New Arizona law against illegals : no automatic citizenship for children born of illegals

Originally posted by sdcigarpig

Originally posted by broahes
When did we get rid of section 1 of the 14th amendment?

I was waiting for someone to bring up the 14th amendment into this argument. The 14th amendment was passed, not passed with the thought that a foriegn national to come and give birth here, giving their child automatic citizenship, but was to allow for those who were born of former slaves to be citizens of the United States of America. That is all it was suppose to do, and to prevent the deportation of citizens to other countries, or the denial of rights to those who were of African descent.
For far too long this has been exploited and abused by foriegn nationals to get into the country and it is time that this loophole be closed. If they want to be citizens, come through the front door, like all of the other legal immigrants, not sneak in and break the laws.

The 14th Amendment was not intended to grant citizenship to babies of illegal aliens and THE SUPREMES COURT HAS NEVER SAID SO. In 1986 ? Congress passed an amnesty which in violation of the Constitution did give citizenship to illegal alien babies.


en.wikipedia.org...
The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" indicates that there are some exceptions to the universal rule that birth on U.S. soil automatically grants citizenship.

Two Supreme Court precedents were set by the cases of Elk v. Wilkins[7] and United States v. Wong Kim Ark.[8] Elk v. Wilkins established that Native American tribes represented independent political powers with no allegiance to the United States, and that their peoples were under a special jurisdiction of the United States. Children born to these Native American tribes therefore did not qualify for automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Indian tribes that paid taxes were exempt from this ruling; their peoples were already citizens by an earlier act of Congress, and all non-citizen Native Americans (called "Indians") were subsequently made citizens by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

In Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a man born within the United States to foreigners (in that case, Chinese citizens) who were lawfully residing in the United States and who were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power, was a citizen of the United States.

Under these two rulings, the following persons born in the United States are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and thus do not qualify for automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment:

* Children born to foreign diplomats

* Children born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States

* Children born to Native Americans who are members of tribes not taxed (These were later given full citizenship by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.)

reply to post by AllIsOne


I support SB 1070...but this? This is 14th Amendment case, or seems like something that the Federal Government has jurisdiction over. Do I agree with it being that way? No

I wish 14th Amendment was revisited. But Arizona seems to be reaching on this.

I don't appreciate attempts that attempt to ignore very BASE Amendments to the Constitution.

Like I said, SB 1070 is fine, this seems too reaching.

For a number of years (some may still do it) there were hospitals in Calif that would not give birth certificates to people that they believed would not pay the bill.

They did record the birth certificates with the county so they were breaking no laws but the parents never got a copy till the bill was paid.

Most illegal did not know how to get a copy from the county (or were afraid to)so it made it hard to prove there kids were born in the US.

Arizona has the right to ask for proper identification from anyone that wants a copy of a birth certificate.
and they can ask that hospital not longer give out a copy.

This will make it hard for illegals to get copies of there kids birth certificate if they don't have legal ID.
But it would break no laws.

reply to post by Prove_It_NOW


I don't believe the 14th amendment protects illegal aliens children.. but ya, Arizona has no right denying people citizenship.

reply to post by Vitchilo


The state has zero say in the matter of who becomes a U.S. citizen and when and it is ignorant and stupid to even attempt such a law. It also has no authority to violate the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Many of us may not like this unique American reality, but it is enshrined within the Constitution itself and if folks want to change it, they ned to succeed in getting an amendment passed.

I am a little tired of all the people who pick and choose things they like and don't like about the Constitution, but don't have the honor or integrity to do the necessary things to change the Constitution. They are always looking for some shortcut lazy way out of inconvenient elements of the Constitution.

To me it seems as if some of you simply want to torture the illegal immigrants. You want them to hide and you want their children to live in fear. Do you gain anything from this? Is it only special interests that gain from this? Maybe if the American establishment didn't screw over Latin American nations so many times there wouldn't be so many problems with illegal immigration.

If anyone comes to America and are not legal it does not benefit others , Everyone that is born already in America has to work hard to get a good job .

Citizenship is not Just crossing a border , I take my citizenship for granted because my family has lived here for hundreds of years, everyone should be able to live in the united states as long as they are legal . If there not legal they already broke the law .

reply to post by die_another_day


By making "life harder" on them, they are less likely to sneak into the country. At the same time, this country needs to make LEGAL immigration much easier, stream lining the process. Make a blanket cap of total immigrants allowed from each region of the World and enforce the cap, while removing much of the red tape.

But for Illegals I have no sympathy, I could care less how hard we make life for them, until they go home and try to come back the legal way.

reply to post by Vitchilo


I really do not think this is a good concept due to the fact when it comes down to it more than half of the people posting on this thread for the reversal, is the true fact that if they are American and it is likely that they are descendants of immigrants and if the 14th amendment never existed they themselves wouldn't be citizens. Its got me really twisted.

God Bless America & Deny Ignorance.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by spmc215]

Originally posted by Prove_It_NOW
reply to post by AllIsOne

 

I don't appreciate attempts that attempt to ignore very BASE Amendments to the Constitution.

It's always interesting to see how people pick and choose from the law buffet. You call the 14th a "base amendment". What about the basic need for a country to protect its border?

