The next big battle on the illegal immigration front is beginning to take shape. A group of state law-makers plans to challenge the idea that babies born in the United States to immigrant parents should automatically be granted citizenship. So-called “anchor babies” have always been an integral part of the overall illegal immigration debate, but this particular aspect of it centers around the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment which reads, ”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.” Does eliminating birthright citizenship require a constitutional amendment?
Legislators from five states don’t think so. In Washington, D.C. on Wednesday, they revealed legislation designed to force the issue into federal courts. They intend to pass laws establishing a criteria for “state citizenship,” defining who would or wouldn’t be a citizen in a particular state. The lawmakers add that the model bill doesn’t confer any special rights, benefits, privileges or immunities, nor would babies born to illegal immigrants in any state which passes the law be stripped of any rights or benefits they already receive.
Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law professor who helped draft SB 1070 (Arizona’s state immigration law), claims the bill neither upends the Fourteenth Amendment, nor the federal government’s power to make immigration law. The “very calculated first step” asserts the right of a state to define the terms of citizenship within that state–along with a separate mutually-agreed upon, multi-state compact to keep records regarding whether someone was born to U.S. citizen parents, or not. Proponents of the legislation believe that creating two different kinds of state birth certificates, one for the children of citizens and another for the children of illegal immigrants, could spark a numerous lawsuits which might resolve the conflict in their favor. ”The bottom line: What we want is our day in court,” said Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills).
Reality check? Such a pact between the states would require Congressional approval, a long shot at best in the Democratically-controlled Senate.
Butler County Republican Daryl Metcalfe of western Pennsylvania takes a different tack. He claims the Fourteenth Amendment has been “misinterpreted,” and that the word “jurisdiction” provides the key. “It was very clear that to be under the jurisdiction thereof meant that your parents had an allegiance to the United States of America. That has been something that has been ignored, as our government has allowed for citizenship to be granted to children of foreign nationals,” he said Tuesday.
As of now fourteen states–Arizona Alabama, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah–are on board with this attempt to eventually trigger a Supreme Court review of current federal policy (as opposed to law or court decisions) on what Rep. Kavanagh referred to as granting citizenship “based on GPS location at birth.” Randy Terrill, an Oklahoma Republican state representative working on an anti-birthright bill there, goes further. “When taken to its logical extreme, that would produce the absurd result that children of invading armies would be considered citizens of the U.S.,” he said.
Opponents of the measure consider such an attempt a waste of time and money. ”I don’t know what they think they’re doing,” said Paul Bender, professor of law and dean emeritus at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. “I guess they want to create a controversy, hoping for what? That the Supreme Court will change its mind, or Congress will do something? I don’t know, but it’s pretty clearly unconstitutional.” Mr. Bender added that even if the bill got to the Supreme Court, it doesn’t necessarily mean the basic question of whether or not birthright citizenship applies to children of illegal immigrants would even be addressed.
Even if one parent is an Illegal then the child should not get Citizenship – PERIOD!
E-Verify must be mandated – it is the only way to stem the tide.
What's so painful and hilarious about the 14th Amendment issue is that neo-cons are now screaming about the 'INTENT' of the founders when they composed the Amendment to the Constitution. All of which proves that it's it's not true principle, but rather narrow political ideology, which drives them. Pitiful really. At least be honest enough to take another look at the INTENT of the 2nd Amendment…
The proposed laws by these legislators are illegal in that they violate the U.S. Constitution. What part of ILLEGAL don't these clowns understand? They are breaking the law with these bills. They are ILLEGAL LEGISLATORS!!!! DEPORT THEM. TAKE AWAY THEIR CHILDREN"S CITIZENSHIP.
These fights are killing what we have left of a once great nation. Doesn't anybody out there know the purpose of the constitution? It purpose is to protect me from the Federal Government.
Apparently you have never read the Constitution. The purpose of the Constitution involves much more than protecting you from the Federal Government.
The Constitution institutes a government for America and endows that government with the power and responsibility of protecting it's people from many things. Congress is specifically charged with the power to collect taxes and to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. In addition to protecting you, it sounds to me as if the Constitution expects you to pay for the Progress of Science and Arts whether you want to or not! Congress is also charged with the responsibility of defining and punishing Offenses against the Law of Nations. That includes immigration law.
The Federal Government has many varied responsibilities and powers under the Constitution. Try reading it some time.
Wigglwagon I am probably a little older than you. They taught it when I was in school, but thanks anyway.
