Thread: Birthright citizenship will be target of GOP majority

'Birthright citizenship' will be target of GOP majority
November 18, 2010

By Rob Hotakainen
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — As one of its first acts, the new Congress will consider denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States.

Those children, who are now automatically granted citizenship at birth, will be one of the first targets of the Republican-led House when it convenes in January.

GOP Rep. Steve King of Iowa, the incoming chairman of the subcommittee that oversees immigration, is expected to push a bill that would deny "birthright citizenship" to such children.

The measure, assailed by critics as unconstitutional, is an indication of how the new majority intends to flex its muscles on the volatile issue of illegal immigration.

The idea has a growing list of supporters, including Republican Reps. Tom McClintock of Elk Grove and Dan Lungren of Gold River, but it has aroused intense opposition, as well.

"I don't like it," said Chad Silva, statewide policy analyst for the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California. "It's been something that's been a part of America for a very long time. … For us, it sort of flies in the face of what America is about."

Republicans, Silva said, are "going in there and starting to monkey with the Constitution."

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1868, guarantees citizenship to anyone born or naturalized in the United States. It was intended to make sure that children of freed slaves were granted U.S. citizenship.

While opponents say King's bill would clearly be unconstitutional, backers say the 14th Amendment would not apply. The amendment states that anyone born in the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a citizen.

King said the amendment would not apply to the children of illegal immigrants because their parents should not be in the country anyway. He said immigration law should not create incentives for people to enter the country illegally and that it's creating an "anchor baby industry."

"Many of these illegal aliens are giving birth to children in the United States so that they can have uninhibited access to taxpayer-funded benefits and to citizenship for as many family members as possible," King said.

An estimated 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in the United States in 2008 were the children of undocumented immigrants, according to an analysis of Census Bureau data by the Pew Hispanic Center done last year.

The issue is dividing Republicans, too.

"We find both this rhetoric and this unconstitutional conduct reprehensible, insulting and a poor reflection upon Republicans," DeeDee Blasé, the founder of Somos Republicans, a Latino GOP organization based in the Southwestern states, said in a letter to House Republican leaders.

Silva said the Republican plan is "not the fix," adding that the citizenship of children born to immigrants was never an issue during the immigration tide at the turn of the 20th century and that it shouldn't be now.

"That's our strength," he said. "And to start splitting hairs like that will only make the immigration issue worse."

Democratic Rep. Doris Matsui of Sacramento called King's plan "both unconstitutional and shortsighted."

"The 14th Amendment to the Constitution grants American citizenship to anyone born on American soil," she said. "I firmly believe we must reform the current immigration system, but we need to do so comprehensively with policies that respect our nation's history, strengthen our borders, and help our economy."

McClintock outlined his position last summer in a rebuttal to a newspaper editorial: "If illegal immigration is to be rewarded with birthright citizenship, public benefits and amnesty, it becomes impossible to maintain our immigration laws and the process of assimilation that they assure," he wrote.

McClintock noted that the United Kingdom, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, France and India have all changed their laws in recent years to require that at least one parent be a legal resident for the child to become a legal citizen.

Lungren, who served as California's attorney general from 1990 to 1998 introduced a similar bill in 2007, but it did not pass the House, which was controlled by Democrats at the time.

His bill called for defining what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. Lungren proposed that the clause would apply to any person born to a parent who is a citizen, a legal alien or an alien serving in the military.

www.miamiherald.com

I'm sure Obama would veto it.

Ethnocentrics, as usual. They have to focus on ethnicity and be special and distinct. These are truly the most ethnicity-obsessed group ever.

"I don't like it," said Chad Silva, statewide policy analyst for the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California. "It's been something that's been a part of America for a very long time. … For us, it sort of flies in the face of what America is about."

They can't call it the "Coalition for a Healthy California", it has to be the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California.

"We find both this rhetoric and this unconstitutional conduct reprehensible, insulting and a poor reflection upon Republicans," DeeDee Blasé, the founder of Somos Republicans, a Latino GOP organization based in the Southwestern states, said in a letter to House Republican leaders.

They can't just be Republicans, like other Republicans, they have be special and distinct, call themselves the Somos Republicans. Even have to have a Spanish name, couldn't possibly just have an English name. They are Latino, don't ya know!!!!

Hurrah for Republicans! And to those who can't read the US Constitution and use deliberate illiteracy to jump over the conditional phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", boo on you. You lose! The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means children of citizens and children of legal immigrants here with unexpired of the US and.or carrying papers to be here at the time of the birth. Since slavery is over and their children have long had citizenship, that provision in the 14th Amendment is really no longer applicable, and I personally think at some point we should amend the 14th Amendment to restrict citizenship to the children of US citizens period. I don't see a reason for automatic citizenship for anyone else at this point in time. The US Supreme Court Case, Kim Wong Ark, that granted US citizenship to him as a child of Chinese immigrants who left the US, never became citizens, hadn't been here for years and took their child with them back to China, who when he became adult wanted to come back as a US citizen changed long standing policy and served no valid purpose whatsoever.

First they say "Its not a big deal. Please dont come here to drop anchor babies."
Then they turn around and desperately try and stop fixing/correctly interpretting the 14th Amendment...

You know the left really wants Birthright Citizenship to not change so that the anchor babies can continue to be dropped at our expense...

Latino Coalition for a Healthy California

Now there's an oxymoron if ever I saw one.

"PaulRevere9 Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 10:44 pm Post subject: First they say
You know the left really wants Birthright Citizenship to not change so that the anchor babies can continue to be dropped at our expense... "

And vote Dem.

