American Citizenship and Immigration Clarification Act

Discussion in 'Immigration/Illegal Immigration' started by JBeukema, Dec 26, 2010.

?

American Citizenship and Immigration Clarification Act

  1. yea

    70.0%
  2. nay

    30.0%
  1. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    American Citizenship and Immigration Clarification Act




    A resolution clarifying the intent and purpose of the 14 Amendment to the Constitution of these united States.


    A Resolution
    Recognizing the intent and purpose of the 14 Amendment to the Constitution of these united States to protect the rights of African Americans following emancipation and clarifying the meaning thereof as pertains to the Law and the immigration and citizenship status of persons not legally within the borders of these united States.


    • Be it recognized by these united States and all bodies and agencies thereof that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of these united States served the important function of protecting the legal rights and status of African American persons, including but not limited to Freed Persons following the abolition of slavery in these united States. Be it recognized that the intent of purpose of this this amendment was never to undermine the sovereignty of this republic by establishing birthright citizenship to those born to persons not legally present within this republic. Be it recognized that such an interpretation of this amendment as to establish birthright citizenship for those born to persons not legally present within this republic was not known or put into effect at the passing of the amendment, just as it remains to this day understood that those born to non-citizens legally present in this republic, including but not limited to foreign dignitaries are not bestowed citizenship upon birth within the borders of this republic.
    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.


    • This Act may be cited as the `American Citizenship and Immigration Clarification Act'.
    SEC. 2. Enforcement of the original purpose and intent of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of these united States



    • (a) Clarification of the legal recognition of the citizenship status of children born within this republic
      1)Children born to parent who is a citizen of these united States are recognized as citizens of these united States so long as they are declared so by their parents or legal guardians and are not declared as citizens of any other sovereign nation by the same

      2)Those who are not legally present in these untied States are recognized as citizens of the sovereign from whence they have come are do not, therefore, meet the requirement laid out in the Fourteenth Amendment to these united States that a person be 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the State in which they reside, or of this Republic as they remain subject to the jurisdiction of the sovereign of which they are recognized by this republic as being a citizen, being subject to the law of the State in which they reside and this republic only in those same criminal matters as any other foreign national operating within the boundaries of this Republic and not subject to diplomatic considerations. Be it recognized that those born to such persons are recognized by this republic as citizens of and subject to the jurisdiction of the same sovereign as those to whom they are born, and therefore also fail to meet those requirements outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment (outlined above) to the Constitution of these united States.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2010
  2. Speeddemon22
    Offline

    Speeddemon22 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2010
    Messages:
    66
    Thanks Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +8
    Yeah, now to figure out how to get Obama to AGREE to such legislation...He'll hold any and all anti-illegal immigration legislation hostage indefinitely. I guess maybe if we promised him the DREAMERS' amnesty in exchange for no more anchor babies he MIGHT consider it, but even then I doubt he'd be willing to go along with something like this. You have to remember, he's a hoe. He "owes" Hispanic voters and they have him by the nuts now more than ever.
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2010
  3. goldcatt
    Offline

    goldcatt Catch me if you can! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    CentralPA
    Ratings:
    +2,331
    Uh, no. While the citizenship clause of the 14th did in fact establish citizenship of former slaves, its function went much beyond that. If it had only applied to freed slaves, it would have either stood alone or been incorporated into the 13th.

    People forget to look at the entirety of the 14th and all of its clauses before rushing to judgment on this. The purpose of the 14th as a whole was to rehabilitate ALL residents of the former Confederacy as unquestionably US citizens rather than citizens of either the Confederacy or the State in which they resided, deal with Confederate debt, give Confederate leaders a mechanism by which they could regain status in the Union (or not), and so on. Each Amendment is an organic whole with an overriding purpose, a flaw in the system being addressed.

    The word "jurisdiction" was used for a reason, and has a specific meaning as a term of art in law. The drafters of the 14th were well aware of that meaning and that's how the Amendment has been applied as circumstances have changed. Don't like it, change it. *shrug*

    These folks can pass all the "statements" and "clarifications" they want, but at the end of the day it doesn't change a thing as far as actual history, as far as interpretation (which is the purview of the judiciary, not the legislative), or as far as the meaning and structure of the Amendment in its entirety. And they know it. Which tells me they either don't have the stones to actually change it by the Amendment process, or don't really want it changed but want to make it look like they do. Or they're going right back to where they left off, trying to force a confrontation with those evul nasties of the Judiciary. Either way, it's stupid and non-binding. They have much, much more important things to do with their time than this kind of dog and pony show.
     