You proved my point with your response. You don't know either!!!
Don't know what?
Don't know what?
And I should think the debates between Federalists and Antis would demonstrate well enough that the Constitution was not recognized as granting such sweeping powers as the NEA.
Promoting science and useful art meant largely guaranteeing contract law and patent law. Until Fulton lost his state monopoly in NY, promoting the useful arts also allowed such merchantalist meddling. Even Jefferson's grand idea of exploring the far west was a scandal, because it was such a presumption on his part.
And….?
Hugo Black, U.S. Supreme Court Justice wrote in Afroyim v. Rusk: ======= The very nature of our free government makes it completely incongruous to have a rule of law under which a group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship. We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship, whatever his creed, color, or race. __======
No, that is the reason the Constitution establishes three branches of the Federal government. But the document that created the Federal government couldn't possibly be meant to protect you from something not yet in existence.
Please do recall also that is the reason the 2nd Amendment was ADDED to the Constitution.
It's even easier than that – make the citizenship of a child who has at least 1 non-American parent conditional upon their reaching majority with a clean criminal record and a high school diploma. Failure to do so continues their status as a resident alien. The foreign parent cannot get a green card, unless they qualify with a clean criminal record and the ability to support themselves. They cannot qualify for citizenship, ever, unless they held a legal visa at the time of the child's birth.
I know, lets secure our borders so illegals cant get in, then if we cant amend the 14th its no big deal. Oh, by the way, securing our borders is constitutional.
Good point.
Our Government, has allowed the invasion of 30 million criminals in direct violation of Article IV, Section IV of our Constitution. they force American tax payers to pay Billions to provide Welfare, Prison cells, Educate the invaders children, free medical care,massive document fraud, & are destroying our schools, hospitals, communities, culture while Robbing, Raping, Killing & Assaulting American Citizens WAKE UP PEOPLE!
.youtube.com/watch?v=tsH8xvjTAlo
.youtube.com/watch?v=Btj6IeOFkis&feature=player_embedded
immigrationcounters.com/
.ojjpac.org/memorial.asp
.immigrationshumancost.org/
.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty580.htm
.youtube.com/watch?v=muw22wTePqQ
.gopetition.com/petition/40860.html
Every Non-representative including obama and holder need to be IMPEACHED! for not upholding the oath of office they swore to defend the Constitution! If these clowns were to do their job, this would all be a Moot point!
Anchor babies and their criminal parents go, period, and cut the phony tears, you knew you were breaking the law when you crossed the border.
Next shut down any business hiring illegal labor and confiscate all property belonging to the owner. Property will be sold at auction and the proceeds to pay for the massive deportation. Oh and owners go to jail.
Got a better idea? Lets hear it!
I have always felt we have dealt too lightly with employers of illegal immigrants.
"Reality check? Such a pact between the states would require Congressional approval, a long shot at best in the Democratically-controlled Senate."
Reality check! If the Democratic Party continues it's WAR AGAINST BLUE COLLAR AMERICA, Democratic control of the Senate and Executive branch will end in two years!
Wait, did you say the Democratic war against Blue collar America? Are you serious? You believe the Right, which engineered an America in which 1 in 6 lives in poverty, will save you? We live in a system of Crash and Burn Capitalism, bro. When the next bubble bursts, you'll be in the breadline staffed by a liberal volunteer, not a conservative, who will be in his castle in Greenwich.
Sure. People like Barney Frank and Charlie Rangel sure sound like "men of the people" to me. Think maybe Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae quasi-government agencies had anything to do with our current situation? You left-wing progressive talking points aren't working anymore.
Shut your little hippocrit mouth and pack you sorry ahrse up boy, SCUM, nice name jaggace, and leave the country.
Nationalists could conceivably prevail by arguing that the constitution does *not* prohibit exiling/deporting foreigners (or citizens), that it merely requires due process, and that the 14th amendment was to rectify inequality for slavery. I am unconvinced of the wisdom of this course of action.
If you begin with the goal of deporting all "non-citizens" then you necessarily presume to define who is American for the rest of us. Is that going to protect America? No. The millions of refugees from the front in the war on drugs have overwhelmed our courts, leading me to conclude that our naturalization system is a waste of tax dollars. I'm not saying everyone should be allowed citizenship, but the method of "checking everyone in first" is costly and ineffective. It's big government, and it only works for banana republics that have no immigration.