Why don't we treat the problem at its core and start with proper border control. As by:
Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code

Just another bill by the Bigot Wife beater and Neo Nazi supporter Russell Pearce nothing new.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 28-5-2010 by XNeMeSis21]

As far as I am concerned this amendment has already gone to the wind: It says

" it forbids states from denying any person liberty or property, without due process of law"

Might I remind you all that it never states anywhere in that amendment that you have to BE FILTHY Bunk ass rich to get the property, yet, how many people do you see broke and without housing simply because they can't afford it.
We all are denied this unless we have thousands upon thousands of dollars or immaculate credit(which in this day and age is about as likely as immaculate conception!) to purchase this stuff, which means the poor ARE DENIED THIS!!!
End of point!

And might I remind everyone of the total lack of respect they show the country and our constitutionwhen they enter illegaly...without due process.
[edit on 28-5-2010 by ldyserenity]

[edit on 28-5-2010 by ldyserenity]

[edit on 28-5-2010 by ldyserenity]

[edit on 28-5-2010 by ldyserenity]

I understand the reasoning behind this law, we in Ireland had as part of our constitution that every person born on the island of Ireland was and Irish citizen, which was fine, until about half of Nigeria arrived :S

I don't understand the big hullaballoo about this law being racist etc, IMO it's not, it's simply an affirmation of a state's right to protect itself, how is that wrong? I've never visited America (would love to someday) but you are a great nation full of great folk, how is it wrong to ask that people have the common courtesy to apply for permission to settle in your country rather than just turn up? I appreciate that Central / South America has it's share of woes, but surely it's not asking too much for some good manners?

We recently changed our laws so that they no longer state that anyone born on the island of Ireland is an Irish citizen, however the damage was already done, sadly, political correctness has the government and media running around like headless chickens here, a prime example is of a Nigerian woman who claimed asylum in Ireland (even though European law states that you must claim asylum in the first country you land in) she claimed that her daughter died due to female genital mutilation, however, it's been since proved that the daughter she claimed died never existed in the first place! and, in a recent court hearing, the woman claimed again that a different child died in the same manner, this was also disproved (with documentation from her home country), this ended up costing the Irish tax payer millions of Euro!!! I fear that America is in for similar treatment if you fail to stand up and defend your borders and your sovereign rights as American tax payers to get value for your money, it's not racist to defend your lands from an invasion, military or otherwise!!!

Many Polish people came to Ireland in the good times, and many still remain, but I have no beef with them as they are great workers and they came here to actually work, just as many Irish went to America years back, they worked and bettered themselves, but I don't believe that they went to get unemployment benefits or scrounge off the system, and in the same vein, there are many Mexicans who wish to work hard and earn a good wage, sadly your system is encouraging too many to simply sit on their asses and get handouts, this bothers me greatly as we have the same issue with Nigerians in Ireland, and no doubt we both suffer the same situation, if you say anything negative (or realistic) about them then you are promptly branded a racist or bigot, this isn't fair, since when has it been immoral to tell the truth?

Anyway, greetings from Ireland, hopefully I've not offended too many, and hopefully I've voiced what many feel but were perhaps afraid to say for fear of branding

Al

Gotta love AZ for having the balls and common sense to make
this one into a law. Hope AZ prevails in their fight against illegal immigration.

Originally posted by AllIsOne

Originally posted by Prove_It_NOW
reply to post by AllIsOne

 

I don't appreciate attempts that attempt to ignore very BASE Amendments to the Constitution.

It's always interesting to see how people pick and choose from the law buffet. You call the 14th a "base amendment". What about the basic need for a country to protect its border?

Why don't we treat the problem at its core and start with proper border control. As by:
Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code

From the 14th Amendment. 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.

This law has been around since the mid 1800's. That's what I meant by "base"...as in long held standing.

If a politician or state want to challenge the 14th, I suggest they do so LEGALLY and within our system. There are procedures for revisiting an amendment.

SB 1070 seems Constitutional on it's face...I have no problem with it.

But a STATE making a law against 14th amendment law, is pushing the unconstitutional envelope.

And if you think I wouldn't agree with you on Illegal Immigration, please refer to the latest threads of I started.

Originally posted by broahes
When did we get rid of section 1 of the 14th amendment?

Section 1 says:
"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."

Arizona can't deny citizenship to the anchor baby, but they can make sure that the parents are not given citizenship.

That would be the smart way to do it. It might create some temporary problems with foster children but once the illegals see that anchor babies are not an end run around immigration laws then they'll stop using anchor babies categorically.

Originally posted by die_another_day
To me it seems as if some of you simply want to torture the illegal immigrants. You want them to hide and you want their children to live in fear. Do you gain anything from this? Is it only special interests that gain from this? Maybe if the American establishment didn't screw over Latin American nations so many times there wouldn't be so many problems with illegal immigration.

Maybe, Just Maybe, We're tired of them thinking we owe them some thing for coming to our country Illegally and having a few babies and then they grow up and carry signs much like these you see here.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b021d831921c.jpg[/atsimg]

What, Please tell me what we did to the Latino Countries you are referring to, or are you just mouthing some thing you heard?
edit to add: That picture was taken when the children should have been in school.



[edit on 29-5-2010 by guohua]

[edit on 29-5-2010 by guohua]

reply to post by djvexd

Seeing how citizenship is applied and given by the federal gov't this is nothing more than grand-standing. I agree with the bill, but they must really think anger and desperation will override common sense.

The government and common sense have nothing to do with one another. The government hates common sense and common sense would toss the government out on it's ear given the chance.