Citizenship for the Children of Illegal Immigrants?

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by PoliticalChic, Jan 2, 2010.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,677
    Thanks Received:
    15,586
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,815
    It’s interesting to find that situations seemingly decided in the past, may, in fact have a questionable provenance. Accepted today as a fait accompli is the assumed citizenship of any child born in territorial United States.


    1. In 1894, Wong Kim Ark, born and raised in the United States, visited China. His parents who had worked in San Francisco, had returned to China to live, and when Wong Kim Ark returned to California, he was“denied permission to enter the country "...because the said Wong Kim Ark, although born in the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, United States of America, is not, under the laws of the state of California and of the United States, a citizen thereof, the mother and father of the said Wong Kim Ark being Chinese persons, and subjects of the emperor of China, and the said Wong Kim Ark being also a Chinese person and a subject of the Emperor of China."
    United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    2. “The framers of the Constitution were, of course, well-versed in the British common law, having learned its essential principles from William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England. As such, they knew that the very concept of citizenship was unknown in British common law. Blackstone speaks only of “birthright subjectship” or “birthright allegiance,” never using the terms citizen or citizenship. The idea of birthright subjectship is derived from feudal law.” The concept refers to the subjects of a king: perpetual allegiance.

    3. But the Revolutionary War reversed this doctrine. The Declaration of Independence proclaims: “…“the good People of these Colonies. . . are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown…”

    4. ‘James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a member of the Constitutional Convention as well as a Supreme Court Justice, captured the essence of the matter when he remarked: “Under the Constitution of the United States there are citizens, but no subjects.” The transformation of subjects into citizens was the work of the Declaration and the Constitution… citizenship is based on the consent of the governed—not the accident of birth.’

    5. “Citizenship, of course, does not exist by nature; it is created by law, and the identification of citizens has always been considered an essential aspect of sovereignty. Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution, with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is the familiar language: “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.” Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.”

    6. So, not only being born within the geographical limits of the US is required: the definition of ‘jurisdiction’ is critical!

    a. Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment excluded Indians as citizens, as they “were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, rose to support his colleague, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard interjected, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

    b. The Expatriation Act of 1868 allows Americans to renounce their citizenship. “Like the idea of citizenship, this right of expatriation is wholly incompatible with the common law understanding of perpetual allegiance and subjectship…In sum, this legacy of feudalism—which we today call birthright citizenship—was decisively rejected as the ground of American citizenship by the Fourteenth Amendment and the Expatriation Act of 1868. It is absurd, then, to believe that the Fourteenth Amendment confers the boon of American citizenship on the children of illegal aliens.”

    c. Furthermore, it is difficult to fathom how those who defy American law can derive benefits for their children by their defiance—or that any sovereign nation would allow such a thing.

    7. The Wong Kim Ark decision, that a child of legal resident aliens is entitled to birthright citizenship, was based on the premise that the Fourteenth Amendment adopted the common law system of birthright citizenship, nor did the decision explain how ‘subjects’ were miraculously transformed into ‘citizens,’ but, rather that the two terms were interchangeable, equating, in effect, feudal monarchy and republicanism.
    https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=07


    So, was the Wong Kim Ark decision correctly decided? Should the current Supreme Court address the question once again?
    And, how would you decide the case?
     
  2. Contumacious
    Offline

    Contumacious Radical Freedom

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2009
    Messages:
    17,072
    Thanks Received:
    1,469
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Adjuntas, PR , USA
    Ratings:
    +3,851
    That is because the states RETAINED the right to confer their citizenship on whomever.

    .
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. JD_2B
    Offline

    JD_2B Little Vixen

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,092
    Thanks Received:
    118
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Nunya, Wudjathink
    Ratings:
    +118
    I think that this case was decided correctly. If Wong Kim Ark was BORN here, then it equates to the standard of being "Born or Naturalized" and she should have citizenship status. Her heritage is something that she cannot help. I do agree that citizenship by birthright should be negatable voluntarily by the person born here, but must be done by the person themselves, not by their parents. Until the time that the person turns 18, and say, six months later, they should be allowed dual citizenship rights, and only be allowed to remove their US citizenship rights during the six month period after they turn 18. We do not see minors as having nearly as many "citizenship" rights as adults, so this would not be an issue. Also, the person would not have voting rights here, as long as they have dual citizenship.

    The framers wrote the constitution, so I think that as long as they wrote that citizenship is a right to anyone born in the USA, then that should be upheld.
    Even I had dual citizenship when I was first born, which my mother either decided for me, to give me US citizenship, or the period of time simply elapsed in which I could renig on it. My mother immigrated here from Scotland, but was a full fledged citizen when I was born. I do not agree that I should have had any rights to any perpetual dual citizenship simply because I was born to someone who happened to be from a certain other place. I do like the idea that my citizenship could be chosen, rather than forced, by birthright.

    Yes so British law matters not.

    So that explains the right people have to renig on the deal, and, for arguments sake, choose where to pledge their allegiance.

    This section merely helps the matter get more complicated, for people born to people of non US lineage, but again, it does simplify the overall issue of citizenship (or should, anyways). For someone like me, who was born of Non US lineage (well, half of me is non US lineage, anyways) it does help to establish that I can choose the country of origin to which I can pledge my allegiance. If only we had more time to understand the dual citizenship clause, in order to make an informed choice about allegiance, then this whole thing would be perfect.

