Bitter Debate Over 'Birthright Citizenship'

[NVMojo]

December 26, 2005

NEW YORK (AP) - A proposal to change long-standing federal policy and deny citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants on U.S. soil ran aground this month in Congress, but it is sure to resurface - kindling bitter debate even if it fails to become law.

At issue is "birthright citizenship" - provided for since the Constitution's 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.

Section 1 of that amendment, drafted with freed slaves in mind, says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

Some conservatives in Congress, as well as advocacy groups seeking to crack down on illegal immigration, say the amendment has been misapplied over the years, that it was never intended to grant citizenship automatically to babies of illegal immigrants. Thus they contend that federal legislation, rather than a difficult-to-achieve constitutional amendment, would be sufficient to end birthright citizenship.

more...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2005/dec/26/122607813.html

[wakeme2008]

1. What do they not understand about

All persons born

:grr:

[sabbat hunter]

2. dupe post

duplicated here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5691360

[porkrind]

3. Why is this bad?

Some conservatives in Congress, as well as advocacy groups seeking to crack down on illegal immigration, say the amendment has been misapplied over the years, that it was never intended to grant citizenship automatically to babies of illegal immigrants.

This sounds reasonable to me. What would be the argument that if someone breaks the law to sneak into America and have their baby, that they should be entitled to citizenship? There are lots of immigrants wanting to come to the U.S. by legal means. Why not admit them first and tighten our porous borders to illegals?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

4. You seriously want to amend the consitution...

...to prevent a couple of thousand (hell, even a couple tens or hundreds of thousands) Mexican babies from being US Citizens?

[porkrind]

5. Why would it require an amendment?

It seems to be merely a question of interpretation.

Also, what is your argument that they are entitled to be US citizens?

[Dr.Phool]

9. Sounds like a question of reading comprehension.

[Thom Little]

11. How can you ignore the plain words of the Constitution?

The 14th Amendment flatly states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." You may not like it but that's what it says. The only way around that is to absurdly argue that "all persons" doesn't mean all.

The Constitution says what it says. You can't just ignore that. If you resort to ignoring the plain words of the Constitution then the whole document becomes meaningless. If you don't like what it says then amend it.

[porkrind]

15. You have a point.

Thanks.

[depakid]

6. Because it's not only xenophobic

but in many regards, it denies America's status as a nation of immigrants- AND it invites repressive policies that people fell for ar various times with ethnic or religious groups like the Irish. Jews, Eastern Europeans and Asians.

There's no way to stop the flow of labor over the border. Period. Get used to it.

And while you're at it, respect the constition.

[porkrind]

7. I don't agree.

Why get hostile and pissy with me? I'm just asking a question.

There are lot's of people wanting to emigrate legally. Why give preference to lawbreakers? It seems that if we want to honor our immigrant past, we should do it legally.

[depakid]

12. No one is give "preference" to undocumented workers

I'm just being realistic- and you most assuredly are not.

I hear that argument a lot from people who don't know much (if anything) about immigration- and I'm sorry if I sound pissy- but it's one of those things that has REPEATEDLY led to unintended (and frequently counterproductive) results.

What are you going to do- build a Berlin wall around America? Try asking the Border Patrol what happened during operation gatekeeper. They'll make a funny face and sneer at you.

Denying people natural citizenship will open up a huge can of worms and do nothing to prevent the flow of unauthorized labor into the US.

Odd that with NAFTA- we encourage the free flow of capital (largely out of the US)- but resist allow a freer flow of labor. The INS can show you that a large majority of people would prefer to go home after seasonal work.

[porkrind]

14. Thanks for the reply,

And you are being pissy. Don't be rude to me and then apologize in the same post, it doesn't make me want to read your reply, and it brings down the level of DU. Also, consider that you might not know everything.

[depakid]

16. fair enough

I don't even come close to knowing everything. But this is a profoundly bad idea.

[Dr.Phool]

8. First of all, the legislation would be unconstitutional on it's face.

The Constitution reads "ALL PERSONS BORN". No if, and's, or maybe's.

[dflprincess]

10. Perhaps I'm misreading your post,

but the way it's worded seems to imply that the parent is given citizenship. Only the baby, by virture of being born in the U.S. is a citizen. In fact, the parent can still be deported for being undocumented, but the child would have the right to stay (though I can't quite imagine a parent leaving their infant) or eventually return to the U.S. as a citizen.

