Citizenship-By-Birth Faces Challenges

[JBeukema]

We aren't going to convince them of anything. We should make coming here LESS attractive. ZERO help of any kind. No medical. No education. No jobs. No anchor babies.

As to crime these so called law abiding illegals commit who said anything about prison or trial? Just prove you are a citizen and your on your way. Otherwise your on the next flight out.

Denying jobs is the key. Subsidized healthcare is available in Mexico so I don’t see that as a big attraction. As far as welfare is concerned:
"MYTH #3: The nation spends billions of dollars on welfare for undocumented immigrants.
FACTS: To the contrary, undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive any "welfare" benefits and even legal immigrants are severely restricted in the benefits they can receive.
As the Congressional Research Service points out in a 2007 report, undocumented immigrants, who comprise nearly one-third of all immigrants in the country, are not eligible to receive public "welfare" benefits -- ever."
Illegal immigrants on welfare: fact or fiction? | Immigration Chronicles | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

If state agencies dole out welfare funds to illegal immigrants, then that’s the states problem.

That's why they have the kids here, so they can get the welfare for the kids....can't punish the kids for the parent's actions.

Nope.

"To the contrary, undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive any "welfare" benefits and even legal immigrants are severely restricted in the benefits they can receive."

Illegal immigrants on welfare: fact or fiction? | Immigration Chronicles | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

When it comes to politics, what most people believe most of the time is most wrong.[/quote]

Do they go to public schools? Ever recieve school lunches? Ever walk into the ER with a fucking cold?

 

[JBeukema]

Twice SCOTUS has ruled against American sovereignty. The judges who voted for those decisions should be hanged for treason.

 

[JBeukema]

What does 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' mean? Clearly, it doesn't just mean they they're within the jurisdiction of our laws and law enforcement, as any crime committed in our borders is within our jurisdiction.

So what was to be the premise behind America’s first and only constitutional birthright declaration in the year 1866? Simply all children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States - that is to say - not only must a child be born within the limits of the United States, but born within the complete allegiance of the United States politically and not merely under its laws or boarders.
Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as “All persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means

 

[JBeukema]

We are, or should be, familiar with the phrase, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside." This can be referred to as the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but what does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean? Jurisdiction can take on different meanings that can have nothing to do with physical boundaries alone--and if the framers meant geographical boundaries they would have simply used the term "limits" rather than "jurisdiction" since that was the custom at the time when distinguishing between physical boundaries and reach of law.
Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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.[1]

The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans - The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

 

[Gremlin-USA]

The Anchor Baby Law is Stupid, the Child should be a Citizen of Whatever Registered Country his Mother or Father isfrom.

When a child is born in another Country and the Parents are US Citizens, is not that child a US Citizen?, that is the way is should be!

 

[Flopper]

Denying jobs is the key. Subsidized healthcare is available in Mexico so I don’t see that as a big attraction. As far as welfare is concerned:
"MYTH #3: The nation spends billions of dollars on welfare for undocumented immigrants.
FACTS: To the contrary, undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive any "welfare" benefits and even legal immigrants are severely restricted in the benefits they can receive.
As the Congressional Research Service points out in a 2007 report, undocumented immigrants, who comprise nearly one-third of all immigrants in the country, are not eligible to receive public "welfare" benefits -- ever."
Illegal immigrants on welfare: fact or fiction? | Immigration Chronicles | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

If state agencies dole out welfare funds to illegal immigrants, then that’s the states problem.

That's why they have the kids here, so they can get the welfare for the kids....can't punish the kids for the parent's actions.

Nope.

"To the contrary, undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive any "welfare" benefits and even legal immigrants are severely restricted in the benefits they can receive."

Illegal immigrants on welfare: fact or fiction? | Immigration Chronicles | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

When it comes to politics, what most people believe most of the time is most wrong.

Do they go to public schools? Ever recieve school lunches? Ever walk into the ER with a fucking cold?[/QUOTE]
Of course they do. I was disputing the welfare claim.

 

[Flopper]

We are, or should be, familiar with the phrase, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside." This can be referred to as the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but what does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean? Jurisdiction can take on different meanings that can have nothing to do with physical boundaries alone--and if the framers meant geographical boundaries they would have simply used the term "limits" rather than "jurisdiction" since that was the custom at the time when distinguishing between physical boundaries and reach of law.
Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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.[1]

The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans - The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

So if children of illegal immigrants born in the US were illegal, then so would their offsprings? So you could have many generations who thought they were legal but were not.

 

[my2¢]

So if children of illegal immigrants born in the US were illegal, then so would their offsprings? So you could have many generations who thought they were legal but were not.

That's the way it has been hitting me too.

Folks are saying since their parents were born in America that makes them Americans. But the stance being proposed here is that being born in America isn't in itself the basis of citizenship. It seems to me that this view of the Constitution is being backed by folks having an attitude of, “this will apply to them and not to me.” But the way law works it’ll apply to all of us. Thus I’m trying to get a handle on the ramifications of a birth certificate becoming rather useless as any proof of citizenship, pretty much as some people view Obama’s.

