Do Illegal Alien Children Have a "Birthright?"

[danefan]

Technically, I believe yes as i like to be consistenet in supporting the Constitution as written. However, this shouldn't preclude our government from either breaking the family apart by shipping the parents back over the border or amending the Constitution to eliminate the abuse of "anchor" babies....

I do not disagree with your deportation solution, not only because it is consistent with the law, but also because its consequences are less egregious than NOT enfocring the law.

However, I disagree with your presumption that the 14th Amendment, written after the Civil War to provide full citizenship for former slaves, grants or was ever intended to grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, who arrived here by deliberately breaking the law.

As George Will writes in his previously cited analysis, there were no laws restricting immigration at the time the amendment was written. "...If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration -- and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration -- is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not. ..."

I thought we weren't supposed to be figuring out what the words of the Constitution meant?

[danefan]

FIFY, Jon!

Seems like the activism/denial of the Constitution is coming from the Right on this.

You read my mind.

[Skjellyfetti]

is it reasonable to presume

Hypocrite.

[native]

Seems like the activism/denial of the Constitution is coming from the Right on this.

You read my mind.

Spin it as you wish, children. I expect nothing less.

[danefan]

You read my mind.

Spin it as you wish, children. I expect nothing less.

Where is the spin.

The plain langauge of the Constitution provides a test to determine whether someone is a citizen.

The 14th Amendment says that if:
(1) you are born in the US; and
(2) are subject to US jurisdiction,

then you are a US citizen.

There's no spin there.

[Col Hogan]

FIFY, Jon!

Seems like the activism/denial of the Constitution is coming from the Right on this.

No, clearly, per the Constitution, children born in this country to people here illegally are U.S. citizens...the parents are not...

The parents need to be deported...and as parents, they have a choice to make...leave their child here with someone who is here legally...or take the child back to the parents native country...once that child is of majority age, he/she can legally come to this country as a full citizen...

But having a child in this country is not an instant get-out-of-jail free card for the parents...

Nothing activist about that...

[native]

Spin it as you wish, children. I expect nothing less.

Where is the spin.

The plain langauge of the Constitution provides a test to determine whether someone is a citizen.

The 14th Amendment says that if:
(1) you are born in the US; and
(2) are subject to US jurisdiction,

then you are a US citizen.

There's no spin there.

Your "living breathing" mis-interpretation is nothing but modern-day, politically-motivated, typically progressive self-absorbed spin.

Here is the historical context, which may not be any more important to you "living Constitution" nuts than the Federalist Papers, but important to anyone who loves the Constitution, justice and intellectual integrity:

"...The explicit exclusion of Indians from birthright citizenship was not repeated in the 14th Amendment because it was considered unnecessary. Although Indians were at least partially subject to U.S. jurisdiction, they owed allegiance to their tribes, not the United States. This reasoning -- divided allegiance -- applies equally to exclude the children of resident aliens, legal as well as illegal, from birthright citizenship. Indeed, today's regulations issued by the departments of Homeland Security and Justice stipulate:

"A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment."

Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois was, Graglia writes, one of two "principal authors of the citizenship clauses in 1866 act and the 14th Amendment." He said that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant subject to its "complete" jurisdiction, meaning "not owing allegiance to anybody else." Hence children whose Indian parents had tribal allegiances were excluded from birthright citizenship...."

No spin. Straightforward historical context by the framers of the amendment.

[danefan]

Seems like the activism/denial of the Constitution is coming from the Right on this.

No, clearly, per the Constitution, children born in this country to people here illegally are U.S. citizens...the parents are not...

The parents need to be deported...and as parents, they have a choice to make...leave their child here with someone who is here legally...or take the child back to the parents native country...once that child is of majority age, he/she can legally come to this country as a full citizen...

But having a child in this country is not an instant get-out-of-jail free card for the parents...

Nothing activist about that...

I agree and I don't think Jon was referencing that.
I think he was referring to Native's convenient interpretation analysis (see above).

[native]

Seems like the activism/denial of the Constitution is coming from the Right on this.

No, clearly, per the Constitution, children born in this country to people here illegally are U.S. citizens...the parents are not...

The parents need to be deported...and as parents, they have a choice to make...leave their child here with someone who is here legally...or take the child back to the parents native country...once that child is of majority age, he/she can legally come to this country as a full citizen...

But having a child in this country is not an instant get-out-of-jail free card for the parents...

Nothing activist about that...

You are a smart and fair minded guy who has fallen into the trap of accepting conventional wisdom, Colonel. If you truly believe that the Constitution means that anyone born here is a citizen, then the children of diplomats would be citizens, and that is clearly not the case. Please read what the framers of the 14th Amendment actually wrote.

