Correct opinion

[schnurrbart]

I love the way the repubs all think that THEIR opinion of the Founding Father's intent is what they say it is and everyone is biased, ignorant, a liar and/or unpatriotic.  Bill introduced today to let states decide on citizenship of new borns in this country.  Funny, citizenship is a federal issue and they want the states to handle it and marriage is a state's issue and they want the feds to handle that!!!

[BA Deere]

The Bleepin` Feds won`t handle it!  When the Feds don`t do their job, the States have to!! As to marriage, that shouldn`t be an issue, we have decades and hundreds of years with the way it was working fine. It`s just been the past 5 or so years that the nuts have taken over the asylum.

[schnurrbart]

Do you run it better than you do farming?  The feds do handle it.  EVERYONE born in this country is according to our constitution (you do remember that GD piece of paper don't you?) a citizen of the US.  I think that is what the Founding Fathers said and I think that is what they meant.  And, in fact, the Founding Fathers didn't even address this since none of them were alive at the time (1868) that it was added to the Constitution.

[ollie2655]

funny you mention the constitution--isnt this what the dumocrats have spent years trying to destroy--or you could run and hide --you do that so well

[BA Deere]

They were brought in here by FELONS!   Illegal aliens are breaking Federal Law, the kid born here is a FELON!  Here`s your choice punk, take this bus ticket to South Tiajuana ...or spent the next 20 years with no time off in Sheiff Arpaio`s work farm, then go back to May-he-co.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty41.htm   

Read and learn Schnurrbart!  Frosty Wooldridge tells how you Libs basterdized the 14 th Amendment and are destroying our country in the process.  Bart, if you idiots aren`t strung up for treason one day, it`ll be a miracle.

[dagwud]

Bart -  "EVERYONE born in this country is according to our constitution (you do remember that GD piece of paper don't you?) a citizen of the US.  I think that is what the Founding Fathers said and I think that is what they meant."

Truth is this is yet another of those grey areas our government seems to prefer to maintain.  The Constitution, in Article One, gives to Congress the power "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization."  Yet Congress seems willing to yet again let the courts establish the rules as opposed to clarifying them.  Heck I'm not sure what to think since our government and courts can't even seem to come to the same conclusion and as time goes by we see the interpretation of the rules change.

Citizenship in the United States is a matter of federal law, governed by the United States constitution.

Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause.

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."

I can see where one can easily argue that these babies born in the U.S. are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof " since their parents are here illegally and are breaking U.S. laws simply by being here.   

If one looks at the origianl intent of the Citizenship Clause:

"During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull."

In 1873, The United States Attorney General published the following legal opinion concerning the Fourteenth Amendment:

"The word 'jurisdiction' must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them." 

In the 1873 Slaughter House case a Supreme Court majority wrote that "the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States".

In 1884 in Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court denied the birthright citizenship claim of an American Indian. The court ruled that being born in the territory of the United States is not sufficient for citizenship; those who wish to claim citizenship by birth must be born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

On the other hand,

In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who

• is born in the United States
• of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
• whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
• whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

More recently:

The most recent judge to weigh in on the issue as to whether a constitutional amendment would be necessary to change the policy is Judge Richard Posner who remarked in a 2003 case that "Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense." He explained, "A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U.S. citizenship, but I doubt it." Posner also wrote, that automatic birthright citizenship is a policy that "Congress should rethink" and that the United States "should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children."

[bruce MN]

Isn't this what is being perpetualy discussed?

The most recent judge to weigh in on the issue as to whether a constitutional amendment would be necessary to change the policy is Judge Richard Posner who remarked in a 2003 case that "Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense." He explained, "A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U.S. citizenship, but I doubt it." Posner also wrote, that automatic birthright citizenship is a policy that "Congress should rethink" and that the United States "should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children."

[johnaa]

    First rule---The political PTB are not honest people, they tell the Truth only by mistake or it suits their ulterior motive.

.  That is no news flash, however members of the respective flocks wish to believe their judas goats are more honest than the opposing glee club's heroes.  

  The existing laws are not being honestly enforced, there would be no problem if they were.   The issue is designed to attract support from racists, just look at who is parroting the party line on this site.  

   http://www.newsbatch.com/immigration.htm  

snip-----Despite public sentiment, there appear to be powerful moneyed interests which support the present system which provides a steady, compliant, low wage labor force in an economy that has a low level of unemployment. This is particularly true in the agricultural sector. The arrangement also benefits Mexico. Although Mexico now has a fertility rate comparable to the U.S., it had an unsustainable birth rate in the 1960's and 1970's and its economic development could not match the growth of its working age population.

   The stark reality is that the illegal immigration situation could be resolved very quickly through simple enforcement of existing legislation. If job site enforcement was anywhere near the level it was in the early 90's (when border security was lax), perhaps over 90% of illegal immigrants would permanently leave the country and the entire process could take less than a month. Immigration opponents have more than a sufficient reason to be outraged at this lack of enforcement of the nation's laws. Yet virtually all analyists agree that the expulsion of the nation's illegal immigrants would at this point cause a massive economic disruption.

[dagwud]

I agree John that if the government would simply start enforcing existing laws this problem would diminish greatly.  Trouble is neither party has done anything about it when they have had the opportunity.  I don't see where either party can claim with any credibility an serious past attempts at addressing this problem but instead have used it for political reasons much like abortion and Global Warming.

[bruce MN]

If you guys would take the trouble to look into the numbers you'll find that over the past couple of years the numbers coming in have dropped, the numbers returning to where they came from of at least througn have increased and enforcement has been tuned up a little after some of the horrendous events of the Bush Administration (Postville comes to mind) and is still being used exstensively..

Real true to the code wingers don't want immigration fixed any more than they do abortion