kid out from the crotch of a woman should be a Protected Right of the Constitution.... then it will have the votes to make it part of the Constitution.

Your respect for a woman's rights shines as a beacon unto us all good sir Danno...

[Danno 1,228]

Your respect for a woman's rights shines as a beacon unto us all good sir Danno...

Sorry, I weigh the Right to life... a bit higher than the Right to choose.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Oh I don't know ....striking down Capital Punishment.. or finding Abortion in the Constitution.

Do you feel qualified to make the statement you're making? Are yo familiar with the actual rulings?