[danefan]

Where is the spin.

The plain langauge of the Constitution provides a test to determine whether someone is a citizen.

The 14th Amendment says that if:
(1) you are born in the US; and
(2) are subject to US jurisdiction,

then you are a US citizen.

There's no spin there.

Your "living breathing" mis-interpretation is nothing but modern-day, politically-motivated, typically progressive self-absorbed spin.

Here is the historical context, which may not be any more important to you "living Constitution" nuts than the Federalist Papers, but important to anyone who loves the Constitution, justice and intellectual integrity:

"...The explicit exclusion of Indians from birthright citizenship was not repeated in the 14th Amendment because it was considered unnecessary. Although Indians were at least partially subject to U.S. jurisdiction, they owed allegiance to their tribes, not the United States. This reasoning -- divided allegiance -- applies equally to exclude the children of resident aliens, legal as well as illegal, from birthright citizenship. Indeed, today's regulations issued by the departments of Homeland Security and Justice stipulate:

"A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment."

Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois was, Graglia writes, one of two "principal authors of the citizenship clauses in 1866 act and the 14th Amendment." He said that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant subject to its "complete" jurisdiction, meaning "not owing allegiance to anybody else." Hence children whose Indian parents had tribal allegiances were excluded from birthright citizenship...."

No spin. Straightforward historical context by the framers of the amendment.

You got me Native. ......I hate the Constitution, justice and intellectual integrity. You got me.

[danefan]

No, clearly, per the Constitution, children born in this country to people here illegally are U.S. citizens...the parents are not...

The parents need to be deported...and as parents, they have a choice to make...leave their child here with someone who is here legally...or take the child back to the parents native country...once that child is of majority age, he/she can legally come to this country as a full citizen...

But having a child in this country is not an instant get-out-of-jail free card for the parents...

Nothing activist about that...

You are a smart and fair minded guy who has fallen into the trap of accepting conventional wisdom, Colonel. If you truly believe that the Constitution means that anyone born here is a citizen, then the children of diplomats woiuld be citizens, and that is clerarly not the case. Please read what the framers of the 14th Amendment actually wrote.

YOU CANNOT EVEN FOLLOW YOUR OWN ARGUMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tell me again why a Diplomat's child isn't a citizen of the US even if born in the US?

[native]

...You got me Native. ......I hate the Constitution, justice and intellectual integrity. You got me.

Yeah, that was a little over the top, wasn't it?

But was it so offensive that it frightened you from actually considering the historical conext of the 14th Amendment and what its framers themselves actually wrote about it? Do historical context and the writings of the framers matter to you, danefan?

[native]

You are a smart and fair minded guy who has fallen into the trap of accepting conventional wisdom, Colonel. If you truly believe that the Constitution means that anyone born here is a citizen, then the children of diplomats would be citizens, and that is clerarly not the case. Please read what the framers of the 14th Amendment actually wrote.

YOU CANNOT EVEN FOLLOW YOUR OWN ARGUMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tell me again why a Diplomat's child isn't a citizen of the US even if born in the US?

Why don't you tell the rest of us, danefan? A diplomat's child is not a citizen according to how the law is interpreted and enforced, but you are the one who claimed that the Constitution is so crystal clear on the subject. Why the disconnect?

[danefan]

YOU CANNOT EVEN FOLLOW YOUR OWN ARGUMENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tell me again why a Diplomat's child isn't a citizen of the US even if born in the US?

Why don't you tell the rest of us, danefan? A diplomat's child is not a citizen according to how the law is interpreted and enforced, but you are the one who claimed that the Constitution is so crystal clear on the subject. Why the disconnect?

I already told you 5 or so posts above this one. The 14th Amendment provides a clear two-part test for Citizenship.

[danefan]

...You got me Native. ......I hate the Constitution, justice and intellectual integrity. You got me.

Yeah, that was a little over the top, wasn't it?

But was it so offensive that it frightened you from actually considering the historical conext of the 14th Amendment and what its framers themselves actually wrote about it? Do historical context and the writings of the framers matter to you, danefan?

Legislative history matters to me when the plain language of law (in this case, the Constitution) does not provide the answer.

[native]

Why don't you tell the rest of us, danefan? A diplomat's child is not a citizen according to how the law is interpreted and enforced, but you are the one who claimed that the Constitution is so crystal clear on the subject. Why the disconnect?

I already told you 5 or so posts above this one. The 14th Amendment provides a clear two-part test for Citizenship.

If it is so crystal clear as you have interpreted it, then why were the children born here of American Indians excluded from citizenship and why are the children born here of diplomats excluded from citizenship?

[native]

Yeah, that was a little over the top, wasn't it?

