{"id":585,"date":"2010-07-02T00:34:57","date_gmt":"2010-07-02T05:34:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.patrioticfederalist.com\/Wordpress\/?p=585"},"modified":"2010-07-01T23:50:38","modified_gmt":"2010-07-02T04:50:38","slug":"explaination-of-why-illegal-immigrant-children-shouldnt-get-citizenship","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/patrioticfederalist.com\/wp\/?p=585","title":{"rendered":"Explaination of Why Illegal Immigrant Children Shouldn’t Get Citizenship."},"content":{"rendered":"

Outstanding article explaining why we should not now, or ever, have been granting citizenship to illegal aliens (Undocumented Democrats) in the first place.\u00a0 Here was an even more detailed 14th Amendment page that was written before Mr Will’s article: http:\/\/www.14thamendment.us\/birthright_citizenship\/original_intent.html<\/a><\/p>\n

An argument to be made about immigrant babies and citizenship<\/h3>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n

George F. Will<\/a><\/p>\n

Sunday, March 28, 2010<\/p>\n

A simple reform would drain some scalding steam from immigration arguments that may soon again be at a roiling boil. It would bring the interpretation of the 14th Amendment<\/a> into conformity with what the authors of its text intended, and with common sense, thereby removing an incentive for illegal immigration.<\/p>\n

To end the practice of “birthright citizenship,” all that is required is to correct the misinterpretation of that amendment’s first sentence: “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.” From these words has flowed the practice of conferring citizenship on children born here to illegal immigrants.<\/p>\n

A parent from a poor country, writes professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school, “can hardly do more for a child than make him or her an American citizen, entitled to all the advantages of the American welfare state.” Therefore, “It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry.”<\/p>\n

Writing in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, Graglia<\/a> says this irrationality is rooted in a misunderstanding of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” What was this intended or understood to mean by those who wrote it in 1866 and ratified it in 1868? The authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants because in 1868 there were and never had been any illegal immigrants<\/em> because no law ever had restricted immigration<\/em>.
\nIf those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had<\/em> imagined laws restricting immigration — and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration — is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not.<\/p>\n

The Civil Rights Act of 1866<\/a> begins with language from which the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause is derived: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power<\/em>, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” (Emphasis added.) The explicit exclusion of Indians from birthright citizenship was not repeated in the 14th Amendment because it was considered unnecessary. Although Indians were at least partially subject to U.S. jurisdiction, they owed allegiance to their tribes, not the United States. This reasoning — divided allegiance — applies equally to exclude the children of resident aliens, legal as well as illegal, from birthright citizenship. Indeed, today’s regulations issued by the departments of Homeland Security and Justice stipulate:<\/p>\n

“A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment.”<\/p>\n

Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois<\/a> was, Graglia writes, one of two “principal authors of the citizenship clauses in 1866 act and the 14th Amendment.” He said that “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” meant subject to its “complete” jurisdiction, meaning “not owing allegiance to anybody else.” Hence children whose Indian parents had tribal allegiances were excluded from birthright citizenship.<\/p>\n

Appropriately, in 1884 the Supreme Court held that children born to Indian parents were not born “subject to” U.S. jurisdiction because, among other reasons, the person so born could not change his status by his “own will without the action or assent of the United States.” And “no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent.” Graglia says this decision “seemed to establish” that U.S. citizenship is “a consensual relation, requiring the consent of the United States.” So: “This would clearly settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. There cannot be a more total or forceful denial of consent to a person’s citizenship than to make the source of that person’s presence in the nation illegal.”<\/p>\n

Congress has heard testimony estimating that more than two-thirds of all births in Los Angeles public hospitals, and more than half of all births in that city, and nearly 10 percent of all births in the nation in recent years, have been to mothers who are here illegally. Graglia seems to establish that there is no constitutional impediment to Congress ending the granting of birthright citizenship to those whose presence here is “not only without the government’s consent but in violation of its law.”<\/p>\n

georgewill@washpost.com<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

For a counter-point, some Lefty wrote his view here.<\/a> I pasted an excellent rebuttal to it below.\u00a0 Poster stated he left this post on the aforementioned site, but wasn’t sure it would be approved.\u00a0 Anyway, it’s from one of our posters and contributors to the 14th Amendment Link above:<\/p>\n

“I thought Mr Will’s article was outstanding.\u00a0 It could have been longer since he left out plenty of legal precedent for showing that illegals that drop a child in America are still just illegals.\u00a0 Babies born to illegal aliens within our borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).<\/p>\n

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th\u00a0 Amendment by stating: “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”<\/p>\n

The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
\nIn the “Slaughter-House cases” [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]
\nThe Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe “direct and immediate allegiance” to the U.S. and be “completely subject” to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.<\/p>\n

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens (from ANY nation) defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965<\/p>\n

I suspect from your writings that you are a die hard liberal.\u00a0 Which means Mr Will’s article, my posting, nor any other facts will change your point of view for this.\u00a0 I am just posting for the benefit of anyone that might buy into your argument that (like all liberal) it must be a race issue when someone throws out a common sense idea that some minority doesn’t like. Im Hispanic, but I NEVER use that label if I can hep it.\u00a0 I’m an American, period.\u00a0 All the illegals from all nations are breaking my countries laws and disgracing the process for LEGAL immigration by pushing for the easy way out.\u00a0 I just pray we get the liberal idiots voted out this fall before Hussein can push through immunity for all those “undocumented Democrats” out there.
\n“<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Outstanding article explaining why we should not now, or ever, have been granting citizenship to illegal aliens (Undocumented Democrats) in the first place.\u00a0 Here was an even more detailed 14th Amendment page that was written before Mr Will’s article: http:\/\/www.14thamendment.us\/birthright_citizenship\/original_intent.html An argument to be made about immigrant babies and citizenship George F. Will Sunday, March … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[177,182,175,179,178,180,176,181],"class_list":["post-585","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics","tag-14th-amendment","tag-anchor-babies","tag-argument-against-illegal-immigrant-babies-and-citizenship","tag-constitutional-principles","tag-george-f-will","tag-george-will","tag-illegal-immigrants","tag-illegal-immigration"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/patrioticfederalist.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/585","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/patrioticfederalist.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/patrioticfederalist.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/patrioticfederalist.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/patrioticfederalist.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=585"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"http:\/\/patrioticfederalist.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/585\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":589,"href":"http:\/\/patrioticfederalist.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/585\/revisions\/589"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/patrioticfederalist.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=585"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/patrioticfederalist.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=585"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/patrioticfederalist.com\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=585"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}