Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
“The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”For those who need educating on this subject:
The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies
Incorrect.
The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982).
In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al (1972)).
The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
You seem to be having a reading problem so I'll repeat, "The only thing that eliminating jus soli will do is increase the number of undocumented persons in the country, some children of illegal immigrants and others, Americans without documentation."Deporting illegal aliens is going to INcrease the number of illegal aliens in the country ? HA HA. So I guess you don't kill mosquitos in your house, because you think that would increase their numbers. Are you feeling OK ? I mean really.The fact is we have millions of poor parents; some with children they don't want, others that are just to lazy to bother with ordering birth certificates and still others who left their kids to the care of foster parents, relatives, and friends. Most of these kids aren't going have any documents to prove there're citizens and neither will many of their kids. Just look at France. They have so many undocumented French kids as well as kids of illegal aliens, there're making them all French citizens when they turn 18.There are many other people in the country who are glad they don't have to produce a certified copy of their birth certificate to prove their child is a citizen. 10% of Americans don't possess a copy and 8% say they don't know how they would get one. There are millions of parents who simply would bother. Then there are several hundred thousand abandon children who don't know who their parents are. Then there are others who aren't sure where their parents were born. Add to that hundreds of thousands of children of illegal immigrants and you would never be able to deport any of them.Past decisions are important to the court. In fact, it's rare for the Supreme Court to overrule past decisions. In this case, those decisions were United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 and Plyler v. Doe, 1982.
One of the main criteria the court considers in constitutional interpretation, is the consequences. The consequences of changing gun laws and political contribution are minor changes compared to changing the way we become citizens.
Changing the constitutional definition of citizenship would have dire consequences for all Americans. Since birth in the United States would no longer be enough to prove a child’s citizenship, all people in the United States, whether citizens or not, would have to prove their status before they can receive a standard birth certificate for their baby. This change would require changes in federal laws as well as the states. Some states may keep birth as the only requirement for state citizenship and others may not.
One of the main consequences would be the increase in the number of undocumented residents, both the children of illegal immigrants and Americans whose parents failed to provide proper proof of citizenship. These undocumented residents would have children creating even more undocumented residents. In other words, it would create one hell of a mess.
I for one, am glad I didn't need to bring proof of citizenship to the hospital with me when my child was born to establish her citizenship.
How many times do I have to repeat to you that everyone on our soil is subject to obeying our laws but it has nothing to do with full jurisdiction which is not having allegiance to another country which would be the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction that you keep stretching to mean being only subject to our laws to gain birthright citizenship? God damn you're dense!
The problem with your 'theory' is that jurisdiction has nothing to do with allegiance to another country.
Look up the definition of 'jurisdiction'- nothing about allegiance at all.
You just don't approve of the language of the 14th Amendment- so are trying to use a different definition of 'jurisdiction' in order to suit your agenda.
IF you can be arrested in a country- you are subject to its jurisdiction.
IF you cannot- you are not subject to that countries jurisdiction.
Oh the horror. It's not like if the law were changed that "would be" parents wouldn't be able to get a BC prior to the birth of their child if they didn't have one. They say they don't know how to get one? Are you for real? Excuse after excuse. Just like the voter ID laws. If it is determined that a child was born from illegal alien parents what do you mean they couldn't be deported right along with their parents? If illegal aliens knew that they wouldn't come here and give birth on our soil in the first place.
Some don't know where their parents were born? Well, who the hell is giving birth to them other than their mother? No one is advocating for this to be retroactive. It would be for future births after the law is passed/clarified.
Nearly every modern day industrialized country requires that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident in order for their newborn to gain birthright citizenship. I am sure they have worked out the details which includes every strawman argument that you have thrown out there.
The only thing that eliminating jus soli will do is increase the number of undocumented persons in the country, some children of illegal immigrants and others, Americans without documentation. Not that we're going to round up any of them for deportation, but it we do, you can bet most of them are going claim there're Americans with no proof of citizens.
And all this for the silly idea that it would actually reduce the number undocumented immigrants in the country when it would actually increase the number. .
It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?
I just don't get it.
Mark
“The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”For those who need educating on this subject:
The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies
Incorrect.
The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982).
In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al (1972)).
The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
If you read the intent of the Amendment, those that wrote it said what you quoted above.
The 14th Amendment basically overturnned Dred Scott by making the former slaves, once relegated to property under Dred Scott, as citizens rather than property. It NEVER was intended to give citizenship to children born to illegals. Anyone that thinks so is a complete moron.
“The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”For those who need educating on this subject:
The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies
Incorrect.
The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982).
In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al (1972)).