[porkrind]

13. No, you're reading it right.

I understand that the parents do receive citizenship, just the child. Also, thanks for being civil in your reply. I really am just asking a question here as to what the argument is that the child of illegal aliens should be given US citizenship. It seems to me that they should get in line behind other legal applicants.

[dflprincess]

18. I'm pretty sure it's just the child.

A few years ago I worked with a guy who was here orginally on a work visa (as was his wife). They had applied for permanent residency and the INS was very slowly processing those documents. In the meantime, they had a baby who was, of course, a citizen. He was getting very nervous about how long the INS was taking on his new paperwork because his work visa was about to run out (his wife had more time) and he would have to leave the country when that happened regardless of where the INS was with his permanent residency application. I asked him if it didn't make a difference that his daughter was a citizen and the answer was no. In the end, I got him to call Wellstone's office and they helped get the paperwork expedited. When I spoke to Wellstone's aide, I also mentioned that he had a child who was born here and the aide told me that didn't help at all.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

20. Well, Japan doesn't have birthright citizenship, and here's the result:

In order to be a Japanese citizen, you have to be on the family register of a Japanese citizen. Until the late 1980s, only the children of a Japanese father could get citizenship, so children with Japanese mothers and non-Japanese fathers could not be citizens unless the parents were unmarried, in which case the child could go onto the mother's family register as illegitimate. Under the current law, either the father or the mother can give a child Japanese citizenship.

The problem arises when neither parent is a Japanese citizen. There's a large Korean minority, most of whom were brought over as slave laborers in the 1920s and 1930s. They are now on their third and fourth generation, and most of the last couple of generations have never been to Korea and don't speak the language. However, unless they choose to be "naturalized" (which is not easy), they are considered citizens of whichever part of Korea their ancestors came from, North or South, and have to travel on Korean passports. If they commit a crime, they can be deported to North or South Korea. Other smaller minority groups, such as Chinese and Turks (?--Yeah, I know, I'm not sure how they got there) face the same problems.

It's also tricky when the parents are of different nationalities, as is increasingly possible with Japan becoming an illegal and legal temporary work magnet for the rest of Asia. The child can end up stateless.

Having seen the complications that the Japanese system can give rise to, I prefer ours.

Sure, it's possible for foreigners to end up with a baby who's a U.S. citizen, but the spectre of hordes of pregnant Mexican women crossing the border to have babies is a right-wing fantasy. Actually, I've known Europeans with children born here who make sure to get their children properly registered in the Old Country so that they have an alternative to U.S. citizenship.

[Demeter]

21. Since Illegal Immigrants Today Are Treated As Slaves Were

it makes perfect sense to me to leave the policy as it is.

[happyslug]

17. Not only the 14th Amendment, but the Constitution itself and the DOI.

While the Constitution does NOT grant birth Citizenship it has been characteristics of US law since BEFORE the Declaration of Independence (DOI) and it fact the refusal to grant such citizenship was one of the Grievances in the Declaration of Independence.

From the Declaration of Independence (please note "He" means King George III):

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

To solve this problem the Constitution gave Congress the Control of Citizenship and except for a brief period late 1790s it has been granted to people who have levied in the US Five years (In the Alien and Sedition Acts Citizenship required longer than Five years, but was Reversed when Jefferson became President). Note the Federalists under John Adams did not think the Constitution WITHOUT THE 14TH amendment cold forbid birth Citizenship, for if they had the Alien Act would have been extended to such home born "Aliens".

Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

[dflprincess]

19. Yet, despite the 14 Amendment

it wasn't until 1924 that a law was passed that made American Indians citizens. Go figure.

Personally, I don't have a problem with a child born in the U.S. (or its territories or protectorates) being a citizen. I would imagine there's a great many of us that are citizens because we had an ancestor who crossed the border when they shouldn't have. I know there were many Irish immigrants (during the famine) who were not allowed to leave their ships when they docked in Boston and New York who got then got off the boats when they stopped in Nova Scotia. I don't know if that's what happened to my ancestors, but I do know they came to America by way of Nova Scotia (and they didn't stay in Canada long) so it is possible that, at least on my mother's side, I'm descended from people who were originally denied entry to the U.S.