 

[Polk]

Children of illegals in my opinion are illegal. A live birth document should be given stating the the child was born to a mother of X country. After the mother has taken advantage of our medical facilities for delivering her illegal, both illegal mother and child should be deported. Instantly.

Your opinion doesn't override the Constitution.

 

[JBeukema]

We are, or should be, familiar with the phrase, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside." This can be referred to as the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but what does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean? Jurisdiction can take on different meanings that can have nothing to do with physical boundaries alone--and if the framers meant geographical boundaries they would have simply used the term "limits" rather than "jurisdiction" since that was the custom at the time when distinguishing between physical boundaries and reach of law.
Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans - The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

So if children of illegal immigrants born in the US were illegal, then so would their offsprings? So you could have many generations who thought they were legal but were not.

until someone applies for and recieves citizenship, duh

 

[Flopper]

So if children of illegal immigrants born in the US were illegal, then so would their offsprings? So you could have many generations who thought they were legal but were not.

That's the way it has been hitting me too.

Folks are saying since their parents were born in America that makes them Americans. But the stance being proposed here is that being born in America isn't in itself the basis of citizenship. It seems to me that this view of the Constitution is being backed by folks having an attitude of, “this will apply to them and not to me.” But the way law works it’ll apply to all of us. Thus I’m trying to get a handle on the ramifications of a birth certificate becoming rather useless as any proof of citizenship, pretty much as some people view Obama’s.

Interesting point. If the 14th amendment did not grant citizenship to all children born in the US and we use the birth certificate as proof of citizenship, then each parent would have to prove that they are a citizen before a birth certificate could be issued to the child. How would the parents prove their citizenship since they may have a birth certificate and might be the issue of illegal aliens?

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's why they have the kids here, so they can get the welfare for the kids....can't punish the kids for the parent's actions.

Nope.

"To the contrary, undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive any "welfare" benefits and even legal immigrants are severely restricted in the benefits they can receive."

Illegal immigrants on welfare: fact or fiction? | Immigration Chronicles | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

When it comes to politics, what most people believe most of the time is most wrong.

Do they go to public schools? Ever recieve school lunches? Ever walk into the ER with a fucking cold?

Of course they do. I was disputing the welfare claim.[/QUOTE]

You were disputing it badly.

Center for Immigration Studies

Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002.

Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).

And you're disputing with . . . what?

 

[Cecilie1200]

So if children of illegal immigrants born in the US were illegal, then so would their offsprings? So you could have many generations who thought they were legal but were not.

That's the way it has been hitting me too.

Folks are saying since their parents were born in America that makes them Americans. But the stance being proposed here is that being born in America isn't in itself the basis of citizenship. It seems to me that this view of the Constitution is being backed by folks having an attitude of, “this will apply to them and not to me.” But the way law works it’ll apply to all of us. Thus I’m trying to get a handle on the ramifications of a birth certificate becoming rather useless as any proof of citizenship, pretty much as some people view Obama’s.

Interesting point. If the 14th amendment did not grant citizenship to all children born in the US and we use the birth certificate as proof of citizenship, then each parent would have to prove that they are a citizen before a birth certificate could be issued to the child. How would the parents prove their citizenship since they may have a birth certificate and might be the issue of illegal aliens?

Once again, Logic Boy, how do you think they prove it NOW? Birth certificates only serve as proof of citizenship if the people involved were actually all born here. What do you suppose a naturalized citizen does to prove his citizenship?

 

[Againsheila]

That's the way it has been hitting me too.

Folks are saying since their parents were born in America that makes them Americans. But the stance being proposed here is that being born in America isn't in itself the basis of citizenship. It seems to me that this view of the Constitution is being backed by folks having an attitude of, “this will apply to them and not to me.” But the way law works it’ll apply to all of us. Thus I’m trying to get a handle on the ramifications of a birth certificate becoming rather useless as any proof of citizenship, pretty much as some people view Obama’s.

Interesting point. If the 14th amendment did not grant citizenship to all children born in the US and we use the birth certificate as proof of citizenship, then each parent would have to prove that they are a citizen before a birth certificate could be issued to the child. How would the parents prove their citizenship since they may have a birth certificate and might be the issue of illegal aliens?

Once again, Logic Boy, how do you think they prove it NOW? Birth certificates only serve as proof of citizenship if the people involved were actually all born here. What do you suppose a naturalized citizen does to prove his citizenship?

Show his naturalization papers? I have mine.....do you have yours? I also have my birthcertificate and my passport.

 

[Flopper]

[/B]

We aren't going to convince them of anything. We should make coming here LESS attractive. ZERO help of any kind. No medical. No education. No jobs. No anchor babies.

As to crime these so called law abiding illegals commit who said anything about prison or trial? Just prove you are a citizen and your on your way. Otherwise your on the next flight out.

