Former Reagan/Bush Official Defends Birthright Citizenship

[alp227]

In a February 10 Washington Times op-ed, Center for Equal Opportunity president and general counsel Roger Clegg, a former deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan and Bush administrations, defended birthright citizenship, writing that "he text of the 14th Amendment strongly indicates that it is unconstitutional to deny citizenship to children born in the United States on the grounds that their parents are illegal immigrants." Clegg further wrote: "The question is whether someone born in the United States to parents who are here illegally is a U.S. citizen. And the text says that the answer is yes, unless that baby is not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States."

As Media Matters has noted, right-wing media have repeatedly attacked birthright citizenship, claiming that the 14th Amendment was not meant to apply to children of immigrants.

Full story: http://mediamatters.org/blog/201102110003

[polichick]

1. Aren't they arguing that it was not meant to apply to children of...

ILLEGAL immigrants - not simply immigrants?

[alp227]

3. yes which is why some are suggesting reform requiring a parent to be legal resident/citizen

[polichick]

4. It makes sense to me that it wasn't meant to apply to those entering illegally...

That reform just seems logical - though I don't trust the motives of right wingers on this issue.

[alp227]

5. that's been tried in the Dominican Republic

causing generations of stateless citizens because the government decided to do it ex post facto (which the constitution in America doesn't allow) ("In Dominican Republic, Haitians Grapple With 'Stateless' Limbo")

Still, I doubt that eliminating birthright citizenship will help curb illegal immigration - realize that you gotta target the employers hiring those people for low wages too.

[polichick]

6. I agree - targeting employers is the way to go. nt

[atreides1]

7. Not really

The 14th Amendment was ratified 24 years before the Immigration Act of 1891...

Text

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

So, show me in the text of the Amendment where it supports your assumption.

[polichick]

8. Show me where it says that it applies to the children of those entering illegally...

Like I said, it makes sense to me that it wasn't meant that way - just like it makes sense to me that the founders didn't intend for citizens to be carrying the kinds of weapons we have on the streets now.

[OHdem10]

2. Sensible Republicans are speaking up, Thank Goodness.

[LuvNewcastle]

9. What ever the intention of those who

drafted it, the amendment says what it says. Just because there are some unintended consequences doesn't mean the amendment isn't legal. If Congress doesn't agree with what it says, a new amendment should have to be passed.