It's time to end birthright citizenship
In Texas, between 60,000 to 65,000 babies achieve U.S. citizenship annually by being born in the state's hospitals, according to a tally released by the state's Health and Human Services Commission. Last year, such births represented almost 16 percent of the total births statewide. (Dallas Morning News)
It all revolves around the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution
The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868 as a way to block state laws that prevented former slaves from becoming citizens. It also effectively overruled the Dred Scott decision of 1857 in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared that slaves were mere property and could not become citizens.
The amendment offered a broad definition of citizenship in one simple sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." (Dallas Morning News)We don't need to amend the constitution
Republicans are talking up legislation to end this backdoor citizenship, and liberals are screaming hysterically about Dred Scott being restored. Worse than the Democratic demagoguery, the press can't keep the facts straight. I keep reading about a constitutional amendment being required, but George Will isn't so sure:
... 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.This has been tested in a court of law
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."All it takes is some legislation enacting what the Supreme Court has already affirmed
... 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."
Gralia (Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school) 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://bigjournalism.com/fross/2010/08/09/illegal-immigration-anchor-babies-and-the-14th-amendment-when-cbs-news-actually-did-its-job/
10 comments:
The 14th, 16th, and 17th need to go.
It doesn't need to go, which is my point. Congress just needs to pass the law and when it's challenged in court, defenders can cite the 1884 supreme court case as precedent. Case closed.
I always liked George Will, he's the brains of the outfit, and always we be.
My argument was aligned more with the 'fruit from the poisonous tree' legal standpoint.
Illegals criminally enter the country, then everything they do from that point forward is illegal.
If you don't buy that position, then it's time for another most excellent Fredd analogy:
Fredd robs a bank at gunpoint, and subsequently takes the ill-gotten gains and invests them in a pharmaceutical company which produces a drug that later is approved by the FDA. Fredd uses the loot and buys the stock dirt cheap, but after the FDA approval, the stock soars to one hundred times the initial investment. Ooooh, baby!
Fredd is caught by the Fibbies, thrown into the hoosegow, and forced to give back the original funds (plus interest) and make the bank whole. Fredd does so, but liquidates only enough stock to pay back the bank, and keeps the capital gains on the stock proceeds, then uses these funds to post bond, hire Mark Geragos to represent poor, misunderstood Fredd, and the dashing and eloquent Mr. Geragos subsequently gets Fredd off on a technicality. Fredd pays Mr. Geragos his onerous yet well earned fees, then buys an opulent villa overlooking Malibu Beach, and life is good for now Model Citizen Fredd....
This analogy, while far fetched, is not all tht much different from the issue in your post: such is the good life for anchor babies and their illegal parents as well.
After having said all this, I agree with you (and George Will), Silver: no need messing with the 14th Ammendment, just use the existing laws on the books to fix this obvious sham that's been going on for decades.
Good post Curt...I agree Fred, Will's an old school conservative who's never been tainted which is a tall order in this society today. One of the few left from the 'greatest generation' in the media at all.
Those 60 g's are just in Texas..take it from this former 911 dispatcher that Chicago has a dump truck full as well every month. 'el médico del bebé por favor'...I heard that %$#@ every weekend for 5 years. (baby doctor please)
just WHO is orchestrating the Third World invasion of America??
My problem with the so-called Civil War amendments is that they were largely punitive. They were enacted in the heat of passion, and I therefore believe they were ill considered—and let us also acknowledge that Statehood for West Virginia was engineered expressly for the purpose of enacting constitutional amendments. This, I believe, was not the founding fathers intent.
I not only favor amending the 14th Amendment, I also favor repeal of the 16th and 17th Amendments. We must get back to federalism, and this means that states should select their senators … representing the interests of states and the citizens of states, while the House continues to represent the interests of people within congressional districts. The genius of this arrangement was that the founding fathers recognized that the nation is not only divided regionally, so too are many of our states—particularly the largest states. The 17th Amendment was the brainchild of Joseph Borah, which reminds us that the path to hell is paved with good intention. I think we must repeal the 16th Amendment entirely because while I do understand that the federal government requires taxation to keep it running —it has for far too long, used the power of taxation to bully states and Americans into socialist causes. Let us force the federal government back to observing the Constitution’s limitation on power; let us reinforce federalism by requiring the federal government to get its money proportionally and directly from the states. Yes, the states will in fact tax us … and we ultimately will end up paying the bills. But when the people are screaming bloody murder at state governors and state legislators, the states may indeed be prompted to tell the federal government “No, you cannot have that much of our people’s money,” or “No, you cannot have X dollars to fund research about the effect of cocaine on monkeys.”
My prediction is this: if the federal courts continue to negate state sovereignty, we will find angry states demanding (which is their right) a constitutional convention. In my view, this won’t be a very pleasant event if you hate ‘spin’ as much as I do.
Dr Savage covering this for the first hour in his show today btw now...eliminating birthright citizenship and the 14th....5 cdt
If the United States eliminates birthright citizenship, I can just about guarantee that many, many illegals will think twice before crossing our borders.
I am also going to be posting about this. We have to keep this going.
I would have loved to used a paint ball gun on those clowns in that picture. Yet, another perfect example of the contempt those people have for the United States. Yeah, I want to welcome them with open arms.
Did you catch the WSJ article on the Pew Hispanic Center report? 8% of the births in the US in 2008 where to illegal immigrants.
More interesting is that of the 11 million illegals in this country only 75% of them are Latino. Which means almost 3 million of them are not, which would tend to indicate that illegal immigration is a problem irrespective of race.
Illegal immigration is a legal not a racial problem, the fact that 75% of them are Latino is simply indicative of the fact that it is far easier to walk here than to obtain illegal entry via other methods.
~Finntann~
Very well stated and absolutely correct.
The 14th Amendment was NEVER meant to grant automatic citizenship to spawn dropped here by illegal immigrants. This is just one twisting and perverting the original intent of those who wrote the original law.
Post a Comment