Thread: Opinion, AZ: Of birthrights and illegal immigration

Of birthrights and illegal immigration

East Valley (Arizona) Tribune
February 25, 2008 - 10:25AM

One of the most challenging issues in the national debate over illegal immigration is what to do about the children of such immigrants who gain automatic U.S. citizenship at birth.

Despite the wishes of anti-immigration extremists, the federal courts almost universally have agreed the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil except for the children of diplomats who have general immunity from all U.S. laws. But it’s fair to say that this amendment and companion federal legislation, originally written to protect the basic rights of blacks after the Civil War, have led to a series of unintended consequences that complicates modern immigration policy.

The United States is in the minority among countries that grant automatic citizenship to native-born children of immigrants. So it’s healthy to debate at the federal level whether the 14th Amendment should be modified or redefined to eliminate this birthright.

What isn’t healthy or reasonable is for a state to attempt to deny the very existence of any baby born on our shores. This includes an initiative petition drive in Arizona that seeks to prevent the issuing of birth certificates for children of illegal immigrants.

The initiative’s chairwoman, Della Montgomery, told Tribune writer Mark Flatten for a Feb. 10 story that the goal behind this movement is to force an eventual showdown before the U.S. Supreme Court that could lead to a new interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Other Arizona measures on illegal immigration have fared well with the federal courts so far. But we’re highly skeptical that this issue would play out as neatly as its backers expect.

More importantly, a birth certificate is the touchstone for a child’s entire future by explaining his or her first moments in this world. A birth certificate doesn’t have to guarantee any legal rights. But a certificate does explain exactly where a person was born and which parents created this child.

Reasonable people are weighing the best methods of enforcement to forcibly remove adult illegal immigrants or to encourage them to leave on their own, with or without their American-born children. This debate revolves largely around what’s likely to work without being overly burdensome on legal residents and what we can afford.

But a baby born to an illegal immigrant won’t suddenly disappear without a birth certificate, or become less of a concern for our society. Only the most cruel among us would suggest we should condemn a child to starvation or to a lack of shelter and medical care simply because they don’t have a certain government document.

At the same time, children of illegal immigrants would be punished for a parent’s crime, something that’s anathema to the American way, in a manner that would constantly disrupt their path from the schoolhouse to marriage to professional careers or vocations.

To refuse to issue a birth certificate is to say that we reject the limitless potential of an innocent child regardless of where he or she might be raised and later choose to live. Denial of a birth certificate implies this baby never should have been born.

It’s a morally wrong message of ill-intent that must be rejected by all people of good will, no matter where they stand on the larger question of illegal immigration.

http://www.vvdailypress.com/opinion/ill ... birth.html

the federal courts almost universally have agreed the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil except for the children of diplomats who have general immunity from all U.S. laws.

More OBL lies, the courts have never made this ruling.

So it’s healthy to debate at the federal level whether the 14th Amendment should be modified or redefined to eliminate this birthright.

And of course they have this exactly backwards. Nothing needs to be done to the 14th Amendment except follow it's original intention!

I guess they figure if you repeat a lie long enough people will think it is the truth.

Quote:

the federal courts almost universally have agreed the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil except for the children of diplomats who have general immunity from all U.S. laws.

This is not true. The Supreme Court held that in Wong Kim Ark that a child born in the US to foreign born parents should be considered a US Citizen, as it pertained to the particular facts of that case.

However, there was a distinction in Wong Kim in that his parents were LEGAL , non-citizens of the United States because of the Chinese Exclusionary Act which denied US Citizenship to those persons of Chinese Orgin. But his parents were in the US legally at the time of Wong Kims Birth.

Certainly, a distinction can be made today in that the Illegal invaders from Mexico and elsewhere are not here legally and are not entitled to US Citizenship because their initial entry was in violation of US Law. Therefore, the issue of automatic citizenship to those children in which the parents are in the United States ILLEGALLY at the time of birth has not been decided. It could be determined that in such cases, the child would inheret his or her father's citizenship regardless of birthplace.

