Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a hardliner on illegal immigration, has introduced a bill to redefine the meaning of "citizenship." His intent is to exclude the children of illegal immigrants, and to many people's surprise, he has 81 cosponsors. With the calls of moderate Republican senators Lindsay Graham and John McCain to change the law to end what is known as "birthright citizenship," the issue is no longer relegated to the fringe. It's worth examining how we got to this point and why we need to make a change.
Under the current interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, all persons born in the country and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (the "Citizenship Clause") are U.S. citizens. The amendment was enacted just after the Civil War for the purpose of enfranchising former slaves. However, Congress did not word the amendment in those terms. Rather, as with prior amendments, it expressed itself in broad, grandiose terms. Think of the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech or of the press"). What is "speech"? Are political action committees covered? We leave it to the courts to decide. The Constitution does not contain definitions. And likewise, the meaning of the Citizenship Clause eludes us. Are the children of immigrants citizens? But in this age of mass immigration, it should not.
Unless we know the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," we simply don't know. The congressional debates over the Citizenship Clause include statements pointing in different directions. Sen. Jacob Howard (R-Mich, 1862-1871) stated that "foreigners," "aliens," and foreign diplomats would be excluded from citizenship (presumably their children, as well). But when asked point-blank if Chinese immigrants in California and "gypsies" would be citizens, another sponsor answered in the affirmative. In 1884 the Supreme Court decided that an Indian born on a reservation in Nebraska was not a citizen (Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 103 [1884]). But in 1898 the court took the opposite approach and held the child of legal Chinese immigrants was a citizen by virtue of his birth in California (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 655 [1898]). This question has not been reviewed by the court since. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (currently in effect, though amended many times) defines "citizen" as a person born in the U.S. "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (U.S.C. 1401[a]), thereby eluding the question rather than clarifying it.
Birthright citizenship has been abandoned by the U.K., France, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and India as immigration has increased over the last 30 years. Outside the developing world, it remains the law only in the U.S. and Canada. Rep. Steve King's bill would define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to exclude the children of illegal immigrants, thereby ending the incentive for pregnant women to give birth here. It would also declare that the children of most legal immigrants are not citizens, either. Some legal scholars believe Congress cannot make this change by statute because of the Wong Kim Ark decision. I disagree, because that case did not concern the child of an illegal immigrant. It's simply a stretch to say such children fall within the Citizenship Clause as originally drafted or interpreted in that case. And I'm in good company in thinking this is subject to reinterpretation: Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit of Appeals also believes the idea of birthright citizenship is "nonsense" and could be done away with by Congress (Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 609, 620 [7th Cir. 2003]).
Perhaps the American public disagrees with Congressman King's approach and wants the status quo to continue. I doubt this. Illegal immigration is controversial, and a recent Rasmussen poll shows that 65 percent of likely voters oppose allowing the children of illegal immigrants to obtain birthright citizenship. But the issue should be addressed sensibly and carefully in Congress. There is much at stake regarding the interpretation of the Citizenship Clause, and we would benefit as a nation from knowing what it really means today.
"A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U.S. citizenship, but I doubt it." Posner concluded: "Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense."
He also wrote that automatic grants of citizenship by birth is one that "Congress should rethink" and that the United States "should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children."
If you want the latest and best report on birthright citizenship, see:
Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison
http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship
However, putting an end to this loophole will also end birth tourism for other nationalities who use the Canadian border, US overseas territories/possessions in the Caribbean/Pacific, and flights to the USA in order to give birth in a US hospital/clinic.
Ending this loophole will save taxpayers billions of dollars each year by ending welfare and social services to parents who have no desire to become US citizens, but don't mind cashing their child's monthly welfare checks.
May i have some literature that backs these claims?
I am most interested in the, "cashing their child's monthly welfare checks," part.
Thanks in advance,
Chris
Question , this Amendment , and the laws that allows a person 21 to bring his family into this country.