We can agree that immigration policy cannot be regulated by the constitution, and we can agree that congress needs the power to seize and deport members of terrorist organizations. However, the current crisis reveals government's inability to be a member's-only club.
We catch the same amount of drug users as we do illegals, and we incarcerate/deport less than 1% of them, but we pay every level of government to spit into the wind. The money would be better spent on homeland security than border security. We can agree that we need to protect cities and people, not just lines in the desert, especially given the mile-long smuggling tunnels we've found.
The disadvantages of enforcing naturalization are numerous to all parties. Illegals have an incentive to steal social security numbers and drive without insurance or licensing. The WSJ reports illegals being abused and murdered by cartel escorts. Criminal syndicates also profit from trafficking immigrants, and immigrants risk everything by getting involved with these elements.
We ultimately cannot deport ten to twenty million people without spending ourselves into a black hole. An open borders policy would financially benefit us, but that requires Americans to *trust* immigrants as much as anyone born on this side of the border. Mexico is the 12th largest economy in the world, Christian, and capitalist.
As far as the immigration crisis is concerned, if you don't want Mexicans fleeing Mexico by the millions, then make Brittney Spears go to Wal-Mart to get her cocaine instead of her friends in the La Revolucion. Wal-Mart does not own armored SUVs and does not shoot up its competitors. Argument with me on this topic will only result in verbal abuse.
"We ultimately cannot deport ten to twenty million people without spending ourselves into a black hole" QUOTE
If we use e-verify country-wide, the illegals will self-deport. Won't cost us a dime.
And American citizens who are currently looking for jobs will find them.
That is a win-win situation.
You do not have to deport 20 to 40 million people. You just have to go after those who employ them. It would be so much easier. With no jobs, they deport themselves.
"If you begin with the goal of deporting all "non-citizens" then you necessarily presume to define who is American for the rest of us."
1) Citizenship is not amorphous, it is ALREADY defined, either you are a citizen, or you are not. We do NOT have to DEFINE IT all over again
" Is that going to protect America?"
2) Will it protect America? YES! We have uncontrolled, unfettered, ILLEGAL intrusion, (read: invasion), by MILLIONS. IpsoFacto, we do NOT know if OTMs include terrorists, so controlling the border, and enforcing laws already on the books by definition most certainly does protect America.
What about those born in West Virginia, a state created by splitting Virginia during the Civil War. The Constitution prohibits splitting states. So are those born in WVA illegal aliens?
Sophistric non-sequitor.
The Mexican mantra:
“Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada”“For the race everything, outside the race nothing”
All of the laws should be enforced equally, regardless of race, religion, and/or national origin. That is with the exception of Mexicans, and they should be above the law and exempt from the law. And the only purpose that a tonto gringo serves is to pay taxes to support the superior and noble Mexican.
Anyone who disagrees with this philosophy is Xenophobic and a Racist.
Pancho
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.
George Orwell, Animal Farm, ch.10, 1945
The political system has hi-jacked the American way of life. The liberals and dems all cry equality for the sake of votes. Sure they want the illegals swarming in and voting them in. Why? Because they can. Somehow these dems figured out the loophole to slip through to keep them in office. Shame on us for allowing this. Shame on us for not screaming foul!
People keep saying that the illegals come here because there are jobs and employment. SO the fault is essentiually that of the American employers. I did not kno that they had job offers already in place before crossing illegally.
Let us say they do not have job offers yet and they deceide to cross illegally in ANTICIPATION of the job. Then whose fault is it that they are here? They committed the crime first by crossing illegally. If we are a nation of laws , then that should be punishable with deportation.
THere are ways to do things legally. Stand in line and do it the right way. Wanting a better life for your kids is no reason to rob the bank. Who does not want a better life for their kids? The US can no longer support the world's "poor, the tired and worn out" . TIme to change the words on the Statue of Liberty to " Come thru' the proper channels"
Actually, the states can refuse to issue birth certificates to parents who cannot provide a valid state or military ID. States can also rienforce this by adding the issuance of birth certificates to unqualified individuals to current laws prohibiting the issuance of bogus IDs.
True, the state will not issue a copy of a vital records to anyone except the person on the record or someone with a "tangible interest" in that certificate (i.e. a parent or a child) That doesn't mean that the the state can not issue a certificate at all. The state can not set up a two tiered system of birth certificate. "Separate but equal" is no longer a valid concept in America..
