Arizona is at it again / bill to deny citizenship to children of illegals

[Alferd_Packer]

OK, maybe not the whole state, but certainly the most obnoxious part.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce is at it again. The author of the last controversial immigration law is now claiming that he will introduce legislation to strip citizenship from U.S. born children of illegal aliens.


“Anchor babies are an unconstitutional declaration of citizenship to those born of non-Americans. It's wrong, and it's immoral,” he told The Arizona Republic on June 6.


His supporters think that this would somehow survive a court challenge that it is a violation of the 14th amendment.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-06-12/anchor-babies-plan-targets-us-born-kids-of-illegals-vertical-politics/?cid=hp%3Amainpromo4

(FAIR) also believes a birthright-citizenship law deserves a constitutional court test, to see if the 14th Amendment citizenship clause includes children of “illegal aliens.”

[Nosi]

OK, maybe not the whole state, but certainly the most obnoxious part.

Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce is at it again. The author of the last controversial immigration law is now claiming that he will introduce legislation to strip citizenship from U.S. born children of illegal aliens.



His supporters think that this would somehow survive a court challenge that it is a violation of the 14th amendment.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-06-12/anchor-babies-plan-targets-us-born-kids-of-illegals-vertical-politics/?cid=hp%3Amainpromo4

Pro Anti-Anchor Baby Plan: Anchor babies cost money to the economy, and certain people dislike putting out for extra mouths to feed. They believe that it provides an incentive for illegals to migrate to this country illegally to drop "eight pound bombs".

Con Anti-Anchor Baby Plan: Denying the Anchor Babies US citizenship can put some, depending on nation of origin (not all are Mexican,) in limbo. If they aren't US citizens, who's nation are they a citizen of?

I personally don't know enough about the facts of this issue to place an opinion on it. The above is the yelling I hear on the media...

[Cleon]

The 14th Amendment of the Constitution:


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.


I can't wait to see how people try to spin this as Constitutional.

[Cleon]

Con Anti-Anchor Baby Plan: Denying the Anchor Babies US citizenship can put some, depending on nation of origin (not all are Mexican,) in limbo. If they aren't US citizens, who's nation are they a citizen of?


More than that, this would create a permanent underclass in the United States. I can think of few legal situations scarier than the idea that someone can be considered "illegal" based on being born to the wrong parents.

Even if you think illegal immigration is the worst crime since puppy rape, this effectively punishes children for the actions of their parents.

[SumDood]

What if a woman visiting the U.S. from another country has a baby here and does NOT want the child to be a citizen? Is the child a dual-citizen by U.S. law? Would the mother have to go through the legal process of relinquishing the child's U.S. citizenship?

[Cleon]

What if a woman visiting the U.S. from another country has a baby here and does NOT want the child to be a citizen? Is the child a dual-citizen by U.S. law? Would the mother have to go through the legal process of relinquishing the child's U.S. citizenship?

IIRC, IANAL, and other acronyms:

My understanding is that if a foreigner gives birth here, the parents get to choose whether to accept citizenship for the child.

[Alferd_Packer]

IIRC, IANAL, and other acronyms:

My understanding is that if a foreigner gives birth here, the parents get to choose whether to accept citizenship for the child.

I don't know about that.

I think a child born here is a citizen regardless of the parents wishes.

[Cleon]

I don't know about that.

I think a child born here is a citizen regardless of the parents wishes.

Hrm. I found a Wikipedia page on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States_of_Ame rica), which (quelle surprise) doesn't really talk about parental choice.

Since reading legal stuff for too long makes my brain hurt, I'm going to wait for someone who knows what they're talking about to comment. :D

[TraneWreck]

Pro Anti-Anchor Baby Plan: Anchor babies cost money to the economy, and certain people dislike putting out for extra mouths to feed. They believe that it provides an incentive for illegals to migrate to this country illegally to drop "eight pound bombs".

I would need to see some evidence to back this up.

This is one of those strange issues where academic studies almost unanimously contradict conventional wisdom:

Americans believe that undocumented immigrants are exploiting the United States' economy. The widespread belief is that illegal aliens cost more in government services than they contribute to the economy. This belief is undeniably false. [E]very empirical study of illegals' economic impact demonstrates the opposite . . .: undocumenteds actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services. Moreover, undocumented immigrants contribute to the U.S. economy through their investments and consumption of goods and services; filling of millions of essential worker positions resulting in subsidiary job creation, increased productivity and lower costs of goods and services; and unrequited contributions to Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance programs. Eighty-five percent of eminent economists surveyed have concluded that undocumented immigrants have had a positive (seventy-four percent) or neutral (eleven percent) impact on the U.S. economy.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=881584

The issue here is focused on anchor babies, and I couldn't find anything that isolated that concept from immigration at large. Given the studies on that immigration, however, the burden is on proponents of the bill (I realize you were just giving pros and cons) to show how "anchor babies" negatively affect the economy where immigration doesn't.

[GreyArea]

How often does a baby "anchor" their undocumented parents? Can infants fill out the paperwork?

The term "anchor baby" assumes that having a US citizen child confers immigration benefits on the parents and extended family. This is generally a false assumption, as immigration law does not allow a US citizen child to sponsor his parents until he or she turns 21. ... In addition, if the parents are illegal immigrants, they are usually barred from immigration despite having a sponsor.

So I have to ask if Pearce's scenario ever actually happens at all, and if so how often.

[TraneWreck]

I think a child born here is a citizen regardless of the parents wishes.

Yes.

The citizenship clause of the 14th amendment:

"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."

[funk de fino]

My cousin has just had a little girl in Houston. She will be dual nationality US/Brit. Best of both worlds!

[Madalch]

What if a woman visiting the U.S. from another country has a baby here and does NOT want the child to be a citizen? Is the child a dual-citizen by U.S. law? Would the mother have to go through the legal process of relinquishing the child's U.S. citizenship?
"I'm sorry, Mrs. Kravchuk, there was nothing we could do. Your baby was born.... an American."

