41% Think a Child Born in the U.S. to an Illegal Immigrant Should Be a Citizen (giving birth, United States)
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.
NO, being born on US soil doesn't make a citizen by default.
Yeah, it does. Or at least as regards the population we've been discussing.
You don't have to like it ( I don't either)... but we are a nation of laws and that is one of them.
Isn't this where this debate started?
I too agree that the issue warrants new examination (in particular the concepts of
what permanent domicile and residence mean) but until that happens...
Yeah, it does. Or at least as regards the population we've been discussing.
You don't have to like it ( I don't either)... but we are a nation of laws and that is one of them.
Isn't this where this debate started?
I too agree that the issue warrants new examination (in particular the concepts of
what permanent domicile and residence mean) but until that happens...
Again, being born on US soil doesn't make everybody born on us soil a US citizen. As a nation of laws, there is no law that grants to children born of illegals US Citizenship. There is policy that the current administration has initiated that says that children born on US soil to illegal alien parents are to acquire citizenship at birth; (7FAM1111(d)) All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth. They can still be denied this status if they attempt to apply for a US Citizen Passport if they do not meet the criteria as put forth by the DoS. They would then only be assumed citizens.
Policy is not law, policy is interpretation of law, in this case the Progressive interpretation of the 14th and the (wrongly claimed) WKA case which can be changed by a new administration (correctly interpreting WKA). 7FAM1111 states: (7FAM1111(d)(2)(a)) Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily or illegally which if read could be interpreted that in some instances their US citizenship can be affected.
I may think? I can swear I have already shown my thinking is in fact....fact. You (and IBM both) are attempting to claim that jus sanguinis is only limited to being born off US soil.....that's where you are wrong. The US recognizes jus sanguinis even if one is born on US soil, as long as one or both parents are US citizens...
...The US does recognize both, however you are limiting your argument based on your limited interpretation of both. Jus sanguinis passes on citizenship through the parent no matter where the child is born...
But under the U.S. interpretation, there are circumstances where a U.S. citizen is unable to provide derivative citizenship to their child...
since the 14th Amendment does state born in the USA, then that means if an illegal alien has a child born here then that child gets citizenship.
that said, that does not mean the mother gets a free ride.
give the child a passport and either offer the illegal alien a ride back to their country but not the USA, with or without their child.
their child is the US citizen, not them.
I would reiterate and argue that the writers of the 14th Amendment did not intend for babies born from illegal immigrant parents on our soil to be birthright citizens otherwise they would not have added the qualifying clause of "AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in it.
I would reiterate and argue that the writers of the 14th Amendment did not intend for babies
born from illegal immigrant parents on our soil to be birthright citizens...
I'm not aware of anyone who believes the 14th was intended to apply to
"children of illegal immigrant parents on our soil".
Of course, in the middle of 19th century the idea of illegal immigrant was limited to stowaway's
on the merchant ships that were bringing people in by the thousands to every eastern port.
Since then? Well, things have changed some.
Quote:
otherwise they would not have added the qualifying clause
"AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in it.
That clause doesn't apply in any way to the question at hand.
(really, it doesn't)
I'm not aware of anyone who believes the 14th was intended to apply to
"children of illegal immigrant parents on our soil".
Of course, in the middle of 19th century the idea of illegal immigrant was limited to stowaway's
on the merchant ships that were bringing people in by the thousands to every eastern port.
Since then? Well, things have changed some.
That clause doesn't apply in any way to the question at hand.
(really, it doesn't)
Then put up a good argument why it doesn't and explain what you think that clause means. Did you read the link I provided? In reality the illegal immigrant parents are stowaways in our country.
That would be the same basic argument we've been going around on:
The (current) settled law on what the 14th A provides for (and doesn't).
I know you don't like that. Lot's of people don't.
Drafting your own dissenting opinions (even when done well) isn't enough
to make those alternative views what the actual law is. hth
That would be the same basic argument we've been going around on:
The (current) settled law on what the 14th A provides for (and doesn't).
I know you don't like that. Lot's of people don't.
Drafting your own dissenting opinions (even when done well) isn't enough
to make those alternative views what the actual law is. hth
As Liquid Reigns pointed out there hasn't been any "settled" law in regards to birthright citizenship. Again, please explain what you think "AND" subject to the jurisdiction was meant by the writers of the 14th. I think that article that I provided you with explains it pretty well. I believe I have other ones saved as well if you need to talk a look at them.
No, I am arguing 1401(a) in strict sense. (a) doesn't hold that one is born into being subject to the jurisdiction thereof, it states one must be born in the US AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The only way to be born AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof is by having allegiance passed down from their parent. WKA: To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government. and further down And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King's obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. and this There is, therefore, little ground for the theory that, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, there as any settled and definite rule of international law, generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion. and finally this little didy from Gray By the Constitution of the United States, Congress was empowered "to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." In the exercise of this power, Congress, by successive acts, beginning with the act entitled "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," passed at the second session of the First Congress under the Constitution, has made provision for the admission to citizenship of three principal classes of persons: First. Aliens, having resided for a certain time "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and naturalized individually by proceedings in a court of record. Second. Children of persons so naturalized, "dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization." Third. Foreign-born children of American citizens, coming within the definitions prescribed by Congress. Acts of March 26, 1790, c. 3; January 29, 1795, c. 20; June 18, 1798, c. 54; 1 Stat. 103, 414, 566; April 14, 1802, c. 28; March 26, 1804, c. 47; 2 Stat. 153, 292; February 10, 1854, c. 71; 10 Stat. 604; Rev.Stat. §§ 2165, 2172, 1993.
Now as Gray gets passed the 14th Amendment he points out in Minor vs Happersett:At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. This follows exactly as I have stated previously.
Further down: Benny vs O'Brien In a very recent case, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that a person born in this country of Scotch parents who were domiciled but had not been naturalized here was "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, and was "not subject to any foreign power" within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1866; and, in an opinion delivered by Justice Van Syckel with the concurrence of Chief Justice Beasley, said: The object of the Fourteenth Amendment, as is well known, was to confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship. It, however, gave to the colored people no right superior to that granted to the white race. The ancestors of all the colored people then in the United States were of foreign birth, and could not have been naturalized or in any way have become entitled to the right of citizenship. The colored people were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by reason of their birth here, than were the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens. The same rule must be applied to both races, and unless the general rule, that, when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship, is accepted, the Fourteenth Amendment has failed to accomplish its purpose, and the colored people are not citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment, by the language, "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," was intended [p693] to bring all races, without distinction of color, within the rule which prior to that time pertained to the white race.
Gray then goes on and says: Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.
I can continue but the comment is way to long already. I suggest fully reading and comprehending Justice Gray in WKA.
The only relevant part of 1401 is (a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
Your (f) and (3) only refer to children found within the US or one of its possessions under the age of 5 y.o. without parents for which they would probably have an unknown identity and unable to find a BC for. That child has until the age of 21 before he would be granted nationality or citizenship dependent on if someone claims him and proves that he is from another country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum
But under the U.S. interpretation, there are circumstances where a U.S. citizen is unable to provide derivative citizenship to their child...
So what.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 12-23-2012 at 09:31 AM..
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.
I can swear I have already shown my thinking is in fact....fact. You (and IBM both) are attempting to claim that jus sanguinis is only limited to being born off US soil.....that's where you are wrong. The US recognizes jus sanguinis even if one is born on US soil, as long as one or both parents are US citizens...