Enforce the damned immigration laws – they have been on the books for decades…How do we allow boob-politicians to say otherwise…who gives them the right to let the illegals flood into our towns?
Dammit to hell, I’m sick of this crap.
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 AND ARE LEGAL UNITED STATES CITIZENS BY BIRTH. But it is because under the 1965 immigration Act, that they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother, father and siblings gain permanent legal U.S. residency. Only by a Constitution Amendment can we change this – and it is unlikely to ever happen.
Babies born in the US to non-citizen parents are not under US jurisdiction. They are under the jurisdiction of the nation/citizenship of their parents. That is the most coherent and logical interpretation of the plain words of the text taking into account the year of passage (1868) and the intent of the amendment writers (give citizenship to freed slaves). End of Story. Mexican babies born on US soil to Mexican parents are still and always will be Mexican. No contitutionial amendment needed. No back door amending a-la the Left wing lunatics.
How can you be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" if your not here?
As far as I can see it was the 1965 immigration Act that started the dumbing down of all of our "new citizens". You used to have something to contribute to this great country before you could become a citizen. Most countries today require you to prove that you can better their country before they allow you to become a citizen. We dropped that in 1965.
OPERATION: VVETBACK 2 – 2011′
_______
"3/.5ths" concerning Slaves was amended wasn't it? Why can't birthright?
The mantra of the Dream Act, which here in Albuquerque and University of NM, was started by La Raza groups that I joined to get their emails. This anti-America group also has booths at the start of school with maps of the Southwest "that was stolen" from Mexico.
If the Dream Act is allowed, there will be MILLIONS of more illegals FLOODING the U.S and they will then have MILLION OF MORE CHILDREN! After a few years, DREAM ACT TWO. THEY KNOW THAT THEY JUST HAVE TO WAIT IT OUT FOR ANOTHER DEMOCRAT CONGRESS THAT WILL SELL OUT AMERICA IN ORDER TO GET VOTES AND POWER!
The only thing that matters is the original intent of those who wrote the amendment. That and only that is what the amendment means, the subsequent SCOTUS decisions notwithstanding.
@scum: We know exactly what the original intent of the Second amendment was by reading the writings of the founders. They made it quite clear it was an individual right. The whole body of the people were the militia, not the national guard which didn't even exist in that day. Read the Federalist Papers and educate yourself.
I'll make these few points before reading the comments of my colleagues…
1. I believe your "reality check" misses, because the inter-state registration list is rather analogous to the one that already exists concerning driver license points; states opt-in to sharing this information at their own discretion. It may be that this was cleared at some time in the past, of which I am ignorant. But I do believe teh precedent would rule.
2. I see nothing good in this, it is little more than Vietnamese roulette.
Your point about attempting to redefine the 14th in the courts is spot-on, it is suicidal, and given the case history, already DOA.
Amendments can be amended. The house GOP ought rather to simply introduce another Constitutional Amendment. If anger over illegal immigration runs that deeply, it will succeed.
http://www.amazon.com/Alien-Nation-Americas-Immig…
I read the book way back when. But his arguments are solid.
Washington needs to enlist the states, a la SB1070, to aid in re-securing the borders. Attempting to redefine citizenship, especially this way is the quickest way to throw away all their gains this Nov past.
3. I am intrigued that most of the nations that have ditched birth-right citizenship are European, all are democracies. And France, England, Ireland especially have issues with illegals. I do not presently see this change having ameliorated those issues.
4. Fear-mongers, clowns. Very trenchant political commentary there from the Left.
Somehow I don't think she knows just what a monger is.
Thanks for the head food, Rich.
-K
In a future Constitutional Convention called by 2/3rd's of the states, because Congress was unable to get 2/3rds of both Houses to approve of an amendment., the agenda will consider:
1. The Repeal Amendment where 2/3rds of the states repeal a US law. (like ObamaCare)
2. A Balanced Budget Amendment (to force cuts and spending)
3. An Amendment outlawing any religious practice that physically harms people or courts handing out these punishments (such as Sharia Law)
4. An amendment to clarify what legal citizenship is, not giving citizenship to anchor babies.
5. Line Item veto for the President overridden by 2/3rds vote in both Houses. (Used as a budget cutting device)
Will your hypothetical convention repeal the due process and the equal protection clauses as well?
Assuming it is not possible to refuse citizenship to the children of non-citizens born in the country, why should they be allowed to become "anchor babies"? There does not appear to be any constitutional barrier to a law which says, in effect, that if anyone acquires citizenship by that method, none of his/her relatives will ever be allowed to migrate to the US and gain citizenship.
