The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007

[Scott & Lai 12]

There you go again! I am not anti-immigrant, just anti-illegal immigrant. Thats a label that your side uses to try to demonize those that want the law respected.

But the law IS being respected according to the constitution. The constitution is the constitution and the 14th amendment is the...you get the picture. I don't understand what you are getting at by this statement. No one is breaking the law currently by giving babies born in the US citizenship.

The 14th ammendment has been incorrectly interpreted. It was never intended to grant citizenship to children of foreign nationals who have come here in violation of our sovereign laws.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

There you go again! I am not anti-immigrant, just anti-illegal immigrant. Thats a label that your side uses to try to demonize those that want the law respected.

But the law IS being respected according to the constitution. The constitution is the constitution and the 14th amendment is the...you get the picture. I don't understand what you are getting at by this statement. No one is breaking the law currently by giving babies born in the US citizenship.

The 14th ammendment has been incorrectly interpreted. It was never intended to grant citizenship to children of foreign nationals who have come here in violation of our sovereign laws.

thank you for your opinion.

See post above for wording and point out area of interpretation.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

much ado about nothing...typical poitical bullsh!t....it will not get enough votes in the house much less senate..

this has been the law in the constitution, since this country began...and to change it..is nothing but a knee jerk reaction to failed policies of this country

The 14th was designed to ensure that all former slaves were granted automatic United States citizenship, and that they would have all the rights and privileges as any other citizen. The amendment passed Congress on June 13, 1866, and was ratified on July 9, 1868.

I think most every other Country in the World requires that at least one parent be a Citizen in order for the Child to become a Citizen. There have been 27 Amendments to the Constitution; if enough States want a change there will be a change.

fyi 14th:

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. 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.

not sure what will be open to "interpretation". you will have to change the constitution. tough row to hoe. but hey, this is america and you have the right to try to do so!

Daniel

:energetic:

It basically says they are afforded due process of the law. After legal process they can be booted.

[mawilson 2,133]

The 14th ammendment has been incorrectly interpreted. It was never intended to grant citizenship to children of foreign nationals who have come here in violation of our sovereign laws.

It was intended to grant citizenship to children. Period.

[Caladan 19]

The way I figure, getting rid of birthright citizenship doesn't actually stop people from being illegal. So if worrying about illegals is really a politician's primary concern, I'd think the politician would support legislation that did something to reduce the illegal population. If the politicians ignores things like increasing the number of judges authorized to sign deportation orders, and continually goes after big showy things that prove they're tough, like birthright citizenship, I'm going to start thinking that maybe they're not really worried about illegals at all, but inflaming their supporters with worries about being overrun! (in forty years! if everyone files the paperwork properly!)

After a while, xenophobia's the only decent explanation for the politicians' behavior. I don't think GaryC's a xenophobe, but that doesn't make the legislation workable.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

much ado about nothing...typical poitical bullsh!t....it will not get enough votes in the house much less senate..

this has been the law in the constitution, since this country began...and to change it..is nothing but a knee jerk reaction to failed policies of this country

The 14th was designed to ensure that all former slaves were granted automatic United States citizenship, and that they would have all the rights and privileges as any other citizen. The amendment passed Congress on June 13, 1866, and was ratified on July 9, 1868.

I think most every other Country in the World requires that at least one parent be a Citizen in order for the Child to become a Citizen. There have been 27 Amendments to the Constitution; if enough States want a change there will be a change.

fyi 14th:

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. 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.

not sure what will be open to "interpretation". you will have to change the constitution. tough row to hoe. but hey, this is america and you have the right to try to do so!

Daniel

:energetic:

It basically says they are afforded due process of the law. After legal process they can be booted.

Marc, first sentence = All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States. <-- period. Followed by expansion of rights therefore.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Ban Hammer 13,619]

fyi 14th:

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. 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.

not sure what will be open to "interpretation". you will have to change the constitution. tough row to hoe. but hey, this is america and you have the right to try to do so!

Daniel

:energetic:

do note the part i bolded.......

i'd love to see you explain how someone illegally in the country fits "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

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

Supreme Court decisions with regard to birth rights to citizenship...

Elk v. Wilkins

The United States Supreme Court first ruled on the meaning of this phrase in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884). The Court determined that children born domestically to American Indians were actually under the jurisdiction of the tribe, which itself had no allegiance to the United States, and was therefore not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

...

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court extended (re-affirmed) U.S. jurisdiction to include all aliens lawfully residing within the United States, who were not explicitly protected from its jurisdiction by treaty. This includes most temporary residents, soldiers and immigrants, but not diplomats and agents of foreign governments. The subject of Wong Kim Ark was a child of Chinese citizens who were permanent residents. Wong Kim Ark also resided in the US, never renounced his citizenship, and never moved his residency outside of the United States.