[dudalb]

You can make a good argument that the constitution should be amended to eliminate "accidental" citizenship (someone who, regardless of their parent's citizenship status, is a US citizen because their parents just happened to be on US Territory when they were born) but that will take the full constituional amendment process. The Arizona law is stupid; it is going take a court about five minutes to declare it unconstituional.

[dudalb]

My cousin has just had a little girl in Houston. She will be dual nationality US/Brit. Best of both worlds!


Nicole Kidman is probably the most famous "birthright" US Citizen. Her parents, who were both Aussie citizens, were in Hawaii when Kidman was born. She can claim US Citizenship any time she pleases.

[ZirconBlue]

"I'm sorry, Mrs. Kravchuk, there was nothing we could do. Your baby was born.... an American."

:D

[TragicMonkey]

So, what else is there that's making me, for example, an American? I'm American because I was born here. If we change that requirement, what would it be changed to? My parents are Americans...but only because they were born here also. I never applied for anything, or took a test for it, or paid a fee. If not birth, then what gives me, (and two hundred million or so other Americans) a greater claim to being American than someone else has?

[Alferd_Packer]

"I'm sorry, Mrs. Kravchuk, there was nothing we could do. Your baby was born.... an American."


"Oh, Doctor, thank God he's not Canadian" :p

[Alferd_Packer]

So, what else is there that's making me, for example, an American?


Didn't you know? you are Kenyan.

[MikeMangum]

Arizona bill would deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/15/arizona.immigration.children/?hpt=C1)

(CNN) -- A proposed Arizona law would deny birth certificates to children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents.

The bill comes on the heels of Arizona passing the nation's toughest immigration law.

John Kavanagh, a Republican state representative from Arizona who supports the proposed law aimed at so-called "anchor babies," said that the concept does not conflict with the U.S. Constitution.

"If you go back to the original intent of the drafters ... it was never intended to bestow citizenship upon (illegal) aliens," said Kavanagh, who also supported Senate Bill 1070 -- the law that gave Arizona authorities expanded immigration enforcement powers.

Hrmm. I found all the criticism of the earlier Arizona illegal immigration law to be overblown posturing, but this bill seems to violate the constitution, as far as I can tell.

[KingMerv00]

Arizona bill would deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/15/arizona.immigration.children/?hpt=C1)



Hrmm. I found all the criticism of the earlier Arizona illegal immigration law to be overblown posturing, but this bill seems to violate the constitution, as far as I can tell.

Let's take a look:

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.

Yup.

The only way around it is to give them diplomatic immunity. Then they wouldn't be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. :D

[Loss Leader]

How often does a baby "anchor" their undocumented parents? Can infants fill out the paperwork?


My understanding is that, while the babies might be US citizens, that no longer stops the US from deporting the parents. Hardship to a US citizen (the baby) hasn't been a reason for a parent to stay in the US since at least 2001.

So, there is no problem requiring a solution.


My understanding is based on my being a lawyer and the advice given by my own immigration lawyer regarding the channels open for a Green Card for my Canadian wife.

[Cleon]

There's already a thread about this here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=178189).

The 14th Amendment is pretty clear. To even pretend that this is remotely Constitutional will take some serious spin and abuse of the English language.

[Beerina]

It'll get tossed, if for no other reason than it's up to the Constitution to define this, not individual states. I'm not even sure how much leeway Congress has, though I do know they defined children of military citizens born abroad on military duty as naturalized, to stop it from being a downside of being in the military.

[KingMerv00]

It'll get tossed, if for no other reason than it's up to the Constitution to define this, not individual states. I'm not even sure how much leeway Congress has, ...

The legislature can say whatever it likes. Unless it gets some kind of support from the judicial branch, they are out of luck.

[MikeMangum]

IANAL, but it seem to be very clearly unconstitutional. I've seen arguments before about how illegal immigrants aren't really "subject to the jurisdiction" of the Federal government, but that seems like casuistry to me.

It also seems to be bad policy, which is an entirely different thing.

[KingMerv00]

IANAL, but it seem to be very clearly unconstitutional. I've seen arguments before about how illegal immigrants aren't really "subject to the jurisdiction" of the Federal government, but that seems like casuistry to me.

Already argued in the Supreme Court. As far as I know, it is still good law:


Texas officials had argued that illegal immigrants were not "within the jurisdiction" of the state and could thus not claim protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court majority rejected this claim, finding instead that "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."

Plyer v. Doe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe#Summary)

[Prometheus]

It's pretty clear this bill has nothing to stand on. If it gets introduced at all, it will be shortly before the election this fall, just to provide campaign fodder.

[JoeTheJuggler]

It'll get tossed, if for no other reason than it's up to the Constitution to define this, not individual states. I'm not even sure how much leeway Congress has, ...
The legislature can say whatever it likes. Unless it gets some kind of support from the judicial branch, they are out of luck.

Congress has leeway to introduce a Constitutional amendment (by 2/3 majority vote of both houses or by a national constitutional convention) .

;)

[dudalb]

Loss Leader is right.
If a Kid is born on American Soil of Non US Citzen parents.,he is a natural born citizen. But his parents are not.
This particular clause in the 14th Amednment is a good example of unintended consequences. It was intended to ensure that the children of Slaves freed by the Civil War were guaranteed citizenship, not to give rise to the phenomenon of "brithright" citizens.

[Fiona]

So, what else is there that's making me, for example, an American? I'm American because I was born here. If we change that requirement, what would it be changed to? My parents are Americans...but only because they were born here also. I never applied for anything, or took a test for it, or paid a fee. If not birth, then what gives me, (and two hundred million or so other Americans) a greater claim to being American than someone else has?

QFT

[dudalb]

There's already a thread about this here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=178189).

The 14th Amendment is pretty clear. To even pretend that this is remotely Constitutional will take some serious spin and abuse of the English language.

