H.R. 1940: Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
And I love the dancing around the point of the 14th amendment... if persons born in the US aren't subject to its jurisdiction, then how could they be deported?

Anybody who's in the country is subject to its "jurisdiction", with the rule of law being supreme...

Better off to attempt to redefine "born in the United States"- you might have more luck...

It's just a new pander point- first the fundies and the raving anti-tax crowd, now the xenophobes and those who blame immigrants for economic woes...

Read the Constitution and find me the ?right to privacy?

It?s not there. Yet the courts used that right in order to over turn anti-abortion laws in the Roe V. Wade decisions.
The courts wanted the ruling to go one way so they ?created? a right in order to justify their ruling.

The same thing could happen in this case, although they don?t have to ?create? anything.
They could easily state that the phrase ?and subject to the jurisdiction thereof? means that only people legally in the country are subject to its jurisdiction in determining citizenship.

Is there any other country in the world that allows the children of non-citizens to become citizens based solely on their place of birth?

Not much of a lawyer, are you? You can't define a scope of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". I realize it would be convenient if it meant "subject to its jurisdiction in determining citizenship", but you can't just invent words and pretend they exist in the constitution. If someone is born or naturalized in the US, and if they are subject to US jurisdiction, the 14th amendment says they are citizens. Period. You don't like it, feel free to amend the constitution.

And please, for the love of God, stop using that idiotic "there is no right to privacy in the constitution" argument. You sound like a 2-dimensional conservative tool (which, I suppose, is appropriate), but you could not possibly sound any more ignorant. Of COURSE there is a right to privacy in the constitution, the fact that the word "privacy" does not appear in any amendments does not mean the right doesn't exist...it's implicit in any number of passages, most notably in the 4th amendment. Any legal expert who DOESN'T have an agenda to push will agree that the idea of privacy was clearly what was intended by much of the constitution. In fact, I can hardly imagine what ELSE the 4th amendment could represent. And just to put this in terms of something you might understand, the 2nd amendment does not specifically grant you the right to USE a weapon under any circumstances. Keep and bear them all you want, but when I'm mugging you, the 2nd amendment gives you no right at all to USE it. Or, for that matter, to have any bullets. "Arms" are not "ammunition", since the 2nd amendment doesn't protect ammunition, I say we allow guns and ban bullets. After all, it's not a right! Or at least it isn't if I follow your ridiculous interpretation of the law.

 

[maluckey]

To end the argument as to Jurisdiction...

In order for a court to have jurisdiction, you must have subject matter jurisdiction as well personal, or territorial jurisdiction.

In the case of an illegal, Personal Jurisdiction, being authority over a person REGARDLESS of his location means that ONLY the Country of Citizenship can be construed to have that authority.

The United States has Subject Matter Authority and Territorial Authority, but NOT personal Jurisdiction, therefore Jurisdiction is incomplete edit to add: (in many matters)

I did learn something in my time working the Southern Land Border.

 

[Kerouactivist]

FTW

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by: bthorny
FTW

Are you "waving the race card"?

I agree the cartoon, the irony of the European's anti-immigrant ferver is amazing.

Back on subject:

The Supreme Court would have to look at this if it ever became law. Hopefully the bill's authors know this and are not just wasting time and energy in a sham.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From PJ-

Didn?t Democrats swear to uphold and defend the Constitution? There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to take money from one person and give it to another. Yet Democrats have been pushing this type of social spending for 60+ years.

Nice attempted diversion- classic OT troll...

And I love the dancing around the point of the 14th amendment... if persons born in the US aren't subject to its jurisdiction, then how could they be deported?

Anybody who's in the country is subject to its "jurisdiction", with the rule of law being supreme...

Better off to attempt to redefine "born in the United States"- you might have more luck...

It's just a new pander point- first the fundies and the raving anti-tax crowd, now the xenophobes and those who blame immigrants for economic woes...

It is not the immigrants, it is the illegal/undocumented people that are the issue.
The economic incentative needs to be removed and the laws enforced quickly.
Local governments that refuse to support/enforce Federal laws should have some Federal financial penalties in form of pulled funding/grants.

BS it is the immigrants that are the problem. Sure the bigiots are happy to let a few in so they can claim they are not against immigration. Otherwise you wouldn't have seen the right throw such a hissy fit about guest worker program bush proposed.

