Birthright Citizenship

[J-Funk]

which separates the US from the backwards thinking of the rest of the world.

when everyone is backwards except for you, it says something...about you.

I know it's lots of fun to make sweeping generalizations but as it has been pointed out several times in this thread the US is NOT unique in it's granting of birthright citizenship.

 

[Dr. Keith]

until I can prove WHAT is true?

This:

I wonder if the authors imagined that their efforts would be used by illegal aliens to gain citizenship in the USA.

Provide evidence for this assertion.

that illegals use their children to become immigration sponsors?

That was your original claim. Have you packed up those goal posts?

as far as I am concerned, the child of an illegal immigrant born in the USA, is still illegal.

Well, then why are you upset? Oh yeah, because you are wrong about that. Are you unclear about the meaning of the word "illegal" in this context?

giving automatic citizenship to the American-born children of illegals, makes a mockery of the 14th Amendment.

Which part? The part that says anyone born here is a citizen?

I've done most of my constitutional legal research on the 3rd amendment, so I may be unclear on the part of the 14th Amendment you think is being mocked.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I wonder if the authors of the 14th Amendment imagined a situation where millions of people were violating America's borders and immigration policies, by crossing our southern border illegally and abusing their vacation and work visas.

I wonder if the authors imagined that their efforts would be used by illegal aliens to gain citizenship in the USA.

I wonder how the authors would have written their amendment, had they known the future.

To the authors of the 14th Amendment, the idea of "illegal immigration" and "illegal aliens" would have been news.

ETA: Your thinking on what the "authors" of the 14th Amendment could imagine is really confused. The purpose of the amendment was to recognize the children of former slaves (undocumented immigrants in today's parlance) as U.S. citizens. If you think they intended to deny citizenship to people born in the U.S. of parenst who lacked legal immigration status (i.e. who were not U.S. citizens), then what do you think they did have in mind?

And again: If you think they only intended the 14th Amendment to apply to descendants of slaves, then why do you suppose they didn't say that?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

as far as I am concerned, the child of an illegal immigrant born in the USA, is still illegal.

Then you are simply wrong, as a matter of fact. I suspect you're using a rhetorical device where you mean to say something like, "I believe the children of illegal immigrants should be considered illegal immigrants even if they are born in the U.S." (For your opinion to become the law, it would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.)

It's sort of like pro-lifers saying, "Abortion is murder" rather than, "I think abortion should be considered the moral equivalent of murder", since, as a matter of fact, abortion is not murder.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Then you are simply wrong, as a matter of fact. I suspect you're using a rhetorical device where you mean to say something like, "I believe the children of illegal immigrants should be considered illegal immigrants even if they are born in the U.S." (For your opinion to become the law, it would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.)

It's sort of like pro-lifers saying, "Abortion is murder" rather than, "I think abortion should be considered the moral equivalent of murder", since, as a matter of fact, abortion is not murder.

Damn, you said that way better than I did. Now he will only respond to my post.

 

[Thunder]

And again: If you think they only intended the 14th Amendment to apply to descendants of slaves, then why do you suppose they didn't say that?

because Amendments back then were incredibly vague.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

because Amendments back then were incredibly vague.

Why do you suppose that is the case?

 

[Arus808]

because Amendments back then were incredibly vague.

there is nothing vague about the 14th amendment, or do you not understand "ALL persons born"

I think its quite clear as to whom the 14th amendment is applying to.

 

[Kestrel]

there is nothing vague about the 14th amendment, or do you not understand "ALL persons born"

I think its quite clear as to whom the 14th amendment is applying to.

The intent was that all children born in the US would be citizens.

But when Congress was debating the 14th Amendment in 1866, it considered the likelihood that the words would apply to children of immigrants too. And some lawmakers approved of that idea.

During that debate, Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania objected to the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. ''Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen?'' he asked on the Senate floor.

Senator John Conness of California said the answer should be ''yes.''

''The children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens,'' Mr. Conness said.

This rule was affirmed by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark^WP.

 

[Thunder]

Do you REALLY think the author's of the 14th Amendment wanted children born in the USA while their parents from abroad were vacationing here, to be automatic citizens?

Please...

Do you REALLY think the author's of the 14th Amendment wanted children born in the USA of illegal aliens, who arrive 3 days before the child's birth, to become automatic citizens?

Double-please...

The 14th Amendment was created to insure the citizenship of the American-born children of all people who resided in the USA legally and permanently. Not for illegal aliens, not for folks on holiday in Las Vegas, not for folks who have a student visa at Caltech, and not for folks given a temporary worker visa in Michigan. It was meant for native-born citizens and folks who have made the USA their home.

I know its asking to prove a negative, but I would LOVE to see any Supreme Court or any other legal intepretation of the 14th that suggests it was meant for illegals and folks on vacation and working visas as well. Please show me a court opinion that the 14th was meant for the children of ALL people in the USA, regardless of their legal status and visa situation.

 

[Random]

Do you REALLY think the author's of the 14th Amendment wanted children born in the USA while their parents from abroad were vacationing here, to be automatic citizens?

Please...

Do you REALLY think the author's of the 14th Amendment wanted children born in the USA of illegal aliens, who arrive 3 days before the child's birth, to become automatic citizens?

Double-please...

The 14th Amendment was created to insure the citizenship of the American-born children of all people who resided in the USA legally and permanently. Not for illegal aliens, not for folks on holiday in Las Vegas, not for folks who have a student visa at Caltech, and not for folks given a temporary worker visa in Michigan. It was meant for native-born citizens and folks who have made the USA their home.