Agreed. You can argue that the amendment needs to be amended to eliminate "brithright" citizenship (almost all legal experts agree this clause was meant to ensure the right of citizenship to the children of slaves freed by the Civil War, not to give automatic citizenship to someone who happened to be born while their Non US Citizenship parents were traveling in the US;it's the law of uninteded consequences) but that will take the whole constitutional amendment process to accomplish, not an action by a state legislature. It will take a court about five minutes to declare the Arizona bill unconstituional.
I suggest the two threads be merged.

[Thunder]

The soul purpose of the 14th Ammendment was to give citizenship to former slaves.

Not as a back-door path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

I support a re-writing of the 14th, to stupulate that only children of American citizens born in the USA or abroad are automatic citizens.

[MattusMaximus]

There's already a thread about this here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=178189).

The 14th Amendment is pretty clear. To even pretend that this is remotely Constitutional will take some serious spin and abuse of the English language.

And you don't think the Tea Party nutbags won't try that? I'll be surprised if they don't go that route - word salad seems to be most of what comes out of their mouths, these days. Despite all their rhetoric, whenever they mention the Constitution it seems all they are doing is pushing their particular twisted interpretation of it. Which doesn't surprise me at all, because most of the GOP base tends to be fundamentalist Christians who label themselves as "Biblical literalists" - when in reality they are just interpreting the Bible a certain way (like everyone else) because if you do read it literally it makes no damn sense.

In addition, we see the hardcore right-wingers in the GOP doubling down on the stupid, pushing their party ever more to the extreme. They are absolutely shredding any chance the Republican party will have in making inroads with Americans of Hispanic descent for the next couple of generations. More reasonable, moderate, and politically-savvy Republicans are probably cringing right about now, and they should.

What morons.

[MattusMaximus]

Agreed. You can argue that the amendment needs to be amended to eliminate "brithright" citizenship (almost all legal experts agree this clause was meant to ensure the right of citizenship to the children of slaves freed by the Civil War, not to give automatic citizenship to someone who happened to be born while their Non US Citizenship parents were traveling in the US;it's the law of uninteded consequences) but that will take the whole constitutional amendment process to accomplish, not an action by a state legislature. It will take a court about five minutes to declare the Arizona bill unconstituional.
I suggest the two threads be merged.

Yup, and about five minutes after that the Tea Party GOP right-wing nutjobs will be screaming about "liberal activist judges!!!" :jaw-dropp

Same old ****

[Jonnyclueless]

Who is paying the hospital fees for these babies? Take for example Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas. 70% of births are from illegal mothers.

[MattusMaximus]

It's pretty clear this bill has nothing to stand on. If it gets introduced at all, it will be shortly before the election this fall, just to provide campaign fodder.

Bingo. That is the real purpose behind this bill, just as it was the real purpose behind the earlier bill in Arizona.

These bills do absolutely nothing to address the problem of illegal immigration. All they are meant to do is sucker conservatives into voting for right-wing political whores who wrap themselves in the flag.

And it will work, too.

[eeyore1954]

I didn't read the bill but I read the article. The headline says deny citizenship but the article says deny birth certificates. does denying the certificate preclude citizenship being granted by the US.

[MattusMaximus]

I didn't read the bill but I read the article. The headline says deny citizenship but the article says deny birth certificates. does denying the certificate preclude citizenship being granted by the US.

*Waits for Birthers to crawl out from under the nearest rock*

[MikeMangum]

Which doesn't surprise me at all, because most of the GOP base tends to be fundamentalist Christians who label themselves as "Biblical literalists" - when in reality they are just interpreting the Bible a certain way (like everyone else) because if you do read it literally it makes no damn sense.

I'm curious if you can support this in any way. There aren't enough biblical literalists to populate the Green Party, let alone the Republican Party.

[MattusMaximus]

I'm curious if you can support this in any way. There aren't enough biblical literalists to populate the Green Party, let alone the Republican Party.

*Snorts soda out of nose in a fit of laughter*

ETA: Now that I've recovered... my friend, have you ever spent any time in the Deep South?

[DDWW]

This was talked about this morning on local AZ radio. Attorney on show said that this will not stand up in court.

Attorney did say that there was a bill in the Federal House of Reps with 90+ co-signers to change the 14th to reflect this idea. He did not think it would go anywhere at this time.

Also said that our common law was baised a lot on English Common law, including, at that time, the birth in country = citizenship. But said that England abolished that many years ago and is not now the law in England.

Just passing on what was said.

DDWW

[leftysergeant]

I didn't read the bill but I read the article. The headline says deny citizenship but the article says deny birth certificates. does denying the certificate preclude citizenship being granted by the US.

Not really. It just makes the official following the state law guilty of an illegal act under federal law.

One doctor or registrar or whoever does that in Arizona will tell the state "I'm doing it and you can't stop me without arresting me," and it's in the trash can.

[Cleon]

There aren't enough biblical literalists to populate the Green Party, let alone the Republican Party.

Wow. That's...Wow. I'm seriously taken aback that you think such a ridiculous thing.

Let me put it in perspective for you. The Southern Baptist Convention, merely one Biblical Literalist denomination (and proudly so), represents some 16 million people. In the United States. 16 million.

And if you even think that Green Party membership even approaches 1% of that, you get the laughing dog.

[mumblethrax]

This particular clause in the 14th Amednment is a good example of unintended consequences. It was intended to ensure that the children of Slaves freed by the Civil War were guaranteed citizenship, not to give rise to the phenomenon of "brithright" citizens.
What's your evidence for that? If its authors intended otherwise, they have a funny way of not saying so.

In any case, they certainly didn't anticipate that they'd be stimying a bunch of misinformed nativists ~150 years later, but I regard that as a happy accident rather than an unintended consequence.

[Cleon]

Loss Leader is right.
If a Kid is born on American Soil of Non US Citzen parents.,he is a natural born citizen. But his parents are not.
This particular clause in the 14th Amednment is a good example of unintended consequences. It was intended to ensure that the children of Slaves freed by the Civil War were guaranteed citizenship, not to give rise to the phenomenon of "brithright" citizens.

