Thread: American Children Should NOT be Deported?

I find the thinking process of this article ALL WRONG. Illegal is illegal, and I do not think America should decide the fate of parents based on their child(ren) being born in America...especially since we all know that Mexicans have been racing to America to birth their children for this very reason, which is why they are called ANCHOR BABIES.

American-born children shouldn't be deported
Immigration reform must ensure that the best interest of American children determines the fate of their undocumented parents.
By Noreen M. Sugrue
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0717/p09s02-coop.html

CHAMPAIGN, ILL. – As the US government urgently seeks a unified policy to deal with illegal immigrants, law-enforcement officials seem to be paying more attention to enforcing current laws.
In June 2006, for example, more than 2,400 undocumented workers from across the country were seized. They are currently awaiting deportation hearings. Their legal status in this country is one thing. But the status of their children is another. The overwhelming majority of those arrested in June are parents of American citizens - children born in the US - and the majority of those children are under the age of 10. These children are US citizens; they're no different from my child or the children of most of you. But because of the possible deportations of their parents, these children will probably be deported, too, if they want to stay with their parents.

If they find a way to stay, they will become policy orphans; that is, citizens with no parents in the US to care for them and no place to live except foster care or in the home of some generous community members.

One of the children affected by this June raid is Sylvia; she was fortunate to be born in a country where "children and families first" is an enshrined value. She also has the misfortune of being born to parents who are undocumented workers in a country determined to rid itself of all such laborers.

Sylvia is an American citizen. She is happy learning, listening to music on her iPod, playing with her friends, and wondering what she will do all summer. Like millions of other American children, she has plans and ideas of how to spend her free time.

Yet last month, Sylvia's life changed forever. Unlike most other American children, her family does not have control over where they live. The US government will decide where Sylvia's parents will live, and she will be forced to go with them or live without her parents.

Sylvia's parents are undocumented workers who were apprehended in one of many government-led raids. Ostensibly, they were arrested to protect our economy, our borders, our sense of fairness, and our moral right to determine who lives in the US.

What is not clear is how Sylvia or any other of the hundreds of thousands of American citizens and their working parents are a risk to each of us.

Illegals are usually arrested for their crimes while at work. The crimes committed by Sylvia's parents are hard work and an attempt to make a better life for their children and grandchildren, coupled with a willingness to work at whatever jobs are available to achieve it all.

Yes, Sylvia's parents are undocumented workers, or people working in the US illegally. They would have gladly come here legally, but they are not highly educated, have no special training and skills, and do not have millions to invest in the US. They also have no other family living in the US. Current immigration law allows only those with family members already legally in the US or those with significant education and/or investment dollars to enter this country on a permanent basis and move toward citizenship. The rest who come are here temporarily, and their path to citizenship is almost nonexistent.

Regardless of the lives undocumented workers have built in the US or their contributions to the economy and community, family status, and the needs of children - especially American-born children - are not paramount considerations in deciding who will be able to stay in the US and who will have to go.

Laws that de facto deport American citizens create immediate and long-lasting social, moral, and political problems for each of us personally and the nation as a whole. As adults, Sylvia and most exiled children are likely to come back to their country of birth. However, they may return bitter and less able to compete economically than if they, along with their parents, had been allowed to stay in the US. When they return needing social assistance, each of us will pay the economic price. We also pay a moral price for having turned away our own citizens; American children born to undocumented foreign workers are often robbed of life opportunities because of US social policies that ignore their needs and interests.

Immigration reform must contain two key provisions currently not under consideration. One ensures that the best interest of American children determines what happens to their undocumented parents. The other includes allowing noncollege-educated and nonwealthy investor immigrants to legally enter the US and acquire citizenship.

• Noreen M. Sugrue is a faculty member in the Women and Gender in Global Perspectives Program at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

In June 2006, for example, more than 2,400 undocumented workers from across the country were seized.

Unfortunately the majority of those arrested in June were guilty of other crimes besides illegal entry and social security fraud. It is a known fact that ICE is not actively pursuing those only guilty of illegal immigration and social security fraud (which almost all of them). I'm not saying they won't deport someone that is picked up in a raid designed to catch hardened criminals, but they are not going out of their way to do so.

Sylvia is an American citizen. She is happy learning, listening to music on her iPod, playing with her friends, and wondering what she will do all summer. Like millions of other American children, she has plans and ideas of how to spend her free time.

These things can be done in any country.

The crimes committed by Sylvia's parents are hard work and an attempt to make a better life for their children and grandchildren, coupled with a willingness to work at whatever jobs are available to achieve it all.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong! They are guilty of illegaly entering this country. Don't fart in my face and tell me it's perfume!

Minor children are not ctizens yet. Grasping straws trying to leech status from babes Sheesh.

http://fileus.org/dept/citizenship/hamdi/index.html

"An accident of birth (or job assignment) isn't what citizenship is all about."

