Citizenship From Birth

[Ban Hammer 12,863]

What is the requirement for Australian citizenship? Do you have to have a criminal record or have been in prison?

i think they have to be able to rope a kangaroo and wrestle an alligator.

[Heracles 417]

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

I find that attitude appalling actually, considering women and slaves once didn't even have basic human rights to vote.

Had people like you been around then, these amendments would never have gone into place. Wha Wha wha "Keep your grimy hands off.. Quit trying to ** with the Constitution!..This is America, dammit".

Your ideological aligned bias is nothing new though. At least I don't have different rules depending on the issue and my stance on it.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Heracles

[Atencio 43]

Reagan's misguided amnesty was actually passed by a Democratic congress...he signed it.

Bush got nowhere with his push for amnesty even with a Republican majority congress.

Peejay,

My point is the Republican's wet dream for a President and a Republican President and Congress did nothing, shall I repeat, nothing to stop illegal immigration. You really beleive that is going to change?

[mawilson 2,133]

I find that attitude appalling actually, considering women and slaves once didn't even have basic human rights to vote.

Had people like you been around then, these amendments would never have gone into place. Wha Wha wha "Keep your grimy hands off.. Quit trying to ** with the Constitution!..This is America, dammit".

Your ideological aligned bias is nothing new though. At least I don't have different rules depending on the issue and my stance on it.

Don't worry about Steven, he doesn't really mean it. He will happily walk all over

the Constitution when it gets in his way.

Take Obamacare, for example. Nowhere does the Constitution grant the Federal

government the authority to mandate that people buy a product (insurance) from

a private company. Do you think Steven cares about that? Not at all. He'll

cite a bunch of "legal opinions" rendered by carefully chosen "experts" and

"constitutional scholars" and be happy with that.

[Heracles 417]

Don't worry about Steven, he doesn't really mean it. He will happily walk all over

the Constitution when it gets in his way.

Take Obamacare, for example. Nowhere does the Constitution grant the Federal

government the authority to mandate that people buy a product (insurance) from

a private company. Do you think Steven cares about that? Not at all. He'll

cite a bunch of "legal opinions" rendered by carefully chosen "experts" and

"constitutional scholars" and be happy with that.

He has demonstrated time and time again, that depending on the issue, his stance and approach to things changes. I at least look at thing pragmatically, and from day one have said that the US Constitution needs to be modernized, with the ambiguity plaguing it removed. You certainly won't find me flipping back and forth, because issue x doesn't suit my ideology.

These same [equivalent] expert sources are used to explain things like the taxes illegals apparently pay. When asked to use common sense and explain how the same illegals that are apparently paying all of these taxes, have so many kids that are on a free and reduced lunch, meaning that their parents cannot afford the $2 lunch fee, I hear crickets.

Yet apparently we are led to believe that these same people are going to magically muster cash to back pay fines - to be granted citizenship. Utter Bullcrap.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Heracles

[Heracles 417]

Basically, they're going to get a free ride to Go, to literally collect their $200. All while us idiots have to wait and pay through the azz. Probably don't even have to go through the health checks or vaccination checks that most of us from the first world had to do.

####, I've gone off on a tangent about illegals.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Heracles

[mawilson 2,133]

Yet apparently we are led to believe that these same people are going to magically muster cash to back pay fines - to be granted citizenship. Utter Bullcrap.

The very idea of an illegal alien "paying a fine" to compensate for years, if not decades,

of not paying taxes, then being allowed to stay, is absurd!

I'd certainly like to stop paying taxes for 10 years, then turn around and pay a $5,000 fine!

What a sweet deal!

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

http://www.visajourn...78#entry4105378

from your Human Events article:

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, a member of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction that drafted the amendment, made absolutely clear the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, 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.”

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, regarded as the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed in a floor speech on March 9, 1866, in the House of Representatives:

“ find no fault with the introductory clause [s 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..."

from James C. Ho, Constitutional Scholar:

To be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. is simply to be subject to the authority of the U.S. government. The phrase thus covers the vast majority of persons within our borders who are required to obey U.S. laws. And obedience, of course, does not turn on immigration status, national alle­giance, or past compliance. All must obey.

Common usage confirms this under­standing. When we speak of a business that is subject to the jurisdiction of a regulatory agency, it must follow the laws of that agency, whether it likes it or not. When we speak of an individual who is subject to the jurisdic­tion of a court, he must follow the judgments and orders of that court, whether he likes it or not. As Justice Scalia noted just a year ago, when a statute renders a particular class of persons “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” Congress “has made clear its intent to extend its laws” to them.