But was it so offensive that it frightened you from actually considering the historical conext of the 14th Amendment and what its framers themselves actually wrote about it? Do historical context and the writings of the framers matter to you, danefan?

Legislative history matters to me when the plain language of law (in this case, the Constitution) does not provide the answer.

The "plain language" as you have interpreted it does not account for the failure of our government to accord citizenship status to the children born here of foreign diplomats, or the previous failure to accord citizenship to the children born here of American Indians. Why not, danefan?

[Benne]

I already told you 5 or so posts above this one. The 14th Amendment provides a clear two-part test for Citizenship.

If it is so crystal clear as you have interpreted it, then why were the children born here of American Indians excluded from citizenship and why are the children born here of diplomats excluded from citizenship?

Just my quick understanding without referencing my memory here, but don't the articles specifically deal with native american tribes as independent nation? Obviously I thought that this had been amended, but originaly this would be the case against native americans being citizens. Somehow I think you knew that.

[danefan]

I already told you 5 or so posts above this one. The 14th Amendment provides a clear two-part test for Citizenship.

If it is so crystal clear as you have interpreted it, then why were the children born here of American Indians excluded from citizenship and why are the children born here of diplomats excluded from citizenship?

Are Diplomats subject to the jurisdiction of the US?

[danefan]

Look, Native, its clear your agenda here. You don't want children of illegal aliens born in the US to be US citizens. I get that. I also get that you can make an argument for that position.

But guess what, your argument does the exact thing that an argument for gay marriage rights does. It takes the plain language of the Constitution and interprets it in the way you need it to be interpretted using certain things to support it but not all the facts out there.

Its apparently OK for you to do it when it fits your agenda. But its treason for a liberal to do it to fit their agenda. Treason I SAY!

I'm done here. The Constitution provides a clear test for Citizenship. If you don't like it have your Congressman reintroduce the Citizenship Reform Act or heck even have him draft a Constitutional Amendment. That's your right. And that's where the beauty of the Constitution is found. Not in some dusty old books from 1787.

[native]

If it is so crystal clear as you have interpreted it, then why were the children born here of American Indians excluded from citizenship and why are the children born here of diplomats excluded from citizenship?

Are Diplomats subject to the jurisdiction of the US?

A legitimate question, danefan.

Is it your argument that diplomats and American Indians are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but illegal aliens are subject to U.S. jurisdiction? Does stealing across the border illegally cause someone to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States per the meaning of the 14th Amendment?

[JMU DJ]

I already told you 5 or so posts above this one. The 14th Amendment provides a clear two-part test for Citizenship.

If it is so crystal clear as you have interpreted it, then why were the children born here of American Indians excluded from citizenship and why are the children born here of diplomats excluded from citizenship?

Ever heard of the Indian Citizenship Act?

Diplomats and their families aren't subject to American law (diplomatic immunity) while everyone else in the Country is (legal or illegal). Thus, the Diplomats children are not subject to America according to the 14th.

[dbackjon]

If it is so crystal clear as you have interpreted it, then why were the children born here of American Indians excluded from citizenship and why are the children born here of diplomats excluded from citizenship?

Are Diplomats subject to the jurisdiction of the US?

nope

[native]

Look, Native, its clear your agenda here. You don't want children of illegal aliens born in the US to be US citizens. I get that. I also get that you can make an argument for that position.

But guess what, your argument does the exact thing that an argument for gay marriage rights does. It takes the plain language of the Constitution and interprets it in the way you need it to be interpretted using certain things to support it but not all the facts out there.

Its apparently OK for you to do it when it fits your agenda. But its treason for a liberal to do it to fit their agenda. Treason I SAY!

I'm done here. The Constitution provides a clear test for Citizenship. If you don't like it have your Congressman reintroduce the Citizenship Reform Act or heck even have him draft a Constitutional Amendment. That's your right. And that's where the beauty of the Constitution is found. Not in some dusty old books from 1787.

You almost got it right, danefan. I actually do not believe that the children born in the U.S. of illegal alien parents ARE U.S. citizens. I understand and respect the fact that you disagree. But just because your opinion is in the majority on this subject at this time does not make you right, or me wrong, or vica versa.

Give up on me, but don't give up so easily on your argument in favor of your position. Examine the arguments on the merits. You should be able to do so better than me. I am not being unfair or inconsistent in my analysis - at least you have not yet shown me to be. Don't be afraid to walk your positions through to their logical conclusions.

[BlueHen86]

I already told you 5 or so posts above this one. The 14th Amendment provides a clear two-part test for Citizenship.

If it is so crystal clear as you have interpreted it, then why were the children born here of American Indians excluded from citizenship and why are the children born here of diplomats excluded from citizenship?

If children of Native Americans are exempt, I think childen of Native Mexican's should be as well.