"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."… 14th Amendment, US Constitution
So, finally, we are going to get around to an attempt at correcting a problem this country has had since the end of the Civil War and Reconstruction. I refer, of course, to the "citizenship clause" of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. To be even more exact… the “Birthright Citizenship” clause.
Just because one is born within the boundaries of the US should not guarantee citizenship in this country. If the parents are citizens of the US… then fine. The child will automatically be a citizen. But, if the parents are not citizens of the US then the baby will be a citizen of the country to which his, or her, parents have allegiance.
We simply cannot afford the drain on our treasury caused by “Anchor Babies” any longer.(See Archives of November 27th, 2005, for Anchor Babies.)
U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, of Colorado, is pushing the idea of an amendment change, in the US House, and is having more success than one would think.
The 14th Amendment was proposed back in 1865 and was aimed at making former slaves full citizens of the US. Nobody, and I mean nobody, foresaw the influx of pregnant "illegal immigrants", into the United States, in order to have a baby and have that baby be an "instant citizen" and then reap the harvest from our generous welfare programs.
The colorful history of the 14th amendment leaves a huge question mark as to whether it is legal in the first place! It failed to get the votes of 3/4ths of the states, which is required under Article Five of the Constitution, for ratification. The Southern States, as well as the Border States, refused to ratify it. That ticked off the Congress and they answered with the Reconstruction Act of 1867 which, for all practical purposes, placed the Southern States under military law and suspended their citizenship in the US. In order for the Southern States to get their citizenship restored, they were forced to ratify the 14th amendment.
Well, sparks flew, up in New Jersey and Ohio, and they withdrew their ratification. Without the ratification from New Jersey, and Ohio, the Congress did not have the 3/4ths vote of the states required for ratification. Somehow, it didn’t matter to the Congress, of those days, and they went ahead and passed the 14th Amendment into law, anyway… without the constitutionally required number of states ratifying it!
I didn’t make this up. I couldn’t. This is pure, raw, US history. Look it up for yourselves.
So, here we are, in 2005, looking at a possible re-write of the 14th. It needs to be re-written badly.
It needs to be re-written simply, and it should spell out, simply, that if the parents of a newborn are citizens of the US, then so is the baby. If the parents are not citizens of the US, neither is the baby. That’s all. It’s that simple. But, the Left, and the Rinos, will fight this proposal, most likely, to death.
Here at IoF we wish Congressman Tancredo all the luck in the world and we urge our readers to write your Congressperson and Senators and ask them to support this proposal and lets correct a mistake made 138 years ago.
This needs to be done and done quickly!
“Longstreet”
Too simple. I addressed this in my post- http://thefloridamasochist.blogspot.com/2005/11/bad-idea.html
ReplyDeleteAlso go into my comments section and read one comment of mine that further elaborates on what I wrote.
You want to exclude everyone whose parents isn't a US citizen. Even a worse idea than confining it to illegals only. Ever recall the Ligaya Lagman story? She a legal alien, permanent resident of this country, her US born son died for this country in afghanistan. Then the oganization American Gold Star Moms denied Ligaya membership because she wasn't a US citizen.
Simple solutions for complicated issues= Bad and reckless.
Bill
Bill: I would agree with the American Gold Star Mothers.
ReplyDeleteWe have had all the legal mumbo -jumbo screwing up our contitution and federal lawss long enough. All it does is give us more "unintended consequences" like this one. Make it simple, black and white, no gray.
Thanks for dropping by and commenting! Glad to have you anytime!
Longstreet
I agree inprincipal with the concept of not granting citizenship status to foreign nationals who are born here by illegal design or unintended circumstance.
ReplyDeleteBut citizenship is more than just a stamp on a piece of paper. How many Americans truly exhibit citizenship by giving back to their country and communities with their time and money? How many actively participate in elections? Sadly, the numbers are way too low, leaving us with an apathetical citizenry who are content to clamor for more benefits of freedom while exerting the least amount of effort to retain it.
Jus soli
ReplyDeleteFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Jus soli (Latin for "right of the territory") is a right by which nationality or citizenship can be recognised to any individual born in the territory of the related state. It contrasts with jus sanguinis ("right of blood"). A relatively few number of nations grant jus soli to children born in a nation's territory.