    However, in these cases, allegiance is voluntary, still. Thus, the dual citizenship process should still apply, to the same extent that I illustrated above. These Senators did not understand that picking and choosing FOR a person, is not applicable, if done subjectively, in regards to lineage. In any event, these are just arguments, and never became law.

    I disagree wholly with the text in quotation marks, above. Anyone born here can and should be allotted the time required to make an informed decision on which country of origin they pledge allegiance. It should not be up to anyone but the child of the person who trespassed, or was here legally, but of a different country, to decide whether they want to be US Citizens or citizens of the country in which they were most probably conceived, within a time frame that allows for an independent review of information and understanding, ensuring that an informed choice was most likely made.

    But their children, being US Citizens, would beg to differ with you. Their parents do not receive benefits, but their children do. Their parents are simply representatives for their child. Also, going back to the Indian argument- it makes no sense that Indians should be disallowed to have perpetual dual citizenry/ allegiance, also- for the simple fact that their territories are often trespassed on by our citizens, AND the fact that this WHOLE land was THEIR land, not ours, before we wrote all this shit, then proceeded to develop the land surrounding those territories, effectively denouncing these Indians, and forcing them to have no land available to migrate to, for hunting/ gathering/ smoking the ol peace pipe, etc. This has left Native Americans no choice but to develop the land themselves, building casinos, and exploiting the only thing they can- our own state laws against gambling- in order to support their tribes.

    wrong...

    Another decision was made after the Wong Kim Ark decision:

    "

    I agree.


    The only thing I would do differently is to ensure that each individual, in hazy cases like these, should be given dual citizenship until an informed decision can be made, choosing which country to pledge their allegiance to.

    Citizenship can not be forced- nor should it be. It also, by the same standards, should not be denied based on lineage, rather than on the person's willful denial of said citizenship and denial to pledge allegiance.

    Furthermore, Citizenship in and of itself does not come FROM Allegiance. In fact, the opposite is probably generally more true. =)

    *Edit* Allegiance does not, and CAN not come first, at birth, and thus, should not be the basis on how citizenship is defined. Because normally, people are prone to wanting to "belong" to a group, then as long as they live in that particular group, they will follow the group's rules and allegiances, (See Maslow's hierarchy of need) much as the case stands for US birthright citizenship on Us jurisdictional soil. Thus, the allegiance forms after time is spent within the group (Us Citizens). So, I disagree wholly with the original, outdated definitions of allegiance from the Senator's arguments above, and how it should be applied to Citizenship, in regards to birth right.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2010
  4. Walt
    Offline

    Walt Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    148
    Thanks Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Joliet IL.
    Ratings:
    +14
    I do not believe they should have citizenship. The term "under the jurisdiction thereof" means the children born to parents who are not citizens of this Country are subject to the Countries of their parents. If they had not sworn allegiance to our Country. They were still under alligiance of their own Country and there for not citizens of the United States.

    Slaughter-House Cases, 1873

    '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.'
    The first observation we have to make on this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the DRED SCOTT DECISION by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and
    born within the United States.

    Http://federalistblog.us/citizenship/2006/12/

    An Act of April 9, 1866 established for the first time a national law that read, "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed." Rep. John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, said this national law (Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes) was "simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents
    is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."

    Http://www.theamericanresistance.com/issues/anchor_babies.html

    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. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:
    "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,
    , 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."
    The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.
    The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. California Girl
    Offline

    California Girl BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50,337
    Thanks Received:
    8,960
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,965
    Children of illegal immigants should not have US citizenship.
     
  6. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,677
    Thanks Received:
    15,586
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,815
    Actually, the case you cite is pertinent only in tems of discrimination against any residing in the United States, as per Amendment 14.

    And in the Wong Kim Ark case, his parents were legal resident aliens.

    There is no case in which the Supreme Court has rendered a decision that children of illegal immigrants are automatically citizens of the United States.

    Does that change your view, and/or would you like to see a SC review of same?
     
  7. mudwhistle
    Offline

    mudwhistle Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    65,185
    Thanks Received:
    11,915
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Wetwang With Fimber, Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +26,139
    This and picture voter-I.D.s aren't going to be addressed......Not as long as the Dems can bring in unaware brown skinned folks by the thousands to replace all of the people that are getting wise to their tricks.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2010
  8. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,677
    Thanks Received:
    15,586
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,815
    Although the case you make for Democrat motivation is pretty clear, the Republicans seem averse to coming out strongly on either side as well.

    But my interest here is more along the lines of 1) the historic definition of citizenship, and 2) the effect that the current situation has on the question of United States sovereignty, especially as it pertains to 'one-worldism.'
     
  9. mudwhistle
    Offline

    mudwhistle Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    65,185
    Thanks Received:
    11,915
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    Wetwang With Fimber, Yorkshire
    Ratings:
    +26,139
    Republicans don't have a massive media to support them like the Dems do...so they tend to walk on egg-shells if there is any possibility of being called racists.
     
  10. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,677
    Thanks Received:
    15,586
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,815
    Are you suggesting that one may be a citizen of, say, Oklahoma, but not a legal citizen of the United States?
     

Share This Page