This country needs to update or redefine the laws and amendments concerning immigration, and citizenship.
They only thing he correctly states without messing it up is: ""Under the current interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution"". The key words here are "current interpretation". What that really means is we have NO SCOTUS ruling on it's current abuse.
The author then goes further to try to speak about the debates over the key phrase "under the jurisdiction". The quotes are correct but missing details and context. A better source of correct info is here: http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
Then he brings up the Ark case as though it were relevant in the debate over this current use. Ark clearly is different because of ONE key fact - the parents were here legally. Not a small distinction by anyone’s measure.
He also is deficit in not mentioning that congress can actually define what "underr the jurisdiction" means. They can do this today. The differences between an illegal and a citizen are enormous and illegals are much closer to diplomats in their lack of jurisdiction. For instance.
1. Illegals can't vote.
2. Illegals can't serve on juries.
3. Illegals aren't required to register for selective service.
4. Illegals can be ordered home by another country.
5. Illegals can be represented by a foreign power in all legal matters.
6. Illegals can't be ordered to stay here unless some other criminal/civil action is occurring that mandates it.
The censors - mods help up the lower one for over 2 hours without listing it as pending so I resubmitted it.
They only thing he correctly states without messing it up is: ""Under the current interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution"". The key words here are current interpretation. What that means is we have NO SCOTUS ruling on it's current abuse.
The author then goes further to try to speak about the debates over the key phrase "under the jurisdiction". The quotes are correct but missing details and context. A better source of key and correct info is here: http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
Then he brings up the Ark case as though it were relevant in the debate over this current use. Ark clearly is different because of ONE key fact - the parents were here legally. Not a small distinction by anyone’s measure.
He also is deficit in not mentioning that congress can actually define what "underr the jurisdiction" means. They can do this today. The differences between an illegal and a citizen are enormous and illegals are much closer to diplomats in their lack of jurisdiction. For instance.
1. Illegals can't vote.
2. Illegals can't serve on juries.
3. Illegals aren't required to register for selective service.
4. Illegals can be ordered home by another country.
5. Illegals can be represented by a foreign power in all legal matters.
6. Illegals can't be ordered to stay here unless some other criminal/civil action is occuring that mandates it.
- Actually, he made a case not done very often, which was to point out:
" Some legal scholars believe Congress cannot make this change by statute because of the Wong Kim Ark decision. I disagree, because that case did not concern the child of an illegal immigrant."
Wong Kim Ark's parents were LEGALLY DOMICILED in the United States when Wong was born. BIG DIFFERENCE.
"Birthright Citizenship is the automatic granting of citizenship to children born within a nation's borders or territories. The United States and Canada are the only developed nations in the world to still offer Birthright Citizenship to tourists and illegal aliens."
"The following are among the nations repealing Birthright Citizenship in recent years:
Australia (2007) New Zealand (2005) Ireland (2005) France (1993) India (1987) Malta (1989) UK (1983) Portugal (1981)"
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/issues/birthright-citizenship/nations-granting-birthright-citizenship.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_Demographics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
Anyone here, born a citizen, is a citizen.
http://bit.ly/atuwTY
each birth costs U.S. taxpayers $0.145 Million Dollars, just for birth and K12 education
340,000 x .145M = $49.3 Billion Dollars a year http://bit.ly/9BHPU5
LA County and California are a great example of the of this mass infestation of foreigners entering our nation illegally .
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/immigrationnaturalizatio/a/caillegals.htm
As one entrepreneur who caters to Chinese clients told The Washington Post: "We don't encourage moms to break the law -- just to take advantage of it."
http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/issues/birthright-citizenship/birth-tourism.html
Were you born here? Are you required to follow our laws? If yes to both questions...you are a citizen...regardless of what people think of your parents.
I also love the idea that we should never listen to what they do in European countries (socialized medicine? Gasp!) but we should when they do away with this right.