Good for the Republicans! At least they are beginning to listen to the will of the people and apply a little common sense. The constitution is pretty clear on this ..."and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...". I'm no rocket scientist but doesn't that pretty clearly imply that your parents must be in the country LEGALLY at the time of birth?

Originally Posted by Judy

Hurrah for Republicans! And to those who can't read the US Constitution and use deliberate illiteracy to jump over the conditional phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", boo on you. You lose! The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means children of citizens and children of legal immigrants here with unexpired of the US and.or carrying papers to be here at the time of the birth. Since slavery is over and their children have long had citizenship, that provision in the 14th Amendment is really no longer applicable, and I personally think at some point we should amend the 14th Amendment to restrict citizenship to the children of US citizens period. I don't see a reason for automatic citizenship for anyone else at this point in time. The US Supreme Court Case, Kim Wong Ark, that granted US citizenship to him as a child of Chinese immigrants who left the US, never became citizens, hadn't been here for years and took their child with them back to China, who when he became adult wanted to come back as a US citizen changed long standing policy and served no valid purpose whatsoever.

The issue in Wong Kim was the Chinese Exclusionary Act which prevented the parents from becoming citizens. No such policy or condition exists for today's illegal invaders. As you stated Judy, it has no relevance in the matter before us today, which is the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment for purposes it was never intended; erroneously conveying US citizenship to the spawn of those who entered this country in violation of a sovereign nation's established immigration laws.

Only a bamboozler with nefarious intentions could believe such an intentional violation of our sovereignty could result in the conveyance of US citizenship, arguably, the greatest gift on the face of this planet.

Why would the offspring of foreign diplomats specifically be excluded from receiving citizenship when they would have been in this country legally and probably people of good moral character and education? It’s because our founders understood conveying citizenship to the offspring of those parents whose might have loyalties elsewhere would be detrimental, ultimately putting this country in harms way.

Unfortunately, we are now witness to this almost everyday in this country. It happens when anchor babies and illegal invaders protest a 13 year old boy displaying the American flag on his bike while going to school, with the raza Superintendent siding with the invaders until challenged on it. It happens when millions of militant illegal invaders take to our streets, demanding rights and privileges for which only citizens are entitled while having the audacity to waive their beloved rag of mexico. Their behaviors will only become more militant and aggressive as their numbers increase.

In respect to the 14th Amendment, how is it that the offspring of a foreign diplomat is excluded from receiving birthright citizenship, but the spawn of two illegal invaders who breeched our borders in the middle of the night have the rights to receive full citizenship under the 14th Amendment?

If that makes sense to anyone, please explain it to me because I have yet been able to make sense of it.

"...In respect to the 14th Amendment, how is it that the offspring of a foreign diplomat is excluded from receiving birthright citizenship, but the spawn of two illegal invaders who breeched our borders in the middle of the night have the rights to receive full citizenship under the 14th Amendment?... "

Yes, it does make you wonder doesn't it? Those in power make up their own rules.

Originally Posted by NoBueno

Originally Posted by Judy

Hurrah for Republicans! And to those who can't read the US Constitution and use deliberate illiteracy to jump over the conditional phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", boo on you. You lose! The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means children of citizens and children of legal immigrants here with unexpired of the US and.or carrying papers to be here at the time of the birth. Since slavery is over and their children have long had citizenship, that provision in the 14th Amendment is really no longer applicable, and I personally think at some point we should amend the 14th Amendment to restrict citizenship to the children of US citizens period. I don't see a reason for automatic citizenship for anyone else at this point in time. The US Supreme Court Case, Kim Wong Ark, that granted US citizenship to him as a child of Chinese immigrants who left the US, never became citizens, hadn't been here for years and took their child with them back to China, who when he became adult wanted to come back as a US citizen changed long standing policy and served no valid purpose whatsoever.

The issue in Wong Kim was the Chinese Exclusionary Act which prevented the parents from becoming citizens. No such policy or condition exists for today's illegal invaders. As you stated Judy, it has no relevance in the matter before us today, which is the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment for purposes it was never intended; erroneously conveying US citizenship to the spawn of those who entered this country in violation of a sovereign nation's established immigration laws.

Only a bamboozler with nefarious intentions could believe such an intentional violation of our sovereignty could result in the conveyance of US citizenship, arguably, the greatest gift on the face of this planet.

Why would the offspring of foreign diplomats specifically be excluded from receiving citizenship when they would have been in this country legally and probably people of good moral character and education? It’s because our founders understood conveying citizenship to the offspring of those parents whose might have loyalties elsewhere would be detrimental, ultimately putting this country in harms way.

Unfortunately, we are now witness to this almost everyday in this country. It happens when anchor babies and illegal invaders protest a 13 year old boy displaying the American flag on his bike while going to school, with the raza Superintendent siding with the invaders until challenged on it. It happens when millions of militant illegal invaders take to our streets, demanding rights and privileges for which only citizens are entitled while having the audacity to waive their beloved rag of mexico. Their behaviors will only become more militant and aggressive as their numbers increase.

In respect to the 14th Amendment, how is it that the offspring of a foreign diplomat is excluded from receiving birthright citizenship, but the spawn of two illegal invaders who breeched our borders in the middle of the night have the rights to receive full citizenship under the 14th Amendment?

If that makes sense to anyone, please explain it to me because I have yet been able to make sense of it.

Thanks NoBueno and Judy for posting this info. I'm keeping a file of all info regarding the 14th Amendment/Anchor Baby issue. I thought I had read here sometime that the parent(s) in Wong Kim case was a LEGAL resident of U.S., tho not citizen. But the open-borders crowd doesn't care about the facts.