That may be, but the reason they wanted to guarantee the children of emancipated slaves citizenship was because to do otherwise would create a permanent underclass in the United States; slavery by another name, really.

I would argue that doing away with "birthright" will essentially do the same thing they were trying to avoid, only with immigrants rather than freed slaves.

Suppose we deny citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. What about their children? And their grandchildren? And their great-grandchildren? How many generations will grow up wondering if they're going to be suddenly arrested and shipped off to a country they've never seen?

I honestly cannot comprehend how people think that punishing a child for the deeds of the parents is just or reasonable.

[hgc]

It'll get tossed, if for no other reason than it's up to the Constitution to define this, not individual states. I'm not even sure how much leeway Congress has, though I do know they defined children of military citizens born abroad on military duty as naturalized, to stop it from being a downside of being in the military.


Uh no. It's the opposite of naturalization -- in terms of citizenship acquisition. It's birthright citizenship, and it applies to children born abroad to American citizen parent(s) in many circumstances. Such citizens are eligible to be elected president (e.g., John McCain).

[Travis]

The soul purpose of the 14th Ammendment was to give citizenship to former slaves.

Not as a back-door path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

I support a re-writing of the 14th, to stupulate that only children of American citizens born in the USA or abroad are automatic citizens.

While we're at it why don't we re-write some other parts and make sure only God fearing whites can be citizens too? Then make it "legal" for a citizen to kill any non-citizen for any reason.


I'd suggest we just leave it alone. I happen to like the idea that anyone born here is a citizen.

[daredelvis]

I support a re-writing of the 14th, to stupulate that only children of American citizens born in the USA or abroad are automatic citizens.

And I don't. To be a natural born citizen of the U.S.A. is to hit the birth lottery. You just want to push it back a generation.

Daredelvis

[MattusMaximus]

I'd suggest we just leave it alone. I happen to like the idea that anyone born here is a citizen.

Ditto

[Cleon]

I'd suggest we just leave it alone. I happen to like the idea that anyone born here is a citizen.

Ditto

Xerox.

[ponderingturtle]

The soul purpose of the 14th Ammendment was to give citizenship to former slaves.


It is so nice to see people against equal protection. Activist courts passing crap like loving V Virginia based on it. BULLCRAP!!!!!

[ponderingturtle]

I'm curious if you can support this in any way. There aren't enough biblical literalists to populate the Green Party, let alone the Republican Party.

So 34% of the populations isn't enough?

Although 45% of Americans believe that humans were created by God pretty much in their present form at one time 10,000 years ago -- a view that corresponds to the account of creation as presented in the Bible -- only 34% of Americans believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word:

link (http://www.gallup.com/poll/14107/Third-Americans-Say-Evidence-Has-Supported-Darwins-Evolution-Theory.aspx)

[hgc]

I'd suggest we just leave it alone. I happen to like the idea that anyone born here is a citizen.

Ditto
Xerox.


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_5434c18243c6852d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=20180)

[Loss Leader]

I honestly cannot comprehend how people think that punishing a child for the deeds of the parents is just or reasonable.


Well, you're going to get that outcome to a large extent, anyway. Parents faced with deportation are probably going to choose to take their US Citizen children home with them. They're generally not going to leave their babies as orphans (even though they technically have the right to).

The only way a US citizen would be left here is if they're already adults or they have US family that the parents will leave them with.

The law the way it currently stands already allows for the effective deportation of American citizens.

[leftysergeant]

The only change I would like to see made to the 14th is to inject the word "natural" before "persons."

(Then watch the corporatist freak out.)

[ThunderChunky]

This specific law is dumb (the constitution is pretty clear), but the USA should not be subsidizing the excess population growth of the world by allowing illegals to flourish here.

[Finn McR]

How clear is the 14th amendment?
"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."

What's up with the "and" clause? What does it mean to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?

Others are so sure that the amendment is so stupid-obvious that they bold the "born" part. However, they ignore the second requirement. Any immigration attorneys or constitutional scholars out there want to clarify?

(And as a minor editorial quibble, I would have re-worded as: "Any person... wherein that person resides.")

[shadron]

How clear is the 14th amendment?
"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."

I'd have to say that compared to, say, the 2nd Amendment, it is a great example of clarity.

What's up with the "and" clause? What does it mean to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?

Others are so sure that the amendment is so stupid-obvious that they bold the "born" part. However, they ignore the second requirement. Any immigration attorneys or constitutional scholars out there want to clarify?What is it you are trying to say here? Do you think the phrase makes the law unclear? What is your interpretation of it? Hint: If you google the phrase, you'll find all sorts of things written about what it means.

EDT: Oh, great. It looks like I've stepped into the deep doodoo here, into a teabagger's constitutional law wrangle. A lot of the blogs copy a single long editorial (like this one: http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html) which seems to say that because of this clause, a child born to illegals has no rights of citizenship. One of the framers of the amendment perhaps meant it partially so (for amerindians, anyway), so it looks like we'll have a hairy libertarians debate on this going now. Sorry.

(And as a minor editorial quibble, I would have re-worded as: "Any person... wherein that person resides.")Great. No offense, but I'm kind of happy I live somewhere where an panel of experts in law making the decisions about what things in the constitution mean, though.

[Piggy]

Y'know, Arizona had a hope of getting its current anti-illegal-immigration laws to pass muster.

And then they go and pull this stunt.

This law is so clearly unconstitutional, it boggles the mind that anyone would even float it.

States cannot write federal immigration law.

Those people have lost their ******* minds.

[DallasDad]

If the 14th were ever amended, it would have to have an effective date at some point in the future. The children/grandchildren thing regarding people who are already here should not be affected. Perhaps another amnesty program would have to be implemented at the same time (which can be done by Congress directly without changing the Constitution).

I'm somewhat in favor of changing the 14th to say that only those born of parents who are (a) citizens or (b) legally in the country would be considered citizens automatically. There are already other routes to citizenship which are not dependent on the 14th -- for example, my own children, who are citizens by action of law rather than the 14th or through naturalization.