The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
Your claims about birthright citizenship has been debunked by not only myself but others in here over and over. The CIS is telling the truth but it doesn't fit with yours and some others in here agendas.
Changing the interpretation of the citizenship clause does not effect just the children of illegal aliens but every parent or child born in US.“The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”For those who need educating on this subject:
The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies
Incorrect.
The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982).
In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al (1972)).
The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
If you read the intent of the Amendment, those that wrote it said what you quoted above.
The 14th Amendment basically overturnned Dred Scott by making the former slaves, once relegated to property under Dred Scott, as citizens rather than property. It NEVER was intended to give citizenship to children born to illegals. Anyone that thinks so is a complete moron.
I think you're going to have to wait a long time for an answer because the only persons in the US not under it's jurisdiction are those with diplomatic immunity.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.
Still waiting for an example- any example- of a person- other than a diplomat or his/her family- that is in the United States and not subject to the 'jurisdiction thereof'.
Because that is what it comes down to- the first part is all inclusive- anyone born in the United States is a citizen.
Who is not 'subject to the jurisdiction' and how are they not?
Still can't figure out why all your hardcore anti- 'anchor baby' posters won't take on that issue with anything more than opinions.
It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?
I just don't get it.
Mark
Feel free to name names.
I have never suggested any such thing. I just happen to be very particular about the U.S. Constitution and following its plain language.
Personally, I think that George Bush handled the immediate aftermath of 9/11 very well- with one exception- he could have used the sentiments of the time to really increase the funding necessary to secure in viable fashion, our Southern border(really our Northern border should be also, but that would be even tougher).
I think we should have a secure border. I think that illegal immigration is both a boon- and a drain on our economy- and therefore we should eliminate illegal immigration by making the parts are are a boon legal, and preventing the parts that are a drain on our economy.
Illegal immigrants for the most part are incredibly hard working. Anyone who has seen Mexican immigrants at work in fields, in kitchens and on construction crews knows this. Read Tony Bordain's Kitchen Confidential. Frankly American agriculture needs access to workers who will due grueling agricultural work for fairly low wages. There needs to be a legal way for low skilled agricultural workers to come into the U.S. and be legally protected from exploitation and do the jobs that keep us feed.
But we have so many illegal immigrants that many are taking skilled jobs that cannot be outsourced- construction is a prime example. Want to know the reason why housing is so cheap in Texas? Because most of the labor force building houses is in a large part illegal, working sometimes for nothing(Contractors renege on paying them). Cheap illegal labor for construction may give us cheap houses, but takes away skilled labor jobs for Americans. Part of the immigration reform needs to be mandates for employers to check whether persons can legally be employed.
My personal position is that both parties use the issue of immigration to pull the cords of their respective constituents. Republicans love to inflame xenophobic(and sometimes racist) passions by warning about 'Ebola" and "Mooslim terrorists" from illegals, while at the same time some of their wealthiest contributors hire illegals. Democrats love to inflame immigrant Americans- hispanics, asians about how the attacks on illegal immigration are race based attacks- while getting contributions from employers who employ illegals.
Neither Party is doing anything to stop illegal immigration. Neither side really is that interested in stopping it.
Those of you who shout down any attempts at comprehensive immigration reform just help maintain the status quo- which is lots of illegal immigrants.
And both the Democratic and Republican Parties are okay with that.
“The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”For those who need educating on this subject:
The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies
Incorrect.
The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982).
In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al (1972)).
The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
If you read the intent of the Amendment, those that wrote it said what you quoted above.
The 14th Amendment basically overturnned Dred Scott by making the former slaves, once relegated to property under Dred Scott, as citizens rather than property. It NEVER was intended to give citizenship to children born to illegals. Anyone that thinks so is a complete moron.
The 14th Amendment very clearly states that anyone who is born in the United States- and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen.
Doesn't say anything about illegal aliens. It could have- but it doesn't. The only people not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States today in the United States are diplomats and their families.
Only a complete moron can't understand that.
Illegal immigrants that commit crimes within the US are sometimes returned to their country of origin in lieu of prison or they may be returned as an undesirable alien but for the most part, illegal aliens guilty of crimes other than violation of immigration laws are tried, convicted, and punished under the jurisdiction of federal or state government.“The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”For those who need educating on this subject:
The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies
Incorrect.
The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982).
In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al (1972)).
The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
If you read the intent of the Amendment, those that wrote it said what you quoted above.
The 14th Amendment basically overturnned Dred Scott by making the former slaves, once relegated to property under Dred Scott, as citizens rather than property. It NEVER was intended to give citizenship to children born to illegals. Anyone that thinks so is a complete moron.