Yaser Esam Hamdi was seized as an enemy combatant and taken into control of the United States military in Afghanistan, after the Taliban unit he was with surrendered. The military determined that Hamdi should be detained as an enemy combatant with potential intelligence value. Hamdi was transported by the United States military from Afghanistan to the Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Upon discovery of records indicating Hamdi was born in Louisiana, he was deemed a citizen of the United States by virtue of said birth, and transferred to the Naval Brig in Norfolk, Virginia, where he is currently detained.

After careful consideration, FILE believes the U.S. government should reclassify Hamdi as a Saudi national and return him to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Such legal status would relieve the government of the burden of prosecuting Mr. Hamdi as an American. Furthermore, such reclassification would more closely reflect the true nature of the situation: Mr. Hamdi is not an American in any real sense of the word, and is, legally, a citizen of Saudi Arabia and a captured foreign enemy combatant.

FILE believes the custom of granting birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to illegal aliens, temporary workers, and tourists is supported neither by the Fourteenth Amendment nor by legal precedent.

In a world of frightening new dangers and ominous demographic realities (See: "New Breed of Islamic Warrior Is Emerging - Immigration as a Weapon!" Wall Street Journal, March 29, 2004) it is time to reassess this custom. We would be unwise and irresponsible as a free and democratic people to neglect to finally address the true meaning and intent of the Citizenship Clause. The case of Yaser Esam Hamdi provides a historic and excellent opportunity to do just that.

FILE is working to rectify the erroneous classification of Mr. Hamdi as a citizen of the United States. In this effort, we know we have the overwhelming support of the American people.


[/quote]

http://fileus.org/dept/citizenship/index.html

Suppose you’re sitting at home one evening reading when you hear a knock at the door. Upon opening it you find a man standing there with his extremely gravid wife. He explains they were headed towards the hospital maternity ward, but they've run out of time. Could she come into your house to have the baby?

Suppose you agree to the man's request.


Does it follow that the child, then, because of its birth in your house is entitled to a share of it? And that its parents, after 21 years, since they are related to someone who owns part of this property can also be dealt in? Along with all of their relatives?

It's likely most Americans would find the child's claims on the house absurd, but the United States has adopted precisely this logic through the current custom of granting U.S. citizenship to children born in the United States to illegal aliens, temporary workers, and tourists.

JAK -

Absolutely great analogy. Mind if I borrow it from time to time???

Sorry, Sylvia needs to go with her parents.

Return to Immigration News Daily Home Page
See also A Dummies Guide to Understanding the Fourteenth Amendment



The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans
By P.A. Madison
Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies
Last updated 4/18/06

We well know what federal law says on the subject of children born to non-citizens (illegal aliens) within the limits of the United States by declaring them to be American citizens. But what does the Constitution of the United States say about the issue of giving American citizenship to anyone born within its borders? As we explore the Constitutions Citizenship Clause, as found in the Fourteenth Amendment, we can find no Constitutional authority to grant such citizenship to persons born to non-American citizens within the limits of the United States of America.

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, reach of law or complete allegiance to the United States.

It is important to understand what the text of the clause actually says: subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and not any particular State jurisdiction. This is why laws at the time were written to include both limits and jurisdiction of the United States when speaking of aliens. Take for example U.S. title XXX of 1875, sec 2165 where it states: "Any alien who was residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States..."

Here the law makes the distinction between simply residing in the United States and being under the jurisdiction of the federal government. This simply means that residing in the United States does not automatically put an alien under the jurisdiction of the United States. The reason mainly has to do with the fact the US Constitution does not give the federal government jurisdiction over a resident residing within a State -- only the States themselves was given this sole jurisdictional role.

It’s also equally important to understand that there is only one path for which an alien can come under the jurisdiction of the United States for purposes of citizenship: Through the process of naturalization that, among other things, requires a person to renounce all allegiance to their country of origin. The Fourteenth Amendment framers did not recognize as a matter of law that an alien giving birth to a child within the limits United States, is by itself, an act of naturalization on the part of the mother. This is because the naturalization of aliens is a process of rules set forth in naturalization laws, and not something an individual can accomplish through their own acts outside of these rules of law.

The principle behind birthright is the same as it was before and after the adoption of the 14th amendment: Only a citizen can make a citizen through the process of childbirth. Any other avenue to citizenship requires an act of naturalization under naturalization laws or perhaps, by treaty. President Lincoln's Attorney General, Edward Bates, wrote a opinion dated November 29, 1862 that stated: "The Constitution itself does not make the citizens, it is, in fact, made by them."

