Jump to content

Trump aims to remove citizenship from American-born children of immigrants


LC
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

 

There's an underlying respect for humanity in that paragraph which you are lacking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we want to let thieves keep what they steal, then there shouldn't be anyone shocked that we have a problem with thievery...If there's never any consequences for ones actions, and in fact, net rewards, well, no wonder the system is a disaster. It's largely why Wall Street is so fucked up. Screw the pension fund to make $6M? Sure, I'll settle with the SEC for $250K....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea I don't think an unborn child is "stealing" anything.

 

Nope, the child is just being exploited.

 

Let's not pretend the entire focal point of this centers on people deliberately throwing themselves across the border at 9 months hoping to take advantage of the system. It's amazing the lengths some go to justify actions that blatantly go against both the spirit of the laws, and in many cases even the letter of it. The reason he's looking to change this is because so many crooks are exploiting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea I don't think an unborn child is "stealing" anything.

 

Nope, the child is just being exploited.

 

And so let's punish the child even more?

 

Many American children are unfairly punished or face consequences for the acts of stupid or criminal parents. So for these ones? Yea, tough shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought (as a non-American) it is really weird to award citizenship based on location of birth. Not many countries do that (but then again, US worldwide taxation on worldwide income of non-resident citizens is way stranger).

 

Imagine that? Tax the shit out of people even when they've left, but let leach criminals move here unabated, and stay for free!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no reference to the legal status of the parents in the comment except to exclude the children of diplomats ("ambassadors and foreign ministers"). Perhaps people are forgetting that diplomatic personnel and their families are not subject to the jurisdiction of the country to which they are posted (aka diplomatic immunity / extraterritoriality). Or perhaps people are claiming that children born in the US to unauthorized immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, which seems quite strange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no reference to the legal status of the parents in the comment except to exclude the children of diplomats ("ambassadors and foreign ministers"). Perhaps people are forgetting that diplomatic personnel and their families are not subject to the jurisdiction of the country to which they are posted (aka diplomatic immunity / extraterritoriality). Or perhaps people are claiming that children born in the US to unauthorized immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, which seems quite strange.

 

It specifically says the words foreigners and aliens in describing what is excluded

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^It looks like the issue is not so clear cut.

 

The framers likely did not foresee the scope of illegal immigration and the rise of the welfare state.

 

Given customary and case law evolution, any restiction by statute would probably be deemed unconstitutional and require an additional amendment.

 

It would be possible for Congress to consider legislation over the naturalization process ("positive" legislation to clarify the naturalization process for children).

 

Common sense and historical context would also suggest that new legislation or constitutional amendment should avoid a retrospective effect on children already born.

 

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44251.pdf

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^It looks like the issue is not so clear cut.

 

The framers likely did not foresee the scope of illegal immigration and the rise of the welfare state.

 

Given customary and case law evolution, any restiction by statute would probably be deemed unconstitutional and require an additional amendment.

 

It would be possible for Congress to consider legislation over the naturalization process ("positive" legislation to clarify the naturalization process for children).

 

Common sense and historical context would also suggest that new legislation or constitutional amendment should avoid a retrospective effect on children already born.

 

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44251.pdf

 

Yet people are so sure that founding fathers meant AK47 or other weapons talking about "arms" in second amendment. What about nuclear weapons? Could they foresee such development in "arms" back in 18th century?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It specifically says the words foreigners and aliens in describing what is excluded

 

The sentence is "This [Citizenship] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors [sic] or foreign ministers accredited to the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

 

It doesn't say that citizenship does not include persons born in the US whose parents are foreigners or aliens. It says that citizenship does not include persons who are innately foreigners or aliens by virtue of belonging to the families of accredited diplomats (as an example). The amendment itself mentions only "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" as an additional qualifier.

 

By the way, I'm not arguing that the amendment is perfect and should not be changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^It looks like the issue is not so clear cut.

 

The framers likely did not foresee the scope of illegal immigration and the rise of the welfare state.

 

Given customary and case law evolution, any restiction by statute would probably be deemed unconstitutional and require an additional amendment.

 

It would be possible for Congress to consider legislation over the naturalization process ("positive" legislation to clarify the naturalization process for children).

 

Common sense and historical context would also suggest that new legislation or constitutional amendment should avoid a retrospective effect on children already born.

 

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44251.pdf

 

Did you read the entire article?  Unless I am misunderstanding - it was very clear.  The Rep from California demanded that children in CA born from non-citizen Chinese parents be given citizenship.  He said that's how it is handled today in CA and that is how this Amendment should handle it.  Some other Rep chimes in and makes fun of the Chinese and the Gypsies and the Rep comes back and makes fun of him for being anti-foreigner. 

 

It was actually a terrific read BTW.  It shows that the issues today are not new by any means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It specifically says the words foreigners and aliens in describing what is excluded

 

But "It" isn't the constitution or the 14th amendment to the constitution, is it?

 

"it" is not.  But the 14th amendment says "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".  And "it" is the congressional record giving contemporaneous context as to the the meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...