 

[OrByte]

constitutional amendment?

didn't think so...

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: maluckey
To end the argument as to Jurisdiction...

In order for a court to have jurisdiction, you must have subject matter jurisdiction as well personal, or territorial jurisdiction.

In the case of an illegal, Personal Jurisdiction, being authority over a person REGARDLESS of his location means that ONLY the Country of Citizenship can be construed to have that authority.

The United States has Subject Matter Authority and Territorial Authority, but NOT personal Jurisdiction, therefore Jurisdiction is incomplete edit to add: (in many matters)

I did learn something in my time working the Southern Land Border.

Which means what, exactly, wrt a person born in the United States, whose rights under the constitution are plainly spelled out, upheld by the SCOTUS (Wok Kim Ark) and honored by legal precedent for over 100 years?

The constitution makes no reference whatsoever to the parentage of anybody born in the US, with legal scholars generally regarding the jurisdictional clause to apply to very select parties-

The only exceptions to this rule identified in Wong Kim Ark concern diplomats, enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States, and members of Native American tribes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...ed_States_Constitution

In 1924, citizenship was extended to native americans as well...

The sad truth is that the whole "anchor baby" smear is a red herring, anyway, with such children being deported on a fairly routine basis, having the right to return only when they reach adulthood, at which point they may sponsor their parents as legal immigrants, if the bureaucratic maze isn't too thick to penetrate.

A U.S.-born child cannot in fact sponsor his/her parents for legal immigration to the United States until he/she becomes an adult, and illegal immigrant parents do not gain any additional legal rights based solely on the fact that they have had a child born in the US.

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

Wiki isn't the only source for this information, merely one of the most convenient...

http://colorado.mediamatters.org/items/200611290001

The whole effort is like the perpetual, doomed, flag burning amendment, pandering to much the same audience, instigated by perps of the same political persuasion- over and over and over again, ad nauseum...

 

[EagleKeeper]

The anchor baby is also used as a ploy by advocates to prevent the illegals from being sent home.

It is considered unfair to seperate the child from the parents and the child has the right to stay in the US.

 

[maluckey]

Jhhnn,

It's still not as simple as that. There are many arguments that an infant, is NOT under jurisdiction of ANY entity (other than parental) for any reason except in the case of criminal activities of the parents forcing the welfare of the child to be at risk. In that case, neither the child nor the illegal parent is under total jurisdiction.

It's currently a complicated mess, but it should simply read (in a perfect world?) that citizenship of persons born in the U.S. to illegals are subject to legal age confirmation of Citizenship and investigation of claim, as well as a ciminal background check (all after 18 years old). Until that time, the child is a citizen of the country to which the mother belonged.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: maluckey
Jhhnn,

It's still not as simple as that. There are many arguments that an infant, is NOT under jurisdiction of ANY entity (other than parental) for any reason except in the case of criminal activities of the parents forcing the welfare of the child to be at risk. In that case, neither the child nor the illegal parent is under total jurisdiction.

It's currently a complicated mess, but it should simply read (in a perfect world?) that citizenship of persons born in the U.S. to illegals are subject to legal age confirmation of Citizenship and investigation of claim, as well as a ciminal background check (all after 18 years old). Until that time, the child is a citizen of the country to which the mother belonged.

Sure you can make any argument you want but it is still Bull shit.

Sorry, no one is going to buy an infant is under no jurisdiction. Besides if the infant is not under US jurisdiction then you can't deport them.

 

[Jhhnn]

Read the links, CC-

The child does *not* have the right to remain, only to return after reaching adulthood. Yeh, sure, they *could* stay if some legal resident agreed to take custody, but mothers seldom leave their children behind.

Great example of how it works, here-

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/09/10/noor/

Elvira Arellano comes to mind, too, and I'm sure there is a plethora of other less well publicized situations played out on a regular basis.

Given that the law only allows for 4000 "anchor babies" annually, and no guarantee that there will be that many, all the ranting and raving about them is mostly a ploy by anti- immigration demagogues...

Under current regulations, it'd take a thousand years for anchor babies to account for a significant % of our current problem, 12-15M undocumented immigrants...