The 14th Amendment very clearly states that anyone who is born in the United States- and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen.
Doesn't say anything about illegal aliens. It could have- but it doesn't. The only people not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States today in the United States are diplomats and their families.
Only a complete moron can't understand that.
While aliens are subject to our laws, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the country of their citizenship. For instance, it is why illegals that break our laws are shipped back to their country.
Mark
That's been the interpretation since the Supreme Court decision in the Wong Kim Ark case in which the court ruled that that the word jurisdiction in the citizenship clause mean subject to the laws of the United States. With that ruling, the citizenship clause, "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." grants citizenship to any child born in the US, regardless of whether the parents are legal, illegal, serial killers, terrorist or whatever.Currently the government interprets the constitution such that achor babies are America citizens. I believe that popular support now exists to ammend the constitution to change this. Citizen status should not be given to the child born to illegal immergrants just because that child is born in the US.
It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?
I just don't get it.
Mark
It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?
I just don't get it.
Mark
Feel free to name names.
I have never suggested any such thing. I just happen to be very particular about the U.S. Constitution and following its plain language.
Personally, I think that George Bush handled the immediate aftermath of 9/11 very well- with one exception- he could have used the sentiments of the time to really increase the funding necessary to secure in viable fashion, our Southern border(really our Northern border should be also, but that would be even tougher).
I think we should have a secure border. I think that illegal immigration is both a boon- and a drain on our economy- and therefore we should eliminate illegal immigration by making the parts are are a boon legal, and preventing the parts that are a drain on our economy.
Illegal immigrants for the most part are incredibly hard working. Anyone who has seen Mexican immigrants at work in fields, in kitchens and on construction crews knows this. Read Tony Bordain's Kitchen Confidential. Frankly American agriculture needs access to workers who will due grueling agricultural work for fairly low wages. There needs to be a legal way for low skilled agricultural workers to come into the U.S. and be legally protected from exploitation and do the jobs that keep us feed.
But we have so many illegal immigrants that many are taking skilled jobs that cannot be outsourced- construction is a prime example. Want to know the reason why housing is so cheap in Texas? Because most of the labor force building houses is in a large part illegal, working sometimes for nothing(Contractors renege on paying them). Cheap illegal labor for construction may give us cheap houses, but takes away skilled labor jobs for Americans. Part of the immigration reform needs to be mandates for employers to check whether persons can legally be employed.
My personal position is that both parties use the issue of immigration to pull the cords of their respective constituents. Republicans love to inflame xenophobic(and sometimes racist) passions by warning about 'Ebola" and "Mooslim terrorists" from illegals, while at the same time some of their wealthiest contributors hire illegals. Democrats love to inflame immigrant Americans- hispanics, asians about how the attacks on illegal immigration are race based attacks- while getting contributions from employers who employ illegals.
Neither Party is doing anything to stop illegal immigration. Neither side really is that interested in stopping it.
Those of you who shout down any attempts at comprehensive immigration reform just help maintain the status quo- which is lots of illegal immigrants.
And both the Democratic and Republican Parties are okay with that.
“The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”For those who need educating on this subject:
The Alleged Costs of Ending Universal Birthright Citizenship Center for Immigration Studies
Incorrect.
The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982).
In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al (1972)).
The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.
To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.
Your claims about birthright citizenship has been debunked by not only myself but others in here over and over. The CIS is telling the truth but it doesn't fit with yours and some others in here agendas.
The CIS itself says that it is merely offering an opinion, and reflects the opinion of some legal scholars. Certainly not all.
You haven't debunked anything- you have provided your opinion. Which is contrary to how the law is enforced currently and contrary to the findings of Wong Kim Ark.
That and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee.
That's been the interpretation since the Supreme Court decision in the Wong Kim Ark case in which the court ruled that that the word jurisdiction in the citizenship clause mean subject to the laws of the United States. With that ruling, the citizenship clause, "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." grants citizenship to any child born in the US, regardless of whether the parents are legal, illegal, serial killers, terrorist or whatever.Currently the government interprets the constitution such that achor babies are America citizens. I believe that popular support now exists to ammend the constitution to change this. Citizen status should not be given to the child born to illegal immergrants just because that child is born in the US.
Asking the court to revise their interpretation of the meaning of jurisdiction when the 14th amendment was passed because the government can't or won't enforce immigration law is completely illogical. If we want to exclude the children born of illegal immigrants from citizenship then we have to change the law which means changing the constitution.
They are either bleeding heart liberals or they have ethnic ties to illegal aliens or are here illegally themselves. ...
