Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's about time to close this loophole that is constantly abused to drain Social Services by undeserving Illegal Aliens. If you don't have at least 1 parent here legally you should NEVER be granted automatic citizenship. And the citizens of the USA should not have to foot the bill for healthcare and Social Services for people here Illegally.
While I appreciate that amending the Constitution is not something to be taken lightly, I really do not see why a move from citizenship by birthright to citizenship by descent or naturalization should be especially controversial. Many other countries, such as the UK, have done it without a significant negative impact on their citizens.
So, it seems there are two separate issues here. The first is a reluctance to amend the constitution and the second is whether birthright citizenship is a good thing. While I have been clear in that I think it is a problem and should be changed, I would be interested in hearing the arguments in favor or retaining it.
What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means
By P.A. Madison on September 22, 2007 | 79 Comments | More Updated 8/10/09 The State of Virginia outright rejected the common law doctrine in 1779 when it adopted the following doctrine written by Thomas Jefferson:
[A]ll infants, wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise, their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth until they relinquish that character, in manner as hereinafter expressed; and all others not being citizens of any, of the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.
Other States, like Kentucky, made the condition of citizenship dependent on either parent:“…every child, wherever born, whose father or mother was or shall be a citizen of Kentucky at the birth of such child, shall be deemed citizens of that State.”
Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as “All persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States
What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means
By P.A. Madison on September 22, 2007 | 79 Comments | More Updated 8/10/09 The State of Virginia outright rejected the common law doctrine in 1779 when it adopted the following doctrine written by Thomas Jefferson:
[A]ll infants, wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise, their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth until they relinquish that character, in manner as hereinafter expressed; and all others not being citizens of any, of the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.
Oh? Gosh... is this true? Is it really true that Thomas Jefferson and the State of Virginia "outright rejected the common law doctrine?" I mean... that would be amazing!!!! It would be a crushing blow to the idea that our Framers actually embraced birthright citizenship.
Hmmmmmm... it turns out to be "A Bill Declaring Who Shall Be Deemed Citizens of This Commonwealth." And it actually does say this. But (surprise, surprise) that's not all it says.
Here is "P. A. Madison's" quotation actually placed in context. The part he quoted is in blue.... but look at how much he left out, especially the part in red:
Quote:
Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.
How is it that "Madison" missed all those other folks... especially the very first category?
All white persons born within the territory of the commonwealth of Virginia were citizens... with no reference whatsoever to the citizenship of their parents. Exactly as provided by centuries of Anglo-American common law.
I mean seriously... did he think nobody would check to see if he was telling the truth? Rather than "outright reject(ing)" the common law doctrine, the very first statement of the law explicitly embraces the common law doctrine!!!
This is the most dishonest article I have read in weeks. And that's saying a lot.
While I appreciate that amending the Constitution is not something to be taken lightly, I really do not see why a move from citizenship by birthright to citizenship by descent or naturalization should be especially controversial. Many other countries, such as the UK, have done it without a significant negative impact on their citizens.
So, it seems there are two separate issues here. The first is a reluctance to amend the constitution and the second is whether birthright citizenship is a good thing. While I have been clear in that I think it is a problem and should be changed, I would be interested in hearing the arguments in favor or retaining it.
Don't hold your breath for any logical answers by the libs, far lefties and ethnocentrics. As for the ethnocentrics it would put a crimp in their reconquista agenda but don't look for them to be honest about it. Not to mention all the perks and handouts that go along with the instant citizen babies born from these illegal aliens. They think eventually their anchors will give them key to remain in our country.
What is happening now, is the same reasons Ellis Island was established. Only now, they are not coming in on boats. They are just walking and driving here.
When Ellis Island opened, a great change was taking place in immigration to the United States. As arrivals from northern and western Europe--Germany, Ireland, Britain and the Scandinavian countries--slowed, more and more immigrants poured in from southern and eastern Europe. Among this new generation were Jews escaping from political and economic oppression in czarist Russia and eastern Europe (some 484,000 arrived in 1910 alone) and Italians escaping poverty in their country. There were also Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, Serbs, Slovaks and Greeks, along with non-Europeans from Syria, Turkey and Armenia. The reasons they left their homes in the Old World included war, drought, famine and religious persecution, and all had hopes for greater opportunity in the New World.
After an arduous sea voyage, many passengers described their first glimpse of New Jersey, while third-class or steerage passengers lugged their possessions onto barges that would take them to Ellis Island. Immigrants were tagged with information from the ship's registry and passed through long lines for medical and legal inspections to determine if they were fit for entry into the United States. From 1900 to 1914--the peak years of Ellis Island's operation--some 5,000 to 10,000 people passed through the immigration station every day. Approximately 80 percent successfully passed through in a matter of hours, but others could be detained for days or weeks. Many immigrants remained in New York, while others traveled by barge to railroad stations in Hoboken or Jersey City, New Jersey, on their way to destinations across the country.
Passage of the Immigrant Quota Act of 1921 and the National Origins Act of 1924, which limited the number and nationality of immigrants allowed into the United States, effectively ended the era of mass immigration into New York. From 1925 to its closing in 1954, only 2.3 million immigrants passed through Ellis Island--which was still more than half of all those entering the United States.
This is all before we became a welfare nanny state.
It's about time to close this loophole that is constantly abused to drain Social Services by undeserving Illegal Aliens. If you don't have at least 1 parent here legally you should NEVER be granted automatic citizenship. And the citizens of the USA should not have to foot the bill for healthcare and Social Services for people here Illegally.
I said it before and I will say it again. One of the biggest perks for scientists/Doctors and technology personnel coming to our country from Asia is the 14th amendment (Michelle Malkin's parents are a good example). This alone will prevent politicians from changing the law.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