 

[maluckey]

Sorry, no one is going to buy an infant is under no jurisdiction. Besides if the infant is not under US jurisdiction then you can't deport them.

Unfortunately, that's how the law reads for the most part.

On one note you are correct, in that you can't truly deport an infant because it did not commit the crime of illegal entry itself. The child CAN be returned to Country of origin however, and this is normally the case. I-213 for the illegal custodial parent, including the biographical data of the child in question, and then both are returned to country of citizenship or coutry or origin.

In Elvira Arellano's case, she chose to leave her child behind. Had she been without relatives in the U.S., the child would go with her to Mexico, despite being a U.S. citizen.

 

[piasabird]

Maybe they want the law so they can challenge the Amendment to the constitution in the supreme court. They have to know that is where it will end up. Personally, I think it will take a lot to reverse the 14th Amendment. It would have to be ratified just like an amendment.

However, the Amendment, could be amended. Just change the wording a bit. "All persons born of naturalized parents or of parents with a legal right to be in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

So if you got to the United States illegaly, then your children would not be citizens.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: 1prophet
Someone is going to have to change this first.


Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

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.

Actually, it wouldn't.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."

It's a technicality, but what the proposed house bill does is set restrictions on which people are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. The quoted portion of the 14th amendment does not apply to persons born in the US who are not under the jurisdiction of the same.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Anybody who's in the country is subject to its "jurisdiction", with the rule of law being supreme...

If that were true, then the child of two parents with Canadian citizenship would be a US citizen if that child were born while the couple were in the USA.

In this case, the phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" has a specific legal meaning that is not synonymous with the ordinary, everyday usage of the term.

ZV

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Didn?t Democrats swear to uphold and defend the Constitution? There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to take money from one person and give it to another. Yet Democrats have been pushing this type of social spending for 60+ years.
Cuts both ways?

I should not be surprised at your inability to link the 16th Amendment with Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution (?The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .?). "Reasoned thought" has never been one of your strengths. However much I may disagree with the programs promoted as "general welfare", I fail to see how they are patently unconstitutional.

We are getting off topic here so I?ll just give one response to this issue?

When the Constitution was written the idea of ?Welfare? as we know it did NOT exist. Therefore there is no way in hell that the ?general welfare? clause meant that congress could create welfare programs.

The more proper use of the term ?general welfare? would be ?the state of doing well especially in respect to happiness, well-being or prosperity.?

To that I shall add the following quotes, all of which back up the basic idea that the founders did not intend for government to take money from one person and GIVE it to another.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated." -- Thomas Jefferson

"[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction." -- James Madison

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.-- Benjamin Franklin

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."-- Thomas Jefferson

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." -- James Madison

I agree with Benjamin, he describes the policies of the Republican party to a T. You should read the Constitution yourself instead of the interpretation given in your Neocon Think-tank propaganda hand-outs, Phoughjohn.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
And I love the dancing around the point of the 14th amendment... if persons born in the US aren't subject to its jurisdiction, then how could they be deported?

Anybody who's in the country is subject to its "jurisdiction", with the rule of law being supreme...

Better off to attempt to redefine "born in the United States"- you might have more luck...

It's just a new pander point- first the fundies and the raving anti-tax crowd, now the xenophobes and those who blame immigrants for economic woes...

Read the Constitution and find me the ?right to privacy?

It?s not there. Yet the courts used that right in order to over turn anti-abortion laws in the Roe V. Wade decisions.
The courts wanted the ruling to go one way so they ?created? a right in order to justify their ruling.

The same thing could happen in this case, although they don?t have to ?create? anything.
They could easily state that the phrase ?and subject to the jurisdiction thereof? means that only people legally in the country are subject to its jurisdiction in determining citizenship.

Is there any other country in the world that allows the children of non-citizens to become citizens based solely on their place of birth?

Not much of a lawyer, are you? You can't define a scope of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". I realize it would be convenient if it meant "subject to its jurisdiction in determining citizenship", but you can't just invent words and pretend they exist in the constitution. If someone is born or naturalized in the US, and if they are subject to US jurisdiction, the 14th amendment says they are citizens. Period. You don't like it, feel free to amend the constitution.