Usually a practical regulation of the acquisition of nationality or citizenship of a state by birth on the territory of the state is provided by a derivative law called lex soli. Most states provide a specific lex soli, in application of the respective jus soli, and it is the most common means of acquiring nationality.
A frequent exception to lex soli is imposed when a child was born to a parent in the diplomatic or consular service of another state, on a mission to the state in question.
However, increasingly countries are restricting lex soli by requiring that at least one of the child's parents be a national of the state in question at the child's birth, or a legal permanent resident of the territory of the state in question at the child's birth, or that the child be a foundling found on the territory of the state in question. The primary reason for imposing this requirement is to limit or prevent people from travelling to a country with the specific intent of gaining citizenship for a child. The 27th amendment to the constitution of the Republic of Ireland was passed by referendum in 2004 for this purpose.
Sometimes, a country which extends jus soli will ignore it in the case of the child of a parent who is later deported. For example, there are several cases of deportation from Canada which have been bitterly contested because they involve a mother who has given birth in Canada and whose child is therefore a Canadian citizen. The government must then either separate the mother and her child upon deporting her, or else deport a Canadian citizen to a foreign country.
Jus soli is common in countries in the Americas, that wanted to develop and increase their own citizenry. Some countries that observe jus soli:
* Argentina
* Brazil
* Canada
* Jamaica
* Mexico
* United States
Chris: Thank you so much for the research. It is edifying and enlightening. But, Chris, this is an OPINION blog. And my opinion has not changed one whit.
ReplyDeleteWe must get control of this influx of illegal immigration draining our treasury.
Oh, one other thing, Sir, you do not, I repeat, you do not, want to get me started on Reconstruction, or Slavery, in the South. The American Slave trade was based in the North. We weren't even allowed to import slaves. The New England states did that. Northern hands are every bit as dirty as Southern hands when you refer to Slavery.
Sorry 'bout that! I'm just fed up with the "holier than thou" attitude of SOME people in this country about Slavery. The whole country was a slave state! It was constitutionally legal, for crying out loud! Some practiced it... and some did not. but it was there for anyone to decide for themselves.
I don't know how the duce I got off on this. My apologies!
Thanks for your comments, Chris!
Longstreet
Yeah, I'm not going to debate the slave trade and its origins, where they were auctioned off, etc., because I don't have the time to research it.
ReplyDeleteI realize this an OPINION blog (most are) - I wasn't arguing against changing the definition for citizenship. I am arguing that we must follow Constitutional procedure. You seem to be advocating legislating around it. I think that's a destructive position to take.
Look at it this way - it's the Republicans now, it'll be the Democrats later. They are both equally corrupt and both equally will work to get their policies in place whatever the cost. To support that has devestating consequences for this country. It's contemptible.
There are many blogs arguing against birthright citizenship as an opinion, and you won't see my name on any of them. I only write the ones that A. have incorrect information on the history; or B. advocate Natahan Deal's plan to circumvent the Constitution. It's a shame your opinion on that hasn't changed one whit.
The blogosphere is interesting - you can really see how people don't stick to their principles, especially the longer they blog. I hope next time a legislative proposal to circumvent a Constitutional amendment (maybe regarding the 2nd Amendment? Or the 4th?) comes up, you won't be decry it on Constitutional grounds.
That's the problem with not sticking to principles - an opinion lacks much credibility. People can't trust what you say, because they know when it serves your interest you will do whatever. It's a tragic situation today.
And just remember, given the public's view of the Republicans, you may be saying President Clinton again (something many of us want to avoid, even if just b/c she's too divisive just like Bush). You might want to batten down your principles now.
Chris: If I misled by seemng to advocate a LEGISLATiVE move around Constitutional procedure to change "Birhright Citizenship", then I most certainly apologise. For that is not what I intended.
ReplyDeleteI agree that we must follow the Constitution. What I AM advocating is an amendment to change the Constituion's definition of citizenship.
I believe any legislative attempt, other than a proposed amendment, would be rendered "unconstitutional" by the Supreme Court.
Currently, the constituion is being abused and there appears no relief, except, thru a Constitutional Amendment.
Thanks, again!
You are welcome here anytime. (Whether we agree, or not!)
Longstreet
My parents, and my grand parents were born in this country. Can I give up my citizenship? Don't get me wrong, I love this country (When it is heading in the right (left) direction) I just don't think as a liberal all these conservative reatards should have such a horrifying effect on my children's and my future.
ReplyDelete