This issue has not been decided and if it went before the Supreme Court, a completely different outcome is quite possible. The problem is getting the Supreme Court to hear the case.

the goal behind this movement is to force an eventual showdown before the U.S. Supreme Court that could lead to a new interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

I certainly hope it succeeds.

There is more to the Wong Kim Ark case. It was judicial activism because at the time Asians were prohibited by law from naturalizing, so this was a way "Progressive" Justices could get them citizenship. To do this the Justices had to do some legal gymnastics citing English Common Law.

Since Asians can now become naturalized US citizens, if this case were held today the ruling might go the other way.

[quote:3l2gwvab]There is more to the Wong Kim Ark case. It was judicial activism because at the time Asians were prohibited by law from naturalizing, so this was a way "Progressive" Justices could get them citizenship. To do this the Justices had to do some legal gymnastics citing English Common Law.

Since Asians can now become naturalized US citizens, if this case were held today the ruling might go the other way.[/quote:3l2gwvab]

Of course there is more to Wong Kim. In addition I believe I mentioned the fact they were not allowed to naturalize when I mentioned the Chinese Exclusionary Act. This is the law which prevented them from naturalizing.

The facts of Wong Kim were quite narrow and as such, the issue is not how it would be decided today, but rather whether or not the decision reached in 1898 was correct and if it extends to those parents who have no legal right to be in this country.

The distinguishing facts of this case is it did not address illegal aliens who had no legal right to be in the United States at the time of giving birth .

Clearly, you see that distinction

Originally Posted by NoBueno

The facts of Wong Kim were quite narrow and as such, the issue is not how it would be decided today, but rather whether or not the decision reached in 1898 was correct and if it extends to those parents who have no legal right to be in this country.

I would have to say no in both cases.

The distinguishing facts of this case is it did not address illegal aliens who had no legal right to be in the United States at the time of giving birth .
Clearly, you see that distinction

Sure I can see that distinction. I just wanted to let everyone know WHY the Supreme Court ruled the way they did in the first place, it was judicial activism. If Asians had been allowed to naturalize at the time, I think the justices would have ruled the other way, as they did in the earlier case of Elk vs US.

But a baby born to an illegal immigrant won’t suddenly disappear without a birth certificate, or become less of a concern for our society. Only the most cruel among us would suggest we should condemn a child to starvation or to a lack of shelter and medical care simply because they don’t have a certain government document.

Then why do we have so many Mexican consulates in the US? They issue birth certificates to children born to Mexican citizens. I believe ALL the latin american countries that have consulates here, do the same thing.

Originally Posted by safari

But a baby born to an illegal immigrant won’t suddenly disappear without a birth certificate,

Actually yes they will disappear, the illegals won't have them in the first place. Right now "immigrants" including illegals have 50% more children in the US than their country of origin, mainly because of all the benefits they get as automatic US citizens. Taking away those benefits will greatly reduce their birth rate.

ure I can see that distinction. I just wanted to let everyone know WHY the Supreme Court ruled the way they did in the first place, it was judicial activism. If Asians had been allowed to naturalize at the time, I think the justices would have ruled the other way, as they did in the earlier case of Elk vs US.

Well I do not know about judicial activism. I will take your word for it as I know it was a 6-2 decision in favor of Wong. I do agree that if the Chinese were allowed to naturalize , Wong would not have been before the court and Elk would have been the prevailing law at the time(was the prevailing law prior)

Elk was distinguishable in that it dealt with someone born in the United States, but born of a quasi-nation, that being an indian tribe, thus it was held he could not pledge his full allegiance to the US and was denied citizenship.

In any event, citizenship by descent was the prevailing view in US legal history prior to Wong. That's unfortunate because if that were law today, the anchor baby would be a non-issue.