Would ending birthright citizenship.....

[peejay 327]

Would ending birthright citizenship cool the immigration debate?

by Doug Gibson - Mar 29th, 2010

George Will has written a fascinating column with the proposal that birthright citizenship — where children of illegals are presumed to be U.S. citizens — is not constitutional. It’s a provocative opinion that at first glance seems to contradict the 14th Amendment, which reads in part, “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. …”

However, Will makes an excellent point that birthright babies becoming citizens were never the intention of the 14th Amendment, which sprung from the Civil Rights Act of 1866. In fact, the 1866 act interpreted citizenship as “persons … not subject to any foreign power.” Will opines that it was the intent of the 14th Amendment that no “divided allegiance” be allowed for U.S. citizens. Will quotes University of Texas law Professor Lino Graglia, who wrote that a principal author of the 1866 law, Sen. Lyman Trumball of Illinois, considered “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” to mean “‘complete’ jurisdiction, meaning ‘not owing allegiance to anyone else.’”

Will further argues, “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: “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.”

Will, citing Graglia, also refers to an 1884 Supreme Court decision that establishes that “U.S. citizenship is a ‘consensual relation, requiring the consent of the United States.’”

This important because if Congress feels it has the constitutional right to deny citizenship to birthright babies, who are 10 percent of all births in the U.S. and more than half of 50 percent of births in Los Angeles, says Will, then a major incentive to illegal immigration can lawfully be ended. I suspect a lot of open borders advocates would scream holy Hell about such a switch in U.S. policy, but if we ever want to really do something to stop illegal immigration and the crushing public service costs associated, Will seems to have outlined a smart first step. You can read Will’s column here:

A Birthright? Maybe Not

By George Will

March 28, 2010

WASHINGTON -- 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 into conformity with what the authors of its text intended, and with common sense, thereby removing an incentive for illegal immigration.

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.

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."

Writing in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, Graglia 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 because no law ever had restricted immigration.

If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had 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.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 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, 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:

"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."

Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois 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.

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."

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 illegal immigrant mothers. Graglia seems to establish that there is no constitutional impediment to Congress ending the granting of birthright citizenship to persons whose presence here is "not only without the government's consent but in violation of its law."

http://blogs.standard.net/2010/03/would-ending-birthright-citizenship-cool-the-immigration-debate/

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/28/a_birthright_maybe_not_104954.html

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

IMO if a child is born in the US and either one of their biological parents is legally present in the US, they should have be a citizen. Oh and the US should ban dual citizenship too.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

IMO if a child is born in the US and either one of their biological parents is legally present in the US, they should have be a citizen. Oh and the US should ban dual citizenship too.

You mean by:legally present in the US, to mean the parent is here legally?

Please explain why you would want to see dual citizenship banned?

_P

Edited March 30, 2010 by PhiLandShiR

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Please explain why you would want to see dual citizenship banned?

divided allegiance

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

Why stop at birth? Lets ban marriage based immigration that eventually leads to citizenship. That's not covered in the Constitution.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

divided allegiance

Divided Allegiance is not caused by dual citizenship. Its caused by religion...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Divided Allegiance is not caused by dual citizenship. Its caused by religion...

Wow, you are full of ###### today aren't you.

[mawilson 2,133]

Oh and the US should ban dual citizenship too.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The US already does not recognize Dual Citizenship.....

As far as birth-right goes, The child must be born to LEGAL Permanent Residents at the very least imho.

This whole border jumping or illegals BS makes me sick.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The US already does not recognize Dual Citizenship.....

The State Department disagrees, but I suppose they've become overrun by commies and you don't recognize their authority. I guess you were talking about the real US.

...dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

As far as birth-right goes, The child must be born to LEGAL Permanent Residents at the very least imho.

I disagree (ha, what a surprise). In my opinion, if this law is changed then citizenship-at-birth should be allowed for any child with at least one biological parent legally present in the US, LPR or not.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The State Department disagrees, but I suppose they've become overrun by commies and you don't recognize their authority. I guess you were talking about the real US.

...dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries. Either country has the right to enforce its laws, particularly if the person later travels there.Most U.S. citizens, including dual nationals, must use a U.S. passport to enter and leave the United States. Dual nationals may also be required by the foreign country to use its passport to enter and leave that country. Use of the foreign passport does not endanger U.S. citizenship.Most countries permit a person to renounce or otherwise lose citizenship.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html

I was mistaken then. I had always thought we were highly against dual-citizens....

I disagree (ha, what a surprise). In my opinion, if this law is changed then citizenship-at-birth should be allowed for any child with at least one biological parent legally present in the US, LPR or not.

See, just because you're travelling on vacation and 'legally' here at the moment doesn't mean your child should be a US Citizen automatically either. That's kind of erroneous and you know that'd be abused just as much as the illegals abuse the system as well.

The idea that someone isn't actually settled legally and their child is automatically a citizen for being born on US soil only helps to keep encouraging the illegal encroachment.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

See, just because you're travelling on vacation and 'legally' here at the moment doesn't mean your child should be a US Citizen automatically either. That's kind of erroneous and you know that'd be abused just as much as the illegals abuse the system as well.

I was thinking more along the lines of the PhD student with his/her spouse who isn't an LPR yet but will most likely never leave the country. Graduate, get recruited by Bechtel/Cisco/whatever and stay. I didn't have visitors in mind.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

Wow, you are full of ###### today aren't you.

Not really... no more than most that lurk in Off Topic...

Ask any fundamentalist which is first in their minds, they will ALWAYS say its their religion then the country.

Sure sounds like divided allegiance to me...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Not really... no more than most that lurk in Off Topic...

Ask any fundamentalist which is first in their minds, they will ALWAYS say its their religion then the country.

Sure sounds like divided allegiance to me...

I'm not arguing that religious fundamentalists are good people without unquestionable allegiances. Far from it.

I am arguing that religion is not the only source of divided allegiance.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

I'm not arguing that religious fundamentalists are good people without unquestionable allegiances. Far from it.

I am arguing that religion is not the only source of divided allegiance.

Oh... well... Thats true...

However, from my perspective, it is the one, major source of it.