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2010
  4. Speeddemon22
    Offline

    Speeddemon22 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2010
    Messages:
    66
    Thanks Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +8
    [​IMG]

    From none other than the author of SB1070:

    Original intent of the 14th Amendment
    The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

    Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

    The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.

    Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

    In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by 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."

    This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

    "[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

    The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
     
  5. goldcatt
    Offline

    goldcatt Catch me if you can! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    CentralPA
    Ratings:
    +2,331
    Are illegal aliens then immune from the laws of this nation, as are those with diplomatic immunity and foreign soldiers and sailors? Because "jurisdiction" means and has always meant in a nutshell "subject to the laws of the sovereign".

    The term and concept was used to clarify the status of those born or naturalized in the Confederacy, as you point out immigration was not controlled as we do today. But the clause has been applied according to what the term chosen by the drafters meant at the time and still does today.

    I'm not championing the concept of "anchor babies", but two things must be pointed out: This "statement" is non-binding and will have zero effect as law, and it is incorrect as to the consistent nature and function of the Amendment and the meaning of the precise language used. If the drafters screwed up (and IMO, they didn't - just didn't think of all the ramifications of the exact language they used), then they screwed up. It's not the Courts' function to fix their mistakes, only to apply them.

    Circumstances have changed, so go ahead and change the clause through the Amendment process. That's what it's for. But do it the right way, not taking up time and putting on the dog with a non-binding resolution for the cameras.
     
  6. Speeddemon22
    Offline

    Speeddemon22 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2010
    Messages:
    66
    Thanks Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +8
    "putting on the dog" lol....good one.

    As if 2/3 of both houses would even agree to propose such an amendment. The Dems still control the Senate and they are as indebted to Hispanic voters as Obama is. They'd rather see their own houses burn down than agree to propose a change to the 14th amendment. Am I right, gold?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2010
  7. goldcatt
    Offline

    goldcatt Catch me if you can! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    CentralPA
    Ratings:
    +2,331
    I honestly don't know whether the votes would be there or not. I think a lot depends on the language used and the new requirements they want to set. They may be able to drum up the votes if they simply require, in plain language, that one parent be either a citizen or legal resident at the time the child is born, without it being retroactive so that citizenship is stripped from those already citizens under the current clause. We don't want to be creating a class of stateless and newly illegal residents - for many reasons, some of which are obvious and some not so much.

    Personally I'd be fine with that. If they get much stricter than that or try to get fancy with the language to have wiggle room for different applications, it will never pass.

    What I'm thinking of as far as "wiggle room" are concepts such as changing the set definition of "jurisdiction" to use the seeming innocuous change in citizenship status to get around the Gitmo cases, for example. No games, enough conservative to moderate Dems might play. If the language seems loaded, no way.

    But until and unless it's amended, it means what it says and all the "statements" and "clarifications" in the world aren't going to change that.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2010
  8. Intense
    Offline

    Intense Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    44,909
    Thanks Received:
    5,849
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +5,863
    What you say does make sense except for one thing. I agree that Constitutional Amendment is the final answer, and plain language is alway's critical. The one exception is the power of the Court to interpret what ever it wills arbitrarily, with a 5/4 majority. They will declare what ever they want, and there is little any of us can do about it without 75% support. From my perspective this power is a total abuse of Judicial Review, but we allowed it.
     
  9. goldcatt
    Offline

    goldcatt Catch me if you can! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    CentralPA
    Ratings:
    +2,331
    I know how you feel about judicial review, and we're never going to agree on that subject., ;)

    But the plainer the language, the more straightforward it is in setting out exactly what it means to say so a third grader can get it right, the less likely it will need to be interpreted at all.

    Something sort of like "All persons born as of (starting date) within the US or its possessions to at least one parent who is a United States citizen or a legal resident thereof shall be citizens of the United States. All persons naturalized under the law as Congress sets forth shall be citizens of the United States." is all that's required.

    KISS method - it works every time. :)
     
  10. JBeukema
    Offline

    JBeukema BANNED

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Messages:
    25,613
    Thanks Received:
    1,703
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    everywhere and nowhere
    Ratings:
    +1,705
    And not to undermine the sovereignty of the US by establishing birthright citizenship for children born to soldiers serving in an occupying military should we ever be invaded.
    We remain citizens of both the republic and the member State in which we reside.
    Yes, it does.

    “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.”
    -Thomas Jefferson

    "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."
    -Jacob Howard

    Elk v. Wikin established that '[a person] could not meet the allegiance test of the jurisdictional phrase because he “owed immediate allegiance to” [an alien nation], and not to the United States' and therefore was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth

    This ruling was never overturned, merely made obsolete as relates to indian tribes by the Indian Citizenship Act.
    Unlike you, it seems.
     

Share This Page