My own grandparents (paternal) were Canadians. As far as I've been able to determine from family history, they were "undocumented" immigrants. This puts my father's citizenship squarely under the 14th Amendment. If the 14th were revised as I suggest above, and my grandparents were to come now on a visa, on a layover, or even a holiday and give birth, my father would become a citizen. If they came illegally, he would not.

How is this either racist or otherwise objectionable? As of such-and-such a date, anyone born here is a citizen. After that date, anyone born here whose mother (rather than parents, I suppose) is here legally is a citizen, too. This would include any form of being here legally, but would specifically exclude those who sneak into the country.

Unless one is arguing that anyone who sneaks in should be allowed to stay, period, then this policy would not be a problem.

One of the most peculiar instances of cognitive dissonance these days is to refer to "law-abiding illegal aliens." Yes, certainly for many (if not most), the only crime they've committed is crossing the border with intent to flout immigration rules. But this is still a crime. How we decide to punish that (if at all) is immaterial to the fact that a crime has been committed. One cannot be both law-abiding and an illegal alien.

I've given this some thought personally. If I were to sneak into New Zealand for example, and live below the radar for years, perhaps even raising a family there, I would expect to be booted out as soon as I was discovered. In no case would I assume that because I'd successfully snuck in, I was somehow entitled to stay. If I'd been on the dole during my illegal visit, or had otherwise fed off the public tit, I would also expect to be billed for the costs. Wouldn't you?

[Loss Leader]

What does it mean to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?

Any immigration attorneys or constitutional scholars out there want to clarify?


It means that the US can go and get any of its citizens or any of their property no matter where they reside or have stashed their stuff.

It's actually pretty boilerplate jurisdictional law both now and then. I don't know of a country on earth that didn't maintain that it didn't have this ability ever - from the beginning of time until today at 10:55 p.m. eastern.

[Finn McR]

So, what I am hearing so far is that the second clause does not mean anything. It is nice to know that the governing documents of our (for those members who are citizens of the United States of America) nation have throw-away language.

If the clause has no meaning, then why include it? If we (USA citizens) are going to worship the constitution and its amendments as quasi-religious documents, then shouldn't they have better-defined meanings?

I don't intend to be lumped in with arch-conservatives on the immigration question, but as a lay-person as far as the law is concerned, I was interested in feed-back as to the meaning of the, " under the jurisdiction" clause. So far every posting took for granted that the second requirement for citizenship (under the jurisdiction) and I did not know the significance of the clause. Please excuse my ignorance on this particular topic. I should have "Googled" it or looked on Wikipedia, because I know that those are un-
impeachable sources.

[Finn McR]

Shadron: If you think that I am a teabagger, then you are sadly mistaken. What I am is ignorant of the significance of "under the jurisdiction". If that means that I should not have posted a question, then I apologize. What bothered me is the number of respondents that focused on the one word, "born" without treating the entire text of the amendment. If "under the jurisdiction" is pure legalese, throw-away languange and accepted as such, then fine. But, for all I know, "under the jurisdiction" could have legal significance and the people ignoring it could be ignoring something significant.

A clear explanation of the clause would have been nice.

[Finn McR]

Quote:
(And as a minor editorial quibble, I would have re-worded as: "Any person... wherein that person resides.")
Great. No offense, but I'm kind of happy I live somewhere where an panel of experts in law making the decisions about what things in the constitution mean, though.

Do you seriously think that the framers of the constitution or the authors of amendments were some kinds of experts? My (editorial) point was that collective pronouns were used in a case where individual rights (not collective rights) were, presumably, intended. If you think that only groups of people born or naturalized in the U.S. should be citizens, but not individual people born or naturalized should be, then fine, keep your snarky comments. The amendment should have been written to explicitly define individual rights. This is not in any way difficult. I would be embarrassed to have produced such sloppy wording.

[TraneWreck]

So, what I am hearing so far is that the second clause does not mean anything. It is nice to know that the governing documents of our (for those members who are citizens of the United States of America) nation have throw-away language.

If the clause has no meaning, then why include it? If we (USA citizens) are going to worship the constitution and its amendments as quasi-religious documents, then shouldn't they have better-defined meanings?

I don't intend to be lumped in with arch-conservatives on the immigration question, but as a lay-person as far as the law is concerned, I was interested in feed-back as to the meaning of the, " under the jurisdiction" clause. So far every posting took for granted that the second requirement for citizenship (under the jurisdiction) and I did not know the significance of the clause. Please excuse my ignorance on this particular topic. I should have "Googled" it or looked on Wikipedia, because I know that those are un-
impeachable sources.

The second clause is directed at people like ambassadors. People under diplomatic immunity can have a child in United States territory, but that child won't be an American citizen because those individuals have a special status where they don't submit to American jurisdiction.

This obviously only applies in very rare circumstances.

[BobTheDonkey]

So, what I am hearing so far is that the second clause does not mean anything. It is nice to know that the governing documents of our (for those members who are citizens of the United States of America) nation have throw-away language.

If the clause has no meaning, then why include it? If we (USA citizens) are going to worship the constitution and its amendments as quasi-religious documents, then shouldn't they have better-defined meanings?

I don't intend to be lumped in with arch-conservatives on the immigration question, but as a lay-person as far as the law is concerned, I was interested in feed-back as to the meaning of the, " under the jurisdiction" clause. So far every posting took for granted that the second requirement for citizenship (under the jurisdiction) and I did not know the significance of the clause. Please excuse my ignorance on this particular topic. I should have "Googled" it or looked on Wikipedia, because I know that those are un-
impeachable sources.

The way it reads, to me (a non-legally educated person, mind you), it would appear that it applies to anyone who is under the jurisdiction of the US. In other words, children born to foreign diplomats/citizens while inside their embassy would be excluded (not under U.S. Jurisdiction).

Other than that...anyone who is born inside the U.S. and who is subject to U.S. laws is a U.S. citizen.