Denying jobs is the key. Subsidized healthcare is available in Mexico so I don’t see that as a big attraction. As far as welfare is concerned:
"MYTH #3: The nation spends billions of dollars on welfare for undocumented immigrants.
FACTS: To the contrary, undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive any "welfare" benefits and even legal immigrants are severely restricted in the benefits they can receive.
As the Congressional Research Service points out in a 2007 report, undocumented immigrants, who comprise nearly one-third of all immigrants in the country, are not eligible to receive public "welfare" benefits -- ever."
Illegal immigrants on welfare: fact or fiction? | Immigration Chronicles | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

If state agencies dole out welfare funds to illegal immigrants, then that’s the states problem.

Healthcare is a BIG attraction. Do you really think healthcare in Mexico for anyone who isn't filthy rich is even remotely comparable to American healthcare?

As for "not eligible to receive welfare benefits", there's always the "benefit" of wandering into an ER, getting care, and then disappearing into the sunset, never to be heard from or billed again.

Furthermore, the Center for Immigration Studies has found that illegals cost us $2.5 billion in Medicaid, $2.2 billion for treatment for the uninsured, and $1.9 billion for food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches. How do you suppose they're managing to do that?[/QUOTE]
To begin with. Mexico does have a fully subsidize healthcare for the poor. Considering what Medicaid pays, I doubt very few Mexicans will cross the boarder just to get medical care. The primary reason Mexicans cross the boarder is to get work. In Mexico there are jobs available but those jobs are usually part time jobs with very low pay. Often someone can earn in a day what they might earn in Mexico in a week. That's the attraction. That's the problem we need to solve.

All the programs that you mentioned are administered by your state government. If they grant services to illegal aliens then that's on them. The feds dependent on the states to screen applicants and administer the funds. The problem the states have is that these people are undocumented. There is not national id, so how do you determine if they are legal? Social Security, Driver's Licenses are not require in most states. Even when state law requires proper id, agencies are reluctant to turn people away.

 

[Flopper]

That's the way it has been hitting me too.

Folks are saying since their parents were born in America that makes them Americans. But the stance being proposed here is that being born in America isn't in itself the basis of citizenship. It seems to me that this view of the Constitution is being backed by folks having an attitude of, “this will apply to them and not to me.” But the way law works it’ll apply to all of us. Thus I’m trying to get a handle on the ramifications of a birth certificate becoming rather useless as any proof of citizenship, pretty much as some people view Obama’s.

Interesting point. If the 14th amendment did not grant citizenship to all children born in the US and we use the birth certificate as proof of citizenship, then each parent would have to prove that they are a citizen before a birth certificate could be issued to the child. How would the parents prove their citizenship since they may have a birth certificate and might be the issue of illegal aliens?

Once again, Logic Boy, how do you think they prove it NOW? Birth certificates only serve as proof of citizenship if the people involved were actually all born here. What do you suppose a naturalized citizen does to prove his citizenship?

Birth Certificates are the ultimate proof of citizenship now. If the 14th amendment were interpreted so birth within the US did not automatically grant citizenship. Then your birth certificate and mine would be worthless as proof of citizenship. Furthermore alternate methods of proof of citizen revolve around proving that you were born here. So how would one prove they are a citizen?

 

[Flopper]

Interesting point. If the 14th amendment did not grant citizenship to all children born in the US and we use the birth certificate as proof of citizenship, then each parent would have to prove that they are a citizen before a birth certificate could be issued to the child. How would the parents prove their citizenship since they may have a birth certificate and might be the issue of illegal aliens?

Once again, Logic Boy, how do you think they prove it NOW? Birth certificates only serve as proof of citizenship if the people involved were actually all born here. What do you suppose a naturalized citizen does to prove his citizenship?

Show his naturalization papers? I have mine.....do you have yours? I also have my birthcertificate and my passport.

If the interpretation of the 14th amendment was that citizenship is not conferred based on birth in the US, your birth certificate would be worthless as proof of citizenship. To get a passport, you supply your birth certificate, or if a naturalized citizen then your naturalization papers. So unless you are naturalized how would you prove your citizenship? I suppose we, being 300 million plus, would need to get a new document in which we proved that both of our parents were born in the US or naturalized. Not sure how that could be done if the birth certificate is not valid proof.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Great analysis by Flopper, fairly shallow comments by some of the other posters.

The Center for Immigration Studies is a nativist organization, no bones about it.

 

[Political Junky]

"But the federal courts have never specifically addressed the question of whether children born to those in the country illegally should be entitled to citizenship, says Michael M. Hethmon, general counsel of the Immigration Reform Law Institute, which favors tighter restrictions on immigration and has advised the state legislators on their efforts.

Berman says the 14th Amendment was meant to clarify the status of freedmen and "does not apply to foreigners. The 14th Amendment, which is being used to provide citizenship, is the last thing that should be used."

Citizenship-By-Birth Faces Challenges : NPR

Should you be able to keep the loot you got from robbing a bank? Then why should illegals reap benefits from breaking the law.

Ask our founding fathers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shoot, ask the Dixiebacks that crossed the Sabine and Red to take Texas from Mexico.