There have been several subsequent cases involving the citizenship status of people born to aliens legally within the United States, but the Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled whether or not the Fourteenth Amendment grants children of illegal immigrants automatic citizenship. The actual application of Wong Kim Ark to the domestically born children of illegal aliens originates from the use of birth certificates as proof of citizenship.

In the case of aliens legally inside the United States on visas, a High Court ruling is probably unnecessary. Most visas are established by treaty, and by treaty, the jurisdiction of the United States might not be absolute; however, these treaties usually define the citizenship status of children born abroad. The Supreme Court briefly approached this issue during Hamdi v. Rumsfeld [1]. Hamdi, who was born in the U.S. to Saudis on a temporary visa, was referred to as a "presumed American citizen" by justices Scalia and Stevens.

Traditionally, by amicably entering the country, with the intent of respecting its laws and people, foreigners submit themselves to U.S. jurisdiction. People, such as Representative Tom Tancredo, who are concerned about so-called "anchor babies," have proposed that illegal immigrants do not subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the United States[2], arguing that their very presence inside the country constitutes a defiance of the law. In this view, the logic in Elk v. Wilkins should be extended to illegal immigrants, who Tancredo and others see as under the jurisdiction of their home country.

....

Plyler v. Doe

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) did not explicitly address the question of so-called "anchor babies" born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents; the children dealt with in the case were born outside the U.S. and had entered the country illegally along with their parents.

However, the court's reasoning was significant because it ruled that illegal immigrants residing in a state are "within the jurisdiction" of that state. This implies that the U.S.-born children of such immigrants are "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]", and therefore qualify for birthright citizenship under the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This implication is made explicit in a footnote that states

no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful [3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_ci...ates_of_America

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

fyi 14th:

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. 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.

not sure what will be open to "interpretation". you will have to change the constitution. tough row to hoe. but hey, this is america and you have the right to try to do so!

Daniel

:energetic:

do note the part i bolded.......

i'd love to see you explain how someone illegally in the country fits "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

I don't have to. your question is moot. see, let me try to explain it to you. Baby is born in USA. Baby not illegal as per US constitution. Baby's parents immigration status has no bearings. Reread sentence #1.

Daniel

:energetic:

[Ban Hammer 13,619]

fyi 14th:

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. 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.

not sure what will be open to "interpretation". you will have to change the constitution. tough row to hoe. but hey, this is america and you have the right to try to do so!

Daniel

:energetic:

do note the part i bolded.......

i'd love to see you explain how someone illegally in the country fits "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

I don't have to. your question is moot. see, let me try to explain it to you. Baby is born in USA. Baby not illegal as per US constitution. Baby's parents immigration status has no bearings. Reread sentence #1.

Daniel

:energetic:

how can they be subject to the laws of the usa/the state they reside when their parents are not here legally?

eta: i just read steven's post. seems the court agrees with you. still don't make it right imo.

Edited August 30, 2007 by charlesandnessa

[Caladan 19]

If passed, the bill will require parents either to be U.S. citizens, or to be an alien who has been lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S., or an alien performing active service in the armed forces.

Oh, and this is just dumb. Hope no one ever gets stuck in name checks and has a kid while their AOS is pending. Not to mention the people that have kids while on F-1s, and the adjust to permanent residence through a job years later. Perfectly legal, perfectly contributing, but their kid can be deported.

Bad bad bad bad bad law.

[almaty 19]

The 14th ammendment has been incorrectly interpreted. It was never intended to grant citizenship to children of foreign nationals who have come here in violation of our sovereign laws.

It was intended to grant citizenship to children. Period.

of course...no amount of doublespin or spin can change it...and it has been the law of the land since..

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

fyi 14th:

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. 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.

not sure what will be open to "interpretation". you will have to change the constitution. tough row to hoe. but hey, this is america and you have the right to try to do so!

Daniel

:energetic:

do note the part i bolded.......

i'd love to see you explain how someone illegally in the country fits "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

I don't have to. your question is moot. see, let me try to explain it to you. Baby is born in USA. Baby not illegal as per US constitution. Baby's parents immigration status has no bearings. Reread sentence #1.

Daniel

:energetic:

how can they be subject to the laws of the usa/the state they reside when their parents are not here legally?

you enter country X. country X's laws apply to you becasue you are under country X's jurisdiction. no? baby born in country X. country X's law says all persons born in country X are citizens of country X. erge, baby is country X citizen.

Daniel

:energetic:

[almaty 19]

this is not rocket science..it is the law...no amount of banner on vj will have any effect...

[Dan J 277]

This is being offered to fix illegal immigration, but yet like RealID, it won't do much to change the situation. So can we get real solutions (Like an increase in funding for the I.C.E.)? or are we going to get more insidious agendas offered as solutions when they do nothing to change the reality of the situation.