I don't see how that's hard to understand, nor where support for the proposed legislation in AZ could be derived from.


edit: Curses! Beat to the punch by TraneWreck!

[GreyArea]

I honestly cannot comprehend how people think that punishing a child for the deeds of the parents is just or reasonable.

The more I think about it, the more I think that this is not about the parents. I'm beginning to suspect that Pearce and company know that there are plenty of ways to deport the parents, but now they want to stop the kids from becoming U.S. citizens.

I can't prove it, it's just what seems to make sense given that all the other reasons for the law are either Constitutional non-starters or already in the toolbox.


Who is paying the hospital fees for these babies? Take for example Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas. 70% of births are from illegal mothers.

Source? And what exactly is illegal here? The circumstances under which these women became pregnant, or their status as people?

[Piscivore]

Y'know, Arizona had a hope of getting its current anti-illegal-immigration laws to pass muster.

And then they go and pull this stunt.

This law is so clearly unconstitutional, it boggles the mind that anyone would even float it.

States cannot write federal immigration law.

Those people have lost their ******* minds.

It's the gorram Mormons.

[Finn McR]

Thanks, TraneW: I had assumed that this was the sort of thing covered by "jurisdiction", but did not know for sure. I did not know whether someone residing in the U.S. illegally might be considered (a priori) to be living outside of the jurisdiction of U.S. Law (being the bona fide citizen of a foreign country and not having done any action leading to legal U.S. citizenship).

I would like to clarify, for those ready to see anti-immigrant bias everywhere, I am the child of immigrants to the U.S. I think that a steady flow of immigrants helps the U.S. However, those immigrants need to intend to come to the U.S. to become citizens. I have no patience with illegals who come and then demonstrate about, "my country (Mexico, et al.)." If some other country is, "your country," then go back there. If the U.S. is your new country, then welcome!

I would not move to some other nation and expect it to be just like the U.S. I would not expect them to learn my language to suit me, or accept my cultural biases. If I were to move to another country, I would expect *Me* to acculturate to *them*.

[Uncayimmy]

Loss Leader is right.
If a Kid is born on American Soil of Non US Citzen parents.,he is a natural born citizen. But his parents are not.
This particular clause in the 14th Amednment is a good example of unintended consequences. It was intended to ensure that the children of Slaves freed by the Civil War were guaranteed citizenship, not to give rise to the phenomenon of "brithright" citizens.

Yeh, sorta. It's a bit more complicated than that because you have to go back to English common law to understand what the words meant. I'm no expert, but as I understand it England was kind of paternalistic. By that I mean their attitude was, "Hey, if you're in our territory, we're gonna watch out for you, and you're going to obey our laws, just like our regular citizens. If you have a kid here, well, he's going to be considered a subject." They knew that when they wrote the amendment.

What they didn't envision was how it would look today what strict immigration laws and ease of travel. We can only speculate as to whether they would deliberately set up a situation where a citizen of another country not able to enter the country legally could sneak across the border, have a child, and have that child automatically become a citizen and be allowed to stay.

I can see how such a situation would not be desirable, and an amendment seems the proper way to deal with it. Trying to reinterpret the current amendment otherwise will be tricky.

That said, I think there's room for denying citizenship to a child born to parents here illegally who are not permanently domiciled. It could be argued that they really don't have any allegiance to the country. I say this because the few court cases I looked at recognized that a child born of people here "illegally" but otherwise upstanding citizens (permanent residence, engaged in commerce) was said to have citizenship by birthright.

Contrary to popular belief, not every country has the same birthright citizenship that the USA does. Many do, of course, but some major countries seem to have modified versions. Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#Specific_national_legislation) has an entry on the subject. It appears that New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland, Australia, all
require at least one parent to be a citizen or permanent resident. The UK and France have other more complicated restrictions.

[Loss Leader]

So, what I am hearing so far is that the second clause does not mean anything.


If that's what you're hearing, then you're not hearing me. I explained that "subject to the jurisdiction" amplifies and clarifies one of the meanings of "citizen." That meaning is that all US citizens are subject to the criminal and civil laws of the US no matter where they try to hide.


It is nice to know that the governing documents of our (for those members who are citizens of the United States of America) nation have throw-away language.


Hey, don't blame me for the fact that the framers were human.


If the clause has no meaning, then why include it?


That's a good question. The reason it's included is the same reason that wills say "give and bequeeth" even though they mean the same thing. It's the same reason a release says "releases, waives, discharges and holds harmless." Lawyers like to repeat themselves. It arises because we want to be completely clear and leave absolutely no loopholes. Sometimes this results in repetition.


Please excuse my ignorance on this particular topic. I should have "Googled" it or looked on Wikipedia, because I know that those are un-
impeachable sources.


I'm not sure of the source of your defensiveness. I answered you directly and without derision.

[Uncayimmy]

That's a good question. The reason it's included is the same reason that wills say "give and bequeeth" even though they mean the same thing. It's the same reason a release says "releases, waives, discharges and holds harmless." Lawyers like to repeat themselves. It arises because we want to be completely clear and leave absolutely no loopholes. Sometimes this results in repetition.

Give and bequeath do not have the same meaning. Bequeath specifically refers to granting personal property through a will. Give means to transfer ownership without fee. Release, waive, discharge and holds harmless all have similar yet different legal meanings. You're right in that these terms are used to make things clear and close loopholes, but it's incorrect to say they mean the same thing implying that one would suffice.

The terms they used in the 14th amendment had specific meaning through common law.

[Kopji]

If they are not US citizens, whose citizens are they? I know we like, rule the world, but Mexico would probably have a teeny say about if they were considered Mexican citizens or not.

This is by the way, what you get from spectrum-stupid disorder politicians when you threaten with boycotts and then just look pathetic and weak.

[shadron]

Shadron: If you think that I am a teabagger, then you are sadly mistaken. What I am is ignorant of the significance of "under the jurisdiction". If that means that I should not have posted a question, then I apologize. What bothered me is the number of respondents that focused on the one word, "born" without treating the entire text of the amendment. If "under the jurisdiction" is pure legalese, throw-away languange and accepted as such, then fine. But, for all I know, "under the jurisdiction" could have legal significance and the people ignoring it could be ignoring something significant.