And please, for the love of God, stop using that idiotic "there is no right to privacy in the constitution" argument. You sound like a 2-dimensional conservative tool (which, I suppose, is appropriate), but you could not possibly sound any more ignorant. Of COURSE there is a right to privacy in the constitution, the fact that the word "privacy" does not appear in any amendments does not mean the right doesn't exist...it's implicit in any number of passages, most notably in the 4th amendment. Any legal expert who DOESN'T have an agenda to push will agree that the idea of privacy was clearly what was intended by much of the constitution. In fact, I can hardly imagine what ELSE the 4th amendment could represent. And just to put this in terms of something you might understand, the 2nd amendment does not specifically grant you the right to USE a weapon under any circumstances. Keep and bear them all you want, but when I'm mugging you, the 2nd amendment gives you no right at all to USE it. Or, for that matter, to have any bullets. "Arms" are not "ammunition", since the 2nd amendment doesn't protect ammunition, I say we allow guns and ban bullets. After all, it's not a right! Or at least it isn't if I follow your ridiculous interpretation of the law.

Rainsford, I think article IX should properly put "privacy" as one of the "reserved rights of the people" not mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Didn't Republicans swear to uphold and defend the Constitution? They know this bill is Unconstitutional, yet they are pushing it. If they want to amend the Constitution, that would be more in line with their oath.

It is for the Supreme Court to decide whether or not the bill is unconstitutional. Nothing is unconstitutional that is created through the proper democratic process. The Constitution is a reflection of the will of the people of the land, and is subject to change just like anything else. The Constitution of the United States of America is what Americans say it is.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Anybody who's in the country is subject to its "jurisdiction", with the rule of law being supreme...

If that were true, then the child of two parents with Canadian citizenship would be a US citizen if that child were born while the couple were in the USA.

In this case, the phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" has a specific legal meaning that is not synonymous with the ordinary, everyday usage of the term.

ZV

It is true, the child would be a US citizen.

Subject to its jurisdiction does have a legal meaning and it is synonymous with ordinary everyday usage of the term. (I don't know many people who use the term in everyday language). It means if the government can do anything to you (deport, arrest, search, tax, etc) then you are subject to its jurisdiction.

 

[Jhhnn]

If that were true, then the child of two parents with Canadian citizenship would be a US citizen if that child were born while the couple were in the USA.

You don't seem to get it, at all. That child would be a US citizen, if they ever chose to claim that right, as well as probably being able to claim Canadian citizenship, as well. At some point they might have to choose one or the other... I really don't know beyond what the constitution and the few legal precedents in US law provide wrt who is a citizen. Unless their parents were diplomats or members of an invading army, that child is a citizen.

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
It would remove the ability of the anchor baby as an excuse.

That is only minimal reason for the problems though.
The economic incentive is the biggy.

what econ incentive?

http://www.govtrack.us/congres...ext.xpd?bill=h110-1940

 

[Darthvoy]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
"/19/2007--Introduced.
Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007 - Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to consider a person born in the United States "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national; (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States; or (3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces."

That'd be a great start...however, IMO, they need to make it retroactive...say 50 years.

why only 50 years and not 150...that way you also get to kick out the Irish, Italian, and all the other immigrant groups. Oh wait, I guess you only want the Mexicans out.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp
Didn't Republicans swear to uphold and defend the Constitution? They know this bill is Unconstitutional, yet they are pushing it. If they want to amend the Constitution, that would be more in line with their oath.

Didn?t Democrats swear to uphold and defend the Constitution? There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to take money from one person and give it to another. Yet Democrats have been pushing this type of social spending for 60+ years.

Cuts both ways?

Oh snap.... I love that one!

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Didn?t Democrats swear to uphold and defend the Constitution? There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the right to take money from one person and give it to another. Yet Democrats have been pushing this type of social spending for 60+ years.
Cuts both ways?

I should not be surprised at your inability to link the 16th Amendment with Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution (?The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .?). "Reasoned thought" has never been one of your strengths. However much I may disagree with the programs promoted as "general welfare", I fail to see how they are patently unconstitutional.

Libs always like to focus on that welfare word, but always ignore the "general" part. General meaning for everyone, not a discriminatory group of people to take from, and another discriminatory group of people to give to. "General" to me means things EVERYONE can use, like roads, schools, bridges, etc.