Citizenship From Birth

[moroccogirlny 100]

Citizenship From Birth Is Challenged on the Right

By JULIA PRESTON

Published: August 6, 2010

At a breakfast on Thursday in Washington, Senator Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, tried to tamp down a controversy that started when Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, questioned the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which grants the right to citizenship to anyone born in the United States.

“I am not aware of anybody who has come out in favor of altering the 14th Amendment,” Mr. McConnell said.

But Mr. Graham, speaking on Fox News last week, said it was “a mistake” to allow American-born children of illegal immigrants to become citizens automatically, a practice known as birthright citizenship. He said that along with a plan to grant legal status to millions of illegal immigrants, he would also amend the 14th Amendment as a way of discouraging future unauthorized immigration.

Throughout the week Mr. Graham stood firm on his proposal. “We can’t just have people swimming across the river having children here — that’s chaos,” he said Wednesday in another interview with Fox News.

The proposal caught Republican and Democratic lawmakers by surprise, not least because it came from Mr. Graham, who earlier this year was the leading — and almost the only — Republican negotiating with Democrats to create an immigration overhaul bill. Mr. Graham gave new prominence to an issue that has long been a favorite of conservatives advocating reduced immigration, but has been peripheral to the immigration debate in Congress.

Mr. McConnell said Republicans were calling only for hearings on the issue. The debate centers on the first sentence of what is known as the citizenship clause: “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.” The amendment was adopted in 1868 to ensure the citizenship of the American-born children of freed slaves.

Opponents of birthright citizenship contend that illegal immigrants are not under United States jurisdiction, therefore their American-born children should not automatically be citizens. They say the amendment could not apply to those immigrants because there was no illegal immigration when it was adopted.

“If you are an illegal immigrant, we clearly have not given you permission to reside here,” said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for NumbersUSA, a group that favors decreased immigration. “You are still subject to the jurisdiction of your own country.”

But giving citizenship to everyone born in the United States has been the practice since the 1860s, and was upheld by the Supreme Court on the few occasions when it was tested there, immigration lawyers said. A change to the law to disallow the children of illegal immigrants would vastly increase the undocumented population, lawyers said, rather than reducing it. Babies born to Mexican mothers here illegally, for example, would become illegal Mexican immigrants from the moment of birth.

“You would be perpetuating a large undocumented population, with all these children growing up very much living in the shadows,” said Hiroshi Motomura, an immigration law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Mr. Graham’s proposal revived a popular misunderstanding: In the often heated debate over birthright citizenship, pundits refer to the problem of “anchor babies,” and talk show callers express frustration that pregnant women could cross the border from Mexico illegally, then rely on their American citizen newborns to put them immediately on a path to citizenship.

In fact, under immigration law American citizen children must wait until they are 21 years old to apply for legal residency for their parents. Also, most of the illegal immigrants who have children who are American citizens have not recently arrived.

About four million American citizen children have at least one parent who is an illegal immigrant, according to a study last year by the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group in Washington. They usually live in families that have been in the United States for a number of years and very often include both illegal immigrants and American citizens, the study found.

Altering the Constitution — especially an amendment that is dear to black Americans — is such a huge political proposition that few lawmakers thought Mr. Graham’s comments would lead to any action before November’s midterm elections.

But the episode was a sign of the pressures on Republicans over immigration, after a tough law they passed in Arizona put the party squarely on the side of cracking down on illegal immigrants. Mr. Graham’s move helped to shore up his credentials with some conservatives.

But some Republicans worried that the issue could backfire. “This type of position may help you win a few elections,” said Alfonso Aguilar, executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, a group that tries to draw Latinos to the Republican Party. “But you are damaging relations with the Latino community.”

NY Times

[DEDixon 39]

it is rather old fashioned. in this day where many of the world's better off can jump on a plane while 7 months pregnant and 2 months later leave having the most valued prize in the world (american passport) for life is ridiculous. it is why so many countries have changed their laws and it is why the USA should at the very least talk about it. it is the responsible thing to do.

[Heracles 417]

The issue everyone on here should have with this as well as any amnesty granting citizenship is that everyone else, as in your spouses, had to apply for a visa or two. After goign through the process, then wait it out and apply after x year. Same deal with someone else entering on a non-spousal based visa, I believe it's a five year wait for them.

Whereas, once again, these guys get to jump the process, pay some BS fine and then acquire citizenship. Therefore, they paid nothing to get in, did no time like the rest of us, but qualify for citizenship.

Citizenship is something people should aspire to acquire and work towards, it should certainly not be mocked by being handed out like some discount coupons - for all to take. Thankfully my own country will never disrespect the country by handing out citizenship like that; which is probbaly why it means so much.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Heracles

[peejay 327]

it is rather old fashioned. in this day where many of the world's better off can jump on a plane while 7 months pregnant and 2 months later leave having the most valued prize in the world (american passport) for life is ridiculous. it is why so many countries have changed their laws and it is why the USA should at the very least talk about it. it is the responsible thing to do.