A clear explanation of the clause would have been nice.

Did I say you were? What I said is that the phrase seems to have opened of a load of dissent and squabble ab out what was meant, including trying to go back an read the minds of the legislators who wrote it. They were trying (I think) at the time to make sure that all slaves born in the US were named as citizens, and perhaps to simultaneously exclude American Indians. But I haven't read enough to ascertain those facts. All I know is that there is a lot of rhetoric being blown, and at least one voluminous contribution directly opposes the facts of citizenship as I know them, which I assume have been settled by the "activist" Supreme Court.

I wrote what I thought. I pretty obviously didn't meet with your approval. Such is life. Tranewreck is a lawyer, though not, AFAIK, a constitutional one, so I'd pay more attention to him.

[shadron]

Quote:
(And as a minor editorial quibble, I would have re-worded as: "Any person... wherein that person resides.")
Great. No offense, but I'm kind of happy I live somewhere where an panel of experts in law making the decisions about what things in the constitution mean, though.

Do you seriously think that the framers of the constitution or the authors of amendments were some kinds of experts? My (editorial) point was that collective pronouns were used in a case where individual rights (not collective rights) were, presumably, intended. If you think that only groups of people born or naturalized in the U.S. should be citizens, but not individual people born or naturalized should be, then fine, keep your snarky comments. The amendment should have been written to explicitly define individual rights. This is not in any way difficult. I would be embarrassed to have produced such sloppy wording.

As far as I am concerned, you have not the right to make any changes to the constitution, whether or not you believe your grammar is better than that of the framer of the amendment. With all the crap being thrown around by people over the meaning of undotted Is and uncrossed ts in the document, I'm fine with what was passed.

You don't like my snarky? I'm so sorry. I don't often do it. I wonder what overcame me here?

I should have "Googled" it or looked on Wikipedia, because I know that those are un-
impeachable sources.

Yet you come to a forum and ask total strangers, and sneer when yoou don't hear what you want to hear. Makes good sense.

[Nosi]

More than that, this would create a permanent underclass in the United States. I can think of few legal situations scarier than the idea that someone can be considered "illegal" based on being born to the wrong parents.

Even if you think illegal immigration is the worst crime since puppy rape, this effectively punishes children for the actions of their parents.

I can think that some business interests both legal and illeagal would find a permanent underclass appealing, as unappealing as that is to the normal human being.

[Alferd_Packer]

Who is paying the hospital fees for these babies? Take for example Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas. 70% of births are from illegal mothers.

What does that have to do with this issue?

[Alferd_Packer]

If the {subject to the Jurisdicition} clause has no meaning, then why include it? If we (USA citizens) are going to worship the constitution and its amendments as quasi-religious documents, then shouldn't they have better-defined meanings?


The clause has meaning in the sense that it exempts those children born on U.S. soil to parents NOT under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Traditionally, under long standing Common law, these fall under two groups:

1) Children of diplomats. As previously pointed out, Diplomats are not under the jurisdiction of U.S. laws. This is commonly referred to as "diplomatic immunity." Legally, diplomats are considered to "carry their country with them."

2) Children of foreign invaders occupying U.S. soil. If, for example, there had been any women in the Japanese army on Attu during WWII and if one of those hypothetical women gave birth while on that island, that child would not be a U.S. citizen.

[Nosi]

What does that have to do with this issue?


Seventy percent of births in a hospital to illegal aliens/anchor babies means tax payer usually pays for those births. That factors (among less chatted about by certain parties) into driving up American hospital/health care. Certain parties, not seeing the bigger picture of health care, blame the well pointed out scape goat (by certain parties) of these costs: tax payer funded births of babies to illegal mothers who are also anchor babies who's next 18 years will feature services funded by tax payers (pointed out carefully by certain parties) while carefully mum on how much it costs to build, maintain, and store one nuclear bomb.

Certain parties have an agenda. Politics is about spin to promote your agenda while not being seen to do so. The hard part, and the part I often have a hard time with, is seeing the agenda. However, even I see more funds being freed by other things than 'crack downs' on illegals and their babies.

One thing I am concerned about illegal immigration is what may be immigrating along with the economic workers. Simple crop pickers provide great cover and victims for less harmless folk such as terrorists, drug people, people traffickers, what have you.

[GreyArea]

Does the jurisdiction clause have anything to do with Native Americans?

The Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1868, during a long periods of wars with various tribes. Is this reference to jurisdiction making a distinction between tribal and federal jurisdictions?

I know that it was not until 1924 that citizenship was granted to a large number of Native Americans. Of course, many already had become citizens, but it seems to have been by several routes and only under certain circumstances. Some states didn't even allow them to vote.

[Alferd_Packer]

Does the jurisdiction clause have anything to do with Native Americans?

The Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1868, during a long periods of wars with various tribes. Is this reference to jurisdiction making a distinction between tribal and federal jurisdictions?

I know that it was not until 1924 that citizenship was granted to a large number of Native Americans. Of course, many already had become citizens, but it seems to have been by several routes and only under certain circumstances. Some states didn't even allow them to vote.

Yes.

[Alferd_Packer]

These proposed laws remind me of the Chinese exclusion laws of the late 19th century. The Chinese exclusion laws were some of America’s most odious and vile examples of institutionalized racism.

Many of you who have followed the “birther” saga are familiar with the supreme court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. In this case, the United States, led by San Francisco Lawyer named George Collins, sought to do exactly what Russell Pearce in Arizona is seeking to do today, namely remove the right of a child born in the U.S. to parents whose presence in the U.S. was unwanted by the white majority, to be a U.S. citizen.