I know its asking to prove a negative, but I would LOVE to see any Supreme Court or any other legal intepretation of the 14th that suggests it was meant for illegals and folks on vacation and working visas as well. Please show me a court opinion that the 14th was meant for the children of ALL people in the USA, regardless of their legal status and visa situation.

I still haven't seen any objective evidence for why granting citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants is a problem. I have seen no evidence that illegal immigrants are having children in the US as "anchor babies". I have seen no evidence that these children are any more of a tax drain than children born to US citizens (yes, their parents might not pay income taxes, but either US born child will pay taxes if they live in the US long enough). The parents are getting nothing out of it and the child has no say in the matter. Why not just grant the citizenship?

It just seems to be yet another conservative "problem" that goes away as soon as you stop caring about it.

 

[Thunder]

Why not just grant the citizenship?

because I simply do not believe this was the intention of the authors of the 14th.

their intention was clearly to insure citizenship to Native Americans and freed African-Americans, NOT to give citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, tourists, and folks on student or working visas.

 

[sol invictus]

Please show me a court opinion that the 14th was meant for the children of ALL people in the USA, regardless of their legal status and visa situation.

Here you go:

U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
...
It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
...
That all children, born within the dominion of the United States, of foreign parents holding no diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of their birth, does not appear to have been contested or doubted until more than 50 years after the adoption of the constitution...
....
There is, therefore, little ground for the theory that at the time of the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States there was any settled and definite rule of international law generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. [169 U.S. 649, 668] Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.
....
...it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the civil rights act of 1866 or the adoption of the constitutional [169 U.S. 649, 675] amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.
....
Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, made this remark: 'The phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states, born within the United States.'
....
The fourteenth amendment, while it leaves the power, where it was before, in congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.

No one doubts that the amendment, as soon as it was promulgated, applied to persons of African descent born in the United States, wherever the birthplace of their parents might have been; and yet, for two years afterwards, there was no statute authorizing persons of that race to be naturalized. If the omission or the refusal of congress to permit certain [169 U.S. 649, 704] classes of persons to be made citizens by naturalization could be allowed the effect of correspondingly restricting the classes of persons who should become citizens by birth, it would be in the power of congress, at any time, by striking negroes out of the naturalization laws, and limiting those laws, as they were formerly limited, to white persons only, to defeat the main purpose of the constitutional amendment.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649

 

[Arus808]

because I simply do not believe this was the intention of the authors of the 14th.

Read the letters from Thomas Jefferson as well as the Blackstone Law concerning citizenship

 

[Thunder]

ok, well....I propose the following addition to the 14th:

"natural-born citizens of the USA, who were born of parents who were in the USA illegally or on a tourist or work visa, cannot sponsor anyone for citizenship or immigration to the USA"

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

ok, well....I propose the following addition to the 14th:

"natural-born citizens of the USA, who were born of parents who were in the USA illegally or on a tourist or work visa, cannot sponsor anyone for citizenship or immigration to the USA"

That sounds very reasonable, so if Guybrush de la Threepwood, 45 year old multi millionaire business man, natural born citizen, and owner of a large US company employing thousands wants to sponsor his beloved fiancee to immigrate to the US, all he has to do is prove his parents didn't commit a crime 50 years ago. What could be wrong with that?

 

[Giggywig]

ok, well....I propose the following addition to the 14th:

"natural-born citizens of the USA, who were born of parents who were in the USA illegally or on a tourist or work visa, cannot sponsor anyone for citizenship or immigration to the USA"

So if your parents were here legally under a work visa, you're a second class citizen. Did I get the gist right?

Have you managed to provide statistics regarding the magnitude of the "problem" you are trying to fix?

 

[sol invictus]

ok, well....I propose the following addition to the 14th:

"natural-born citizens of the USA, who were born of parents who were in the USA illegally or on a tourist or work visa, cannot sponsor anyone for citizenship or immigration to the USA"

So if my parents legally immigrated, had me while they were on legal work visas, then were naturalized when I was 2 years old, I cannot sponsor someone I marry 30 years later, even though I was born and raised in the US and my parents are citizens? That's absurd, unfair, and creates a complex and confusing two-tiered citizenship system for no good reason.

The system as it stands is simple, logical, and tested over the last 150 years and more. You haven't presented one single logical argument for why it should be changed. Even your "worst" case - parents here illegally, child born, 18 years later the child sponsors her parents - I have no problem with at all. If 18 years after having their child here the family still wants to live in the USA, welcome them. They have as much claim to being American as anyone else, and I couldn't care less that they violated the letter of our broken immigration laws at one point any more than I care if they jaywalked once.

 

[TragicMonkey]

That sounds very reasonable, so if Guybrush de la Threepwood, 45 year old multi millionaire business man, natural born citizen, and owner of a large US company employing thousands wants to sponsor his beloved fiancee to immigrate to the US, all he has to do is prove his parents didn't commit a crime 50 years ago. What could be wrong with that?

Oooh, let's adopt a "family register" system like Japan had. That never caused any problems. Oh wait, it did. Serious, serious problems.

(Also, if you're really a 45 year old multi millionaire business man, have you considered ditching foreign ladies for nice home grown American gentlemen? I only ask because I'm available, and as my parents are into geneaology I can prove my Americanity to an astonishing degree. I'm more American than most Americans, in fact.)

 

[Kestrel]

So if my parents legally immigrated, had me while they were on legal work visas, then were naturalized when I was 2 years old, I cannot sponsor someone I marry 30 years later, even though I was born and raised in the US and my parents are citizens? That's absurd, unfair, and creates a complex and confusing two-tiered citizenship system for no good reason.

I have yet to hear a reason that isn't at it's core an appeal to nativism^WP.