GOP wants to end automatic citizenship for people born in America

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It's been automatic ever since the 14th amendment became law in 1868. These bozos think they can undo a constitutional amendment with a regular bill. Oh well, they control everything, and don't have to follow the Constitution, so they're probably right.

Here's the 14th amendment that these Republicans want to ignore.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The bill has 77 co-sponsors. Sorry, htmldon, there are a lot of Gilchrists in your party.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/13352282.htm

[Joe Republic]

I don't see much of a problem with it.  Many would-be immigrants decide to wait until the wife/girlfriend is ready to pop before heading over to the US for a quick vacation.  Once the kid is born, they suddenly have an American citizen, and the rest of us have a few more immigrants.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don't see much of a problem with it.  Many would-be immigrants decide to wait until the wife/girlfriend is ready to pop before heading over to the US for a quick vacation.  Once the kid is born, they suddenly have an American citizen, and the rest of us have a few more immigrants.

You have to be 18 to petition to bring in family members.

[Emsworth]

Jfern is correct. Everyone born in the United States is constitutionally entitled to citizenship, except children of ambassadors. (Untaxed Native Americans were formerly considered an exception as well, but now all Indian tribes are subject to taxation.) There was even a Supreme Court case that affirmed this principle: U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. No bill passed by Congress may change this rule.

Aside from constitutional issues, the bill is a very good idea.

[Joe Republic]

Well I learned something today.

[MODU]

It's easy enough to fix the 14th amendment to bring it in-line with reality.  Congress just has to get the balls to do what's right, and not pander to the Latino vote.

[Gabu]

I've never quite understood this notion of someone being born in America becoming a citizen, even if neither of the parents are citizens.  Where did it come from?

[A18]

JFraud is of course ignoring the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" line, which is what the bill's proponents say excludes illegal immigrants.

They're wrong, yes, but his post does nothing to address why they're wrong. It was actually him that was hopelessly confused.

[Emsworth]

I've never quite understood this notion of someone being born in America becoming a citizen, even if neither of the parents are citizens.  Where did it come from?

It comes from English common law. According to English law, the nationality of the parents was irrelevant; all that mattered was where the child was born. Anyone born inside England was considered a subject of the king, even if the parents were aliens. Similarly, anyone born outside England was considered an alien, even if his parents were English.

(It is true, there were a few narrow exceptions to this general rule; for example: the children of diplomats.)

[A18]

I've never quite understood this notion of someone being born in America becoming a citizen, even if neither of the parents are citizens.  Where did it come from?

"In the beginning . . ." You have to remember what was going on in the US when this was written.  Residents of the colonies  were still citizens of England.  The residents had to be naturalized as citizens of the US after the war was won.  To ensure there was no confusion, those born to the naturalized citizens were automatically citizens as well.  What people tend to overlook is the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction," since there were laws regarding how citizens were to be naturalized.  Just "being here" didn't count.  However, at some point in our history, we lost sight of that and became "the nice country" and just gave citizenship away to every baby that popped out of an illegal alien.

What a thoroughly ridiculous post. The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted after the Civil War.

[MODU]

I've never quite understood this notion of someone being born in America becoming a citizen, even if neither of the parents are citizens.  Where did it come from?

"In the beginning . . ." You have to remember what was going on in the US when this was written.  Residents of the colonies  were still citizens of England.  The residents had to be naturalized as citizens of the US after the war was won.  To ensure there was no confusion, those born to the naturalized citizens were automatically citizens as well.  What people tend to overlook is the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction," since there were laws regarding how citizens were to be naturalized.  Just "being here" didn't count.  However, at some point in our history, we lost sight of that and became "the nice country" and just gave citizenship away to every baby that popped out of an illegal alien.

What a thoroughly ridiculous post. The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted after the Civil War.

hahaha . . . you're right, I'm tired.    I'll fix it.

[opebo]

The only reason anyone intelligent on Republican side would support this would be to reduce the number of potential Democratic voters.   Of course the vast majority of them no doubt support it out of racism.

[Jake]

Again, it's nice the piece of paper says something, but if we can ignore it in thousands of other cases, we might as well here.

[memphis]

It's easy enough to fix the 14th amendment to bring it in-line with reality.  Congress just has to get the balls to do what's right, and not pander to the Latino vote.

Not pandering to the Latino vote means being a minority for years to come. Check out what happenned to the Republicans in California after Pete Wilson suggested denying services to immigrants. Do the Republicans really want to repeat this all over the nation?

[MODU]

It's easy enough to fix the 14th amendment to bring it in-line with reality.  Congress just has to get the balls to do what's right, and not pander to the Latino vote.

Not pandering to the Latino vote means being a minority for years to come. Check out what happenned to the Republicans in California after Pete Wilson suggested denying services to immigrants. Do the Republicans really want to repeat this all over the nation?

You forget, I could care less about "parties" and care more for what is right for the country.  If the Republicans would explain why they are for this, and teach the citizens who are unaware/uninformed (which is most of them) the situation, then it won't negatively impact them much than if they did it without an discussion with the public.

[jimrtex]

The resolution (HR 698) would define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to be limited to children born to citizens or permanent resident aliens.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[riceowl]

So.....what's bad about this, again?

[Gabu]

I've never quite understood this notion of someone being born in America becoming a citizen, even if neither of the parents are citizens.  Where did it come from?

It comes from English common law. According to English law, the nationality of the parents was irrelevant; all that mattered was where the child was born. Anyone born inside England was considered a subject of the king, even if the parents were aliens. Similarly, anyone born outside England was considered an alien, even if his parents were English.

(It is true, there were a few narrow exceptions to this general rule; for example: the children of diplomats.)

And... why was that the case?

I'm looking for a justification, not just vacuous precedent.

[Emsworth]

And... why was that the case?

I have no idea. It probably arose from feudal ideas relating to land and allegiance.

The resolution (HR 698) would define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to be limited to children born to citizens or permanent resident aliens.

Congress cannot decide what the definitions of the words in the Constitution are.

[ATFFL]

The resolution (HR 698) would define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to be limited to children born to citizens or permanent resident aliens.

Congress cannot decide what the definitions of the words in the Constitution are.

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

That would seem to say otherwise. 

[Emsworth]

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

That would seem to say otherwise. 

Section 5 allows Congress to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, not define its terms. Congress is not entitled to define the word "jurisdiction," just as it is not entitled to define the terms "due process" or "equal protection."

[phk]

So.....what's bad about this, again?

Do you hate cheap products dumbass?

[ATFFL]

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

That would seem to say otherwise. 

Section 5 allows Congress to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, not define its terms. Congress is not entitled to define the word "jurisdiction," just as it is not entitled to define the terms "due process" or "equal protection."

Sure they can.  And the Supreme Court gets to decide if their legislation is appropriate.

[A18]

The power to enforce is not the power to define; it is the power to provide remedies for.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

personally I think we need more immigration to reduce the percentage of blacks in the population. now I have nothing against black people but I find the fact that alot of black "civil rights" leaders like jesse jack(off)son act like everything is all white/black and they ignore the larger hispanic minority. I happen to be mixed race(hispanic/white) so don't be going around calling me a racist.