Of course, when we speak of a person who is subject to our jurisdiction, we do not limit ourselves to only those who have sworn allegiance to the U.S. Howard Stern need not swear allegiance to the FCC to be bound by Commission orders. Nor is be­ing “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. limited to those who have always complied with U.S. law. Criminals cannot immunize themselves from prosecution by violating Title 18. Likewise, aliens cannot immunize themselves from U.S. law by entering our country in violation of Title 8. Indeed, ille­gal aliens are such because they are subject to U.S. law.

Accordingly, the text of the Citizen­ship Clause plainly guarantees birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of all persons subject to U.S. sovereign authority and laws. The clause thus covers the vast majority of lawful and unlawful aliens. Of course, the jurisdictional requirement of the Citizenship Clause must do something – and it does. It excludes those persons who, for some reason, are immune from, and thus not required to obey, U.S. law. Most nota­bly, foreign diplomats and enemy soldiers – as agents of a foreign sovereign – are not subject to U.S. law, notwithstanding their presence within U.S. territory. Foreign dip­lomats enjoy diplomatic immunity, while lawful enemy combatants enjoy combatant immunity. Accordingly, children born to them are not entitled to birthright citizen­ship under the Fourteenth Amendment.

This conclusion is confirmed by history.

The Citizenship Clause was no legal in­novation. It simply restored the longstand­ing English common law doctrine of jus soli, or citizenship by place of birth. Although the doctrine was initially embraced in early American jurisprudence, the U.S. Supreme Court abrogated jus soli in its infamous Dred Scott decision, denying birthright citizen­ship to the descendents of slaves. Congress approved the Citizenship Clause to overrule Dred Scott and elevate jus soli to the status of constitutional law.

When the House of Representatives first approved the measure that would eventually become the Fourteenth Amendment, it did not contain language guaranteeing citizen­ship. On May 29, 1866, six days after the Senate began its deliberations, Senator Ja­cob Howard (R-MI) proposed language pertaining to citizenship. Following ex­tended debate the next day, the Senate ad­opted Howard’s language. Both chambers subsequently approved the constitutional amendment without further discussion of birthright citizenship, so the May 30, 1866 Senate debate offers the best insight into Congressional intent.

Senator Howard’s brief introduction of his amendment confirmed its plain mean­ing:

Mr. HOWARD. … This amendment which I have offered is simply declara­tory of what I regard as the law of the land already, 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. 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.”

This understanding was universally ad­opted by other Senators. Howard’s col­leagues vigorously debated the wisdom of his amendment – indeed, some opposed it pre­cisely because they opposed extending birth­right citizenship to the children of aliens of different races. But no Senator disputed the meaning of the amendment with respect to alien children.

Senator Edgar Cowan (R-PA)—who would later vote against the entire consti­tutional amendment anyway—was the first to speak in opposition to extending birth­right citizenship to the children of foreign­ers. Cowan declared that, “if [a state] were overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them.” He feared that the Howard amend­ment would effectively deprive states of the authority to expel persons of different races—in particular, the Gypsies in his home state of Pennsylvania and the Chinese in Califor­nia—by granting their children citizenship and thereby enabling foreign populations to overrun the country. Cowan objected espe­cially to granting birthright citizenship to the children of aliens who “owe [the U.S.] no allegiance [and] who pretend to owe none,” and to those who regularly commit “trespass” within the U.S.

In response, proponents of the Howard amendment endorsed Cowan’s interpreta­tion. Senator John Conness (R-CA) re­sponded specifically to Cowan’s concerns about extending birthright citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants:

The proposition before us … relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in Califor­nia, and 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.

Conness acknowledged Cowan’s dire pre­dictions of foreign overpopulation, but ex­plained that, although legally correct, Cow­an’s parade of horribles would not be real­ized, because most Chinese would not take advantage of such rights although entitled to them. He noted that most Chinese work and then return to their home country, rather than start families in the U.S. Con­ness thus concluded that, if Cowan “knew as much of the Chinese and their habits as he professes to do of the Gypsies, … he would not be alarmed.”

No Senator took issue with the consensus interpretation adopted by Howard, Cowan, and Conness. To be sure, one interpretive dispute did arise. Senators disagreed over whether the Howard amendment would ex­tend birthright citizenship to the children of Indians. For although Indian tribes resided within U.S. territory, weren’t they also sov­ereign entities not subject to the jurisdiction of Congress?