We are fortuante to 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]

One significant highlight about what Sen. Howard says above is that he regards the clause as simply declaratory of the "law of the land already" and is a virtue of "natural law" and "national law." Why this is significant is because some have mistakenly argued that the Citizenship Clause was somehow rooted in Common Law.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment gives us the definition of what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means under the Fourteenth Amendment:

[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.[2]

Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull's construction:

Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]

In other words, only children born to American citizens can be considered citizens of the United States since only a American citizen could enjoy the "extent and quality" of jurisdiction of an American citizen now. Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the Constitution:

[Now], all this amendment [Citizenship Clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4]

No doubt in the Senate as to what the Citizenship Clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:

In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an embassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...[6]

The reason the language "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was chosen for the Citizenship Clause instead of the civil rights bill language that read "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed" was because Howard feared States could eventually impose a tax on Indian's, making them eligible for citizenship under the Fourteenth. Because of the language "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" required direct allegiance to the United States, Indian's would be disqualified because they owed their allegiance to their respective tribes which in return were considered foreign nations. In 1872 Sen. James K. Kelly sums up the clause and national law on the subject in the most clearest language that anyone could understand when he said "in order to be a citizen of the United States he must been not only be born within the United States, but born within the the allegiance of the United States."[7]

Further convincing evidence for the demand of complete allegiance required for citizenship can be found in the "Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America," an oath required to become an American citizen of the United States. It reads in part:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen...

Of course, this very oath leaves no room for dual-citizenship, but that is another troubling disregard for our National principles by modern government. Fewer today are willing to renounce completely their allegiance to their natural country of origin, further making a mockery of our citizenship laws. In fact, recently in Los Angeles you could find the American flag discarded for the flag of Mexico in celebration after taking the American Citizenship Oath.

It's noteworthy to point out a Supreme Court ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), where the court completely discarded the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause scope and intent by replacing it with their own invented Citizenship Clause. The court in effect, ruled that Fourteenth Amendment had elevated citizenship to a new constitutionally protected right, and thus, prevents the cancellation of a persons citizenship unless they assent.

Unfortunately for the court, Sen. Howard effectively shoots down this feeble attempt to replace his clause with their own homegrown Citizenship Clause. Firstly, Howard finds no incompatibility with expatriation and the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause when he says: "I take it for granted that when a man becomes a citizen of the United States under the Constitution he cannot cease to be a citizen, except by expatriation for the commission of some crime by which his citizenship shall be forfeited."

Secondly, Sen. Howard expressly stated, "I am not yet prepared to pass a sweeping act of naturalization by which all the Indian savages, wild or tame, belonging to a tribal relation, are to become my fellow-citizens and go to the polls and vote with me and hold lands and deal in every other way that a citizen of the United States has a right to do."

The question begs: If Howard had no intention of passing a sweeping act of naturalization--how does the court elevate Howard's Citizenship Clause to a new constitutionally protected right that cannot be taken away since this would certainly require a sweeping act with explicit language to enumerate such a new Constitutional right? Remember, the court cannot create new rights that are not already expressly granted by the Constitution.

A third problem for the court is the fact both Howard and Bingham viewed the Citizenship Clause as simply "declaratory" of what they regarded "as the law of the land already." This then requires flights of fantasy to elevate Howard's express purpose of inserting the Citizenship Clause as simply removing "all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States," and not to elevate citizenship to a new protected Constitutional right. Citizenship is a privilege, not a right as say the right to freedom of religion is, and therefore, can be taken away just as any other privilege can.

James Madison defined who America seeked to be citizens among us along with some words of wisdom:

When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuse. It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.[8]


What does it all mean?

In a nutshell, it means this: The Constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child’s birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child’s citizenship--not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child’s parents to Jury Duty–then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?

The framers succeeded in their desire to define what persons are, or are not, citizens of the United States. They also succeeded in making both their intent and construction clear for future generations of courts and government. Whether our government or courts will start to honor and uphold the supreme law of the land for which they are obligated to by oath, is another very disturbing matter.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes

[1]. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890
[2]. Id. at 2893
[3]. Id. at 2895
[4]. Id. at 2893
[5]. Id. at 2897
[6]. Id. at 1291
[7]. Congressional Globe, 42nd Congress (1872) pg. 2796
[8]. James Madison on Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, Feb. 3, 1790.



Permission is granted to use, copy or republish this article in its entirely only.

I too agree it's a real low stoop to keep using the kids as a means to break the law. I also get real tired of hearing about "for the sake of the children" when it's only pulled out to use on certain occations. Put it this way......if an American Citizen put their child in the danger many of these people do they'd be charging them with neglect and abuse. But as usual....it's just a standard set with laws they just pull out at random to enforce. To me it's not much difference than putting your child as a protective shield in front of you to keep enforcement of the law away.

If HRS came to your house with a dozen people to a room, drugs and guns and god only knows what else going on.......your kids would be packed up and shipped off and you would be in jail in a heartbeat.

Where was "for the sake of the children" for Katrina victims? They split families up and newborns from their parents. It's still a disgrace and they aren't flinching about tossing people in the street with children now.

Granted there was abuse of the funds by some people but I'm sure the higher-ups got more than their share from abuses as well. And you know darned well the illegals have abused this system beyond anything I've ever seen.

So to me it's a real tired over-used line that just doesn't do much more than tick me off that much more.

Anchor babies are not american citizens if their parents are not american citizens. Where do they get that from. Also they are minors in the custody of their illegal alien parents. If the parents are deported the children must go as well.