I agree. The naturalization law should be changed to say that being born here may give you citizenship but the person who gave birth to you can't be a citizen ever. That is the best way to stop it because the parents will have no incentive to come here and give birth.
I fear that many on our side of the fence are being distracted from the more important issue here. Illegal Latino immigration is a chronic problem of known dimensions, but we musn't allow it to blind us to the more immediate and accute threat we face – islamic immigration, whether legal or illegal.
Latinos and moslems try to enter our countries for diametrically opposed reasons; Latinos because they like what they see and wish to become a part of it, thereby improving their standard of living. They tend to be conservative and hard-working, and nearly all are devout Catholics, hence a part of our Judeo-Christian culture.
continued…
continued…
Moslems, on the other hand, arrive with the sole intention of colonizing us, and turning our free and tolerant countries into brutal ninth-century theocracies like the sheikdoms whence they came. They are financed from the bottomless pockets of the oil potentates, and have already infiltrated our corporate, educational and political institutions to a highly alarming extent. Their conspiracy is well under way, and firing on all eight. We need to move, and move quickly.
I'm not saying that illegal Latino immigration isn't a big problem – it is, but let's fight these two battles in the correct order. As the old saying has it, you don't worry about draining the swamp while you're still up to your ass in alligators.
THE REAL REASON FOR THE READING OF THE CONSTITUTION!
The Republicans know something and they will soon take action against a particular very high ranking Democrat who is obviously, and without doubt, breaking their OATH to defend it! This person will then be brought up for impeachment and those WHO DO NOT VOTE FOR IMPEACHMENT WILL ALSO BE IMPEACHED FOR NOT DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION! An example? On FPM there is an ad that has Hillary wanting to side with the World and "a ban on small arms." If she, and Obama, or anyone else in Congress, votes with this World program, they will then be brought up for NOT DEFENDING THE "RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS" AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION! Any Congressperson NOT AGREEING TO IMPEACH, will then be impeached for not defending the Constitution THAT MANY OF THEM READ ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE!!! So, PLEASE write Hillary and Obama and beg them to vote with the World. "NO SMALL ARMS! NO JUSTICE NO PEACE!"
Conservative Democrat, Congresswomen Giffords was shot today by "small arms." The blogs are already blaming the Tea Party and want a ban on "the right to bear arms!" She is also a JEW, was a strong advocate for AZ SB1070, had persona "arms," former Rep., wanted better border enforcement, and was a moderate! She was a strong s pporter for that "right to bear arms," and was one of the people that read the Constit tion! AS MY POST ABOVE, if Hillary and Obama speak against this "right to bear ams," they sho ld be impeached! (That sick SOB!)
Our Government = Killers with no Concience. Google it, I have never read an article this articlude and so precice about were we are headed as a Nation and Country.
I don't think the federal government can pass any legislation undoing the 14th amendment because that particular law is higher than anything that can be passed in the congress. It can't be undone but I believe the 'subject to the jurisdiction of' means being someone who is a subject of the authority their like a person was a subject to a king. In our government the law is king so a person is subject of the legal jurisdiction and since their are many then we have to say subject to the jurisdiction in order to place that person's subjectivness within that particular jurisdiction in which they reside. It referes to the place in which they reside and owe allegiance to and not to the ability of the government to prosecute someone.
As I understand it, when this amendment was being debated, two examples were given of people born in the US, but not under its jurisdiction: Indians, and the children of diplomats. it is noteworthy, too, that the ex-slaves, for whom the amendment was made, had absolutely no other jurisdiction they could be subject to.
That is my opinion as well but I'm not entirely sure at this point. It could mean that subject to jurisdiciton of means someone who is under the authority of the law which includes everyone. It can also mean someone who owes allegiance to that authority because the law was seen as the supreme authority so being subject to it was equivalent of being subject to a king's authority. I would have find more proof of that though.
Amen to that !
leticia olalia morales of 15501 pasadena ave #8 tustin ca 92780 submitted fake documents and paid 5000 dollars to obtain a US tourist visa. she also used fake employment records to obtain a work visa. she is now applying for citizenship. her embassy connection was a man named Sandman.
We can agree that immigration policy cannot be regulated by the constitution, and we can agree that congress needs the power to seize and deport members of terrorist organizations. However, the current crisis reveals government's inability to be a member's-only club.