Some Senators clearly thought so. How­ard urged that Indian tribes “always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations” and thus could not be deemed subject to U.S. law. Senator Lyman Trumbull (D-IL) agreed, noting that “it would be a violation of our treaty obliga­tions … to extend our laws over these Indian tribes with whom we have made treaties say­ing we would not do it.” Trumbull insisted that Indian tribes “are not subject to our jurisdiction in the sense of owing allegiance solely to the United States,” for “t is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens.”

Senators Reverdy Johnson (D-MD) and Thomas Hendricks (D-IN) disagreed, con­tending that the U.S. could extend its laws to Indian tribes and had done so on occa­sion. Senator James R. Doolittle (R-WI) proposed to put all doubt to rest by add­ing the words “excluding Indians not taxed” (borrowing from language in Article I) to the Howard amendment. But although there was virtual consensus that birthright citizenship should not be extended to the children of Indian tribal members, a ma­jority of Senators saw no need for clarifica­tion. The Senate ultimately defeated Doo­little’s amendment by a 10–30 vote, and then adopted the Howard text without recorded vote.

Whatever the correct legal answer to the question of Indian tribes, it is clearly beside the point. The status of Indian tribes under U.S. law may have been ambiguous to mem­bers of the 39th Congress. But there is no doubt that foreign countries enjoy no such sovereign status within U.S. borders. And there is likewise no doubt that U.S. law ap­plies to their nationals who enter U.S. ter­ritory.

http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/perspectives/made-america-myths-facts-about-birthright-citizenship

[mawilson 2,133]

from James C. Ho, Constitutional Scholar

BY, what did I tell you?

[Atencio 43]

Don't worry about Steven, he doesn't really mean it. He will happily walk all over

the Constitution when it gets in his way.

Do you think Steven cares about that? Not at all. He'll

cite a bunch of "legal opinions" rendered by carefully chosen "experts" and

"constitutional scholars" and be happy with that.

I don't agree with Steven politically on most subjects but at least he does do research on his topics unlike you and Mr. Down-under.

The constitution needs to be modernized? Yeah, ok. There will always be ambiguity. That is why there is a Supreme Court, to give their legal opinion.

[Heracles 417]

The very idea of an illegal alien "paying a fine" to compensate for years, if not decades,

of not paying taxes, then being allowed to stay, is absurd!

I'd certainly like to stop paying taxes for 10 years, then turn around and pay a $5,000 fine!

What a sweet deal!

Stay and get citizenship might I add. Not even have to go through the visa process nor wait the 5 years, like people with legitimate non-spousal visas have to do. What a slap in the face for those immigrants from around the world. All in the name of pandering and catering to the Latin American groups that condone illegals.

If there is an amnesty, the only logical visa an illegal alien should be granted is a 2 year PR to begin with; based on the condition that they have had no criminal record period - nada. In fact, having entered the country illegally and not been a refuge, should disqualify anyone from citizenship for 15 to 20 years.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Heracles

[Heracles 417]

BY, what did I tell you?

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Stay and get citizenship might I add. Not even have to go through the visa process nor wait the 5 years, like people with legitimate non-spousal visas have to do.

If there is an amnesty, the only logical visa an illegal alien should be granted is a PR; with a condition that they have had no criminal record period - nada. In fact, having entered the country illegally and not been a refuge, should disqualify anyone from citizenship for 15 to 20 years.

I still don't think there should be an amnesty. Granted, it would be impossible to round everyone up and deport them, but it's time to make E-Verify mandatory and crack down on all the US employers who knowingly hire illegals. Same thing for drivers licenses. It's way too easy for illegals to stay here and it is our fault, not theirs.

[Heracles 417]

I still don't think there should be an amnesty. Granted, it would be impossible to round everyone up and deport them, but it's time to make E-Verify mandatory and crack down on all the US employers who knowingly hire illegals. Same thing for drivers licenses. It's way too easy for illegals to stay here and it is our fault, not theirs.

I don't think so either, but if anything is granted it should be a 2 year PR like everyone else. Then a removal of conditions, followed by a 15 to 20 year wait for citizenship.

What a slap in the face for everyone on here, let alone every other legitimate immigrant, to see these people get to GO and basically be rewarded with citizenship.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

What a slap in the face for everyone on here, let alone every other legitimate immigrant, to see these people get to GO and basically be rewarded with citizenship.

It's a slap in the face to generations of immigrants. If they give amnesty, why not just open the floodgates and do away with the legal process. Let everyone in. It's ridiculous.