Illegals' children shouldn't be citizens
http://www.pe.com/localnews/opinion/loc ... .f386.html
Illegals' children shouldn't be citizens
09:39 PM PDT on Saturday, April 9, 2005
By EDWARD J. ERLER
Rep. Gary Miller, R-Diamond Bar, has introduced legislation that would deny automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens born in the United States. There is no doubt that Congress has the constitutional power to pass such legislation.
The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, provides the only definition of citizenship in the Constitution. It specifies "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." There are two requirements: born within the geographic boundaries of the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction. Obviously not all who are born within the geographic limits are citizens -- they must also be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Ohio, said that this meant "complete allegiance" and "owing allegiance" to no other country. This will not include, he said, "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, [or] aliens." Thus dual allegiance -- or dual citizenship -- would be disallowed by the jurisdiction clause.
The immediate question that arose in the 14th Amendment debates was whether Indians would become citizens. Everyone agreed that establishing citizenship of the newly freed slaves was the principal purpose of the amendment; but would it include Native Americans?
Howard said that Indians would not become citizens because while they were born in the United States, they owed allegiance to their tribes and were therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. This position was universally accepted as the proper construction of the new constitutional provision.
As early as the 1870s, Congress passed legislation to invite members of specific tribes to become American citizens. Here Congress was using its power to define who was within the reach of the jurisdiction clause. Any member of the specified tribe could accept the offer to become a citizen. And in 1924, Congress extended the offer of citizenship to all Native Americans; those who accepted the offer were thus brought within the jurisdiction of the United States by legislation.
Those who say that children of illegal aliens have automatic birthright citizenship are demanding for those children what was denied to Native Americans. Is it reasonable to believe that people who actively defy federal law by illegal entry have a constitutional right to confer the boon of American citizenship upon their children?
It is significant that the Supreme Court has never held that such a right exists. How birthright citizenship became the rule is something of a mystery. Congressional legislation tracks the 14th Amendment language and somewhere along the line it became an accepted fact that being born within the geographic limits of the U.S. was sufficient to confer citizenship. Miller's bill will restore the original understanding of the framers of the amendment -- simply being born within the geographic boundaries of the U.S. is not sufficient to confer citizenship.
In democracies, consent is the proper basis for citizenship. Birthright citizenship is a feudal -- not a democratic -- doctrine. Under the English common law, perpetual allegiance was said to be the duty of those who were born within the King's protection. This perpetual allegiance could never be abrogated. "Once a citizen of Britain, always a citizen."
But the American Revolution was a massive repudiation of the idea of perpetual allegiance. The Declaration of Independence announced that Americans were throwing off their "perpetual allegiance" to the King and basing "just government" on the "consent of the governed."
No one could be a citizen without his consent and no new citizens could be created without the consent of the entire nation. Birthright citizenship is not based on reciprocal consent -- the basis for citizenship adopted by the 14th Amendment.
Legislation that denies birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens will take away a powerful incentive for illegal entry. Women who cross the border to have their children born in the U.S. know the benefits that flow from citizenship.
To argue that economic opportunity, not citizenship, drives illegal entry simply ignores the economic advantages that accrue to citizenship. A child born to U.S. citizenship is eligible for a host of benefits and services that parents receive on their behalf. This guardianship also makes it less likely that the families will ever be deported. Citizenship is the great prize.
illegal's children shouldn't be citizens
:( What a mess this country has become. The people we should depend on, are turning their backs on us. Everyone is looking out for themselves. Population is growing so rapidly that its out of control. Illegal women are dropping babies like water, so they can live here. They get more money and benefits than most of our elderly citizens. NO, these illegals that crawl over our borders, should not automatically become citizens. :twisted:
illegal's children shouldn't be citizens
:roll: The bulk of illegal aliens are from Mexico. Their children should also be illegal.