In George Collins’s case, the unwanted minority were the Chinese. For Russell Pearce, the Mexican’s are the boogymen. It is worth while, in looking at this phenomena, to examine the legal argument of George Collins as he argued the WKA case before Supreme Court. It is actually rather refreshing in that his argument is based clearly and unequivicably on racism. He makes no attempt to hide or disguise this racism, no he trumpets it as the primary reason for his position. There are no hidden code words, so favored by today’s far right wing no insinuations, no dog whistles. It is all right there, exposed in all it’s evil.

For the most persuasive reasons we have refused citizenship to Chinese subjects; and yet, as to their offspring, who are just as obnoxious, and to whom the same reasons for exclusion apply with equal force, we are told that we must accept them as fellow-citizens, and that, too, because of the mere accident of birth. There certainly should be some honor and dignity in American citizenship that would be sacred from the foul and corrupting taint of a debasing lineage.

Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?

Simply substitute the word “Mexican” for the word “Chinese,” and you have the basic argument of the nativists, although they would never express it so openly.

[GreyArea]

What they didn't envision was how it would look today what strict immigration laws and ease of travel.

As for ease of travel, look at the Nationality Act of 1940. They clarified many legal details, but left the birthright untouched and right at the top of the list. This was in a time more like our own, with automobiles, trains, and airplanes in common use.

They even extend this status to "[Sec.201 (f)] A child of unknown parentage found in the United States, until shown not to have been born in the the United States."

[Loss Leader]

Give and bequeath do not have the same meaning. Bequeath specifically refers to granting personal property through a will. Give means to transfer ownership without fee.


Except for the fact that a gift upon death is a bequest. It is imposible to make a gift in one's will that is not a bequest. Any gift made in a will is, by definition, a bequest.

So, other than the fact that the words mean exactly the same thing in context, you're completely right.

[EvilSmurf]

Let's just say this law is passed and by some astonishing legal wrangling by the Supremes is judged constitutional. Jose and Maria immigrate illegally from Mexico to the US. Maria falls pregnant and they have a child. About 6 months after the baby is born they face deportation for immigrating illegally. Jose and Maria can obviously be deported back to Mexico (which could happen whether their child is a U.S. citizen or not, by the by). But the big question is, where can we deport the child? The child is a citizen of no nation.

[leftysergeant]

But the big question is, where can we deport the child? The child is a citizen of no nation.

Why you gotta be so mean? You're going to make some racist teabagger's little pea brain hurt.

[Giggywig]

Let's just say this law is passed and by some astonishing legal wrangling by the Supremes is judged constitutional. Jose and Maria immigrate illegally from Mexico to the US. Maria falls pregnant and they have a child. About 6 months after the baby is born they face deportation for immigrating illegally. Jose and Maria can obviously be deported back to Mexico (which could happen whether their child is a U.S. citizen or not, by the by). But the big question is, where can we deport the child? The child is a citizen of no nation.
Actually under your scenario the child would be Mexican. The Mexican constitution defines citizen by birth to include those born abroad, of Mexican parents.

[Random]

What if a woman visiting the U.S. from another country has a baby here and does NOT want the child to be a citizen? Is the child a dual-citizen by U.S. law? Would the mother have to go through the legal process of relinquishing the child's U.S. citizenship?

1) The mother’s wishes are irrelevant in this circumstance. If the mother was “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US (and it’s tough not to be), then her child will be a natural born US citizen.

2) Whether or not the child will be Dual-National depends on the policies of the country of the mother. If Nation X says that the child is a citizen of Nation X, then the child is a citizen of Nation X. If the US says that the child is a US citizen, then the child is a US citizen. If both, then both, if neither, then neither. Having citizenship from Country A will not affect citizenship in Country B unless the laws of Country B specifically state so.

The US does not “recognize” Dual-Citizenship, but that’s a mere technicality. If you are a dual-national and have a legal issue with the US government and claim to be a “Dual-National” or purely a citizen of the other country, the US government will ignore your claims if you are a US citizen and only consider your US citizenship. (ETA: You would have as much luck weaseling out of legal trouble with this as you would with blaming your "CORPORATE STRAWMAN" for your troubles)

3) In the US, she wouldn’t be able to do it. A parent cannot renounce the child’s US citizenship for him, and the child would not be able to because it is a child.

[schplurg]

Let's just say this law is passed and by some astonishing legal wrangling by the Supremes is judged constitutional. Jose and Maria immigrate illegally from Mexico to the US. Maria falls pregnant and they have a child. About 6 months after the baby is born they face deportation for immigrating illegally. Jose and Maria can obviously be deported back to Mexico (which could happen whether their child is a U.S. citizen or not, by the by). But the big question is, where can we deport the child? The child is a citizen of no nation.

Do you know for a fact that the child is not a Mexican citizen? Is not a child born of US citizens overseas still a US citizen?

Point #2...why is that our problem? Also, how are Mexican immigration laws in comparison to ours? I'm sure they would extend the same acceptance and compassion as we do :rolleyes:

[EvilSmurf]

Do you know for a fact that the child is not a Mexican citizen? Is not a child born of US citizens overseas still a US citizen?

I'm not sure about Mexican law, but in the case of a child born overseas to U.S. Citizen parents (assuming the child is not born on a U.S. Military or Diplomatic installation) the answer is: Not necessarily.

Point #2...why is that our problem?

The child is on your soil. It IS your problem.

[hgc]

The child is on your soil. It IS your problem.


You must not be familiar with the mores and customs of Libertopia. ;)

[thaiboxerken]

Nicole Kidman is probably the most famous "birthright" US Citizen. Her parents, who were both Aussie citizens, were in Hawaii when Kidman was born. She can claim US Citizenship any time she pleases.

I can think of another. Bruce Lee!

[drkitten]

The child is on your soil. It IS your problem.

Not really. "Stateless people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness)" exist and have for centuries.

[MikeMangum]

I guess there will be a big new demand for Nansen passports. Too bad the League of Nations doesn't exist anymore.

[drkitten]

I guess there will be a big new demand for Nansen passports. Too bad the League of Nations doesn't exist anymore.

No, but the UN does and can/will provides equivalent documents.