When you say "many countries" it goes without saying that you are referring to modern industrialized First World social welfare states. In this regard the USA is way behind the times on this issue of denying automatic birthright citizenship for tourists and illegal aliens. So far...the liberal Left refuses to even discuss it. It will take a conservative congress and a conservative president to bring about this needed change. We presently have neither. We can only hope for change after the 2010 and 2012 elections.

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

Quit trying to ** with the Constitution! We're not everybody else. This is America, dammit. Keep your grimy hands off the 14th Amendment!

[Pooky 3,366]

Quit trying to ** with the Constitution! We're not everybody else. This is America, dammit. Keep your grimy hands off the 14th Amendment!

Quit sticking with the wrong interpretation of it and everyone else will be happy.

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

Quit sticking with the wrong interpretation of it and everyone else will be happy.

Excuse me?

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Thankfully my own country will never disrespect the country by handing out citizenship like that; which is probbaly why it means so much.

How do you know? It could change in the future.

[Pooky 3,366]

Excuse me?

You're excused.

[LaL 418]

the most valued prize in the world (american passport)

bwhahahha. sure dude.

[DEDixon 39]

Quit trying to ** with the Constitution! We're not everybody else. This is America, dammit. Keep your grimy hands off the 14th Amendment!

why wouldn't you want it to change? and what is fair about taking a plane ride at 7 months pregnant to download a baby in an emergency room at taxpayer cost? and what is fair about jumping across the border to have a baby in an emergency room at taxpayer cost?

if for good reason, it should change. given overwhelming support for the AZ law among everyday americans (not the special interest lobby), it seems most americans would agree that there is a good reason for changing the 14th amendment.

[DEDixon 39]

When you say "many countries" it goes without saying that you are referring to modern industrialized First World social welfare states. In this regard the USA is way behind the times on this issue of denying automatic birthright citizenship for tourists and illegal aliens. So far...the liberal Left refuses to even discuss it. It will take a conservative congress and a conservative president to bring about this needed change. We presently have neither. We can only hope for change after the 2010 and 2012 elections.

after nancy is no longer in charge, the liberal left won't have so much influence. not all dems are the liberal left so there is a chance to bring this about, however i don't see it happening while nancy is speaker.

even the congressional black caucus just might join in since hispanics are taking jobs that black typically aspire to. i know that isn't a PC statement, but say it privately and few will disagree.

[DEDixon 39]

bwhahahha. sure dude.

oh quit it, you know i'm right.

[Teacher Mark 53]

Quit sticking with the wrong interpretation of it and everyone else will be happy.

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

What's your interpretation?

Edited August 8, 2010 by Mr. Saigon

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

why wouldn't you want it to change?

For the very same reasons the proponents argued in favor of the birthright clause of the 14th Amendment before it was ratified.

The text of the ratified Citizenship Clause embodies the jus soli rule of citizenship, under which citizenship is acquired by right of the soil (contrasted with jus sanguinis, according to which citizenship is granted according to bloodline.) This form of citizenship embodies the American rejection of aristocracy and privileged ancestry; under the Citizenship Clause, one's citizenship turns on an objective circumstance-place of birth-not familial status.

The Reconstruction Framers' intent to make citizenship dependent not on the favor of the majority or the favored status of a person's ancestors, but rather on neutral, fixed conditions is evident from congressional debates. In proposing the language that would ultimately be ratified as the Citizenship Clause, Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan explained that his proposed addition would declare "that 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."

Recognizing the sweep of this proposed language, both supporters and opponents of the Fourteenth Amendment understood the Citizenship Clause to grant birthright citizenship to children of aliens. In fact, this was a significant source of opposition: Senator Cowan lamented that the proposal would expand the number of Chinese in California and "Gypsies" in his home state of Pennsylvania by granting birthright citizenship to their children, even (as he put it) the children of those who owe no allegiance to the United States and routinely commit "trespass" within the country. No supporter of the Amendment rose to dispute Senator Cowan's view of the effect the proposed Amendment would have. To the contrary, Senator John Conness of California defended the proposed Citizenship Clause as sound policy, stating:

[With] respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, ... it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens .... I am in favor of doing so .... We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others."

In sum, the Citizenship Clause was proposed, enacted and ratified with the understanding that it granted automatic birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to alien parents.

As a final note, it is worth mentioning that the expansive Citizenship Clause was not forged in some more enlightened era. As the remarks quoted above demonstrate, along with the grand statements supporting liberty and equality, ethnic stereotypes and racial hostility were also on full display in the debates over the Fourteenth Amendment. But our Reconstruction Framers wisely placed the conditions for automatic citizenship beyond the prejudices and politics of the day, intending to establish "a constitutional right that cannot be wrested from any class of citizens, or from the citizens of any State by mere legislation." Today's anti-citizenship advocates are therefore not just flouting the Citizenship Clause's text and history when they seek to deny birthright citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to undocumented immigrant parents, they are also disregarding the Fourteenth Amendment's guiding principles and purposes.

http://www.acslaw.org/node/13424

Edited August 8, 2010 by El Buscador