The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007

[Caladan 19]

That case didn't have anything to do with citizenship.

[Chica Yeyé 41]

Binding international law regarding birth and citizenship contemplates 2 guiding principles:

1. Jus soli: grants citizenship based on location of birth (which extends to military bases, consulates, and other foreign located agencies which are part of X country's soil)

2. Jus sanguini: grants citizenship based on parents citizenship/nationality with no regard to birth location (most of our VJ children will fall under this category immediately, and so would children born in a foreign country by citizens of country ZSD).

Some countries adopt both principles, some only one.

Peace, L.

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

That case didn't have anything to do with citizenship.

I was asking him for an example where a previous decision was later changed. I suppose it would be possible, but highly problematic for them to make legal exceptions to the law...it would be a slippery slope.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

I really dont think the fore fathers of this country had the foresight to anticipate illegal immigration of this magnitude.

Just because some judge intrerpreted the meaning of the 14th amendment a certain way by no means make it correct.

This so called loving mother gets deported and then leaves her kid behind which this very interpretation allows.

[GaryC 7]

That case didn't have anything to do with citizenship.

The point was that supreme court interpretations of the law can and have changed. That was a long held decision and was overturned. The same can happen with the 14th amendment.

[Dan J 277]

thanks brother steven..and it will take a constitutional amendment to change the law..and it will never happen in my life time

As was pointed out before, the amendment was interpreted to include illegals and could be re-interpreted to exclude illegals. A new amendment is not needed. This sort of thing happens a lot.

Do you have examples, Gary? What's stated below is pretty straight forward, no?

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

Just happened recently in regard to racial preferences in school admissions.

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_cour...mer.pet.rep.pdf

It can happen again and it should.

It can happen again, but as the law amendment is written, the interpretation is very unlikely to change. The case your talking about has nothing to do with application of the constitution, just a change on an earlier descsion.

The only way and will be changed is with another amendment, and that would be very difficult to pass. For good reason.

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

I really dont think the fore fathers of this country had the foresight to anticipate illegal immigration of this magnitude.

Just because some judge intrerpreted the meaning of the 14th amendment a certain way by no means make it correct.

This so called loving mother gets deported and then leaves her kid behind which this very interpretation allows.

How quaint...because you sound an awful lot like the folks who want to challenge the 2nd Amendment using that same kind of logic. Marc, you're more left than you even can imagine.

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

That case didn't have anything to do with citizenship.

The point was that supreme court interpretations of the law can and have changed. That was a long held decision and was overturned. The same can happen with the 14th amendment.

That's fair...as long as those folks who get all up in arms when anyone ever talks about doing away with the 2nd Amendment as if it is untouchable. For the record though, I am not in favor of changing that Amendment either.

Edited August 30, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[GaryC 7]

It can happen again, but as the law amendment is written, the interpretation is very unlikely to change. The case your talking about has nothing to do with application of the constitution, just a change on an earlier descsion.

The only way and will be changed is with another amendment, and that would be very difficult to pass. For good reason.

The jurisdiction part of the amendment is the sticking point and the part open to interpretation. In the beginning American Indians were exempt because of it and now they are no longer exempt. That is where the law can be re-interpretated. All it would take is the right court with the right case. With all the backlash from the illegals making azzes of themselves a case is bound to come up. It isn't a slam dunk but there is a chance. There is also a chance from congress without using a new amendment.

Based on the intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, some believe that Congress could exercise its Section 5 powers to prevent the children of illegal aliens from automatically becoming citizens of the United States. An effort in 1997 failed in the face of intense political opposition from immigrant rights groups. Apparently, the question remains open to the determination of the political and legal processes.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/wm925.cfm

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

The jurisdiction part of the amendment is the sticking point and the part open to interpretation.

Ah, I remember back in the day when such talk was the definition of an activist judge.

[GaryC 7]

The jurisdiction part of the amendment is the sticking point and the part open to interpretation.

Ah, I remember back in the day when such talk was the definition of an activist judge.

An activist judge is one that finds something that isn't there by interjecting his own opinion into the law. Without starting another fight for example, abortion rights. The 14th amendment is a law that is open to interpretation however because of the ambiguity of it.

[Dan J 277]

The jurisdiction part of the amendment is the sticking point and the part open to interpretation.

Ah, I remember back in the day when such talk was the definition of an activist judge.

An activist judge is one that finds something that isn't there by interjecting his own opinion into the law. Without starting another fight for example, abortion rights. The 14th amendment is a law that is open to interpretation however because of the ambiguity of it.

You would have to be an activist judge in order to interpret jurisdiction to mean something other than place or region. But I guess they are not activist judges if they make interpretations you agree with.

[GaryC 7]

The jurisdiction part of the amendment is the sticking point and the part open to interpretation.

Ah, I remember back in the day when such talk was the definition of an activist judge.

An activist judge is one that finds something that isn't there by interjecting his own opinion into the law. Without starting another fight for example, abortion rights. The 14th amendment is a law that is open to interpretation however because of the ambiguity of it.

You would have to be an activist judge in order to interpret jurisdiction to mean something other than place or region. But I guess they are not activist judges if they make interpretations you agree with.

It's been open to interpretation before with regard to the Indians so it is still fair game.

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

The jurisdiction part of the amendment is the sticking point and the part open to interpretation.

Ah, I remember back in the day when such talk was the definition of an activist judge.

An activist judge is one that finds something that isn't there by interjecting his own opinion into the law. Without starting another fight for example, abortion rights. The 14th amendment is a law that is open to interpretation however because of the ambiguity of it.

Ambiguity is an interpretation in of itself, is it not? I understand what you are saying and to a degree it makes sense on a certain level, however, when you look at even murder, depending on the circumstances can be an act of self defense. My point is that what you call judicial activism on some issues, is merely an interpretation of the law on others. In any case, it's not partial towards one ideology over another.

Edited August 30, 2007 by Mister Fancypants

[lucyrich 20]

You can't have it both ways. By the definition of "jurisdiction", if someone is declared to not be subject to US jurisdiction, then the US cannot enforce any of its laws against such a person. Under current law, there are only two classes of people who can be present in the US and not subject to its jurisdiction: foreign diplomats and soldiers in an occupying army. Fortunately, the latter hasn't happened.

If we declare that illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction, then we have just relinquished the right to enforce our laws against them. Why would that be a good thing?

Furthermore, if we DID do such a foolish thing, it would be a bureaucratic nightmare for future US citizens. No longer would a certificate showing you were born in the US prove citizenship. Anyone asserting citizenship (say, because they wanted to get a job or a passport), would have to prove not only that he/she was born in the US, but also that, at the time of birth, his/her parents were legally present and subject to US jurisdiction.

Wouldn't it be easier to just eliminate the anchor baby problem by eliminating the ability to petition for one's parents? Alternatively, make it a requirement that anyone petitioning for one's parents demonstrate that the parents were not illegally present in the US at the time the petitioner was born? If you do that, you have completely eliminated the anchor baby problem, in a way that puts the entire bureaucratic burden only on a few people petitioning for their non-citizen parents, in a way that can clearly be done by the legislature without a constitutional amendment, and in a way that will stand up to court scrutiny.