Birthright denial plan impractical, unconstitutional

[question everything]

Birthright denial plan impractical, unconstitutional

Inland Valley Daily Bulletin

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution couldn't be more clear: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

That language is the so-called "birthright" provision of the U.S. Constitution, which entitles anyone born on American soil to American citizenship. It is part of the great American tradition that our country doesn't define citizenship by bloodline. Whoever comes here legally can become a citizen, and whoever is born and raised here simply is a citizen by virtue of their participation in our shared national experience. That the birthright clause has come under attack from certain immigration opponents is not surprising, but unfortunate.

Several members of Congress, including Colorado Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, are pushing for a law that would deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. The idea is that if citizenship is no longer a given for babies born on American soil, then fewer immigrants will enter the country illegally, or at least have children here. Maybe, but that seems like a backward -- and unconstitutional -- way of addressing the problem.

(snip)

But practical considerations aside, the proposal is plainly unconstitutional. The only legitimate way to change the Constitution is through an amendment -- not a vote of Congress. It's disingenuous for those who claim they're fed up with the nation's laws being ignored to so readily ignore the 14th Amendment. America desperately needs serious immigration reform, which will require both facilitating more legal immigration and cracking down on illegal immigration. But making hash of the country's traditions and Constitution is not serious immigration reform. It's a political stunt and an outrageous waste of time.

http://www.dailybulletin.com/opinions/ci_3365098

[Warpy]

1. The wingnuts find two things wrong with the birthright provision

First, it specifies "born," as does the ninth amendment. That lets the holy fetus out of full citizenship unless the woman in whose body it resides decides to carry it to term. Once born, it's a citizen.

The second thing they all howl about is Mexican mothers who give birth in US clinics. Well, big woop. What that does is confer dual citizenship on the infant, and that infant may never exercise the US citizenship, so the right wing panties are in a wad over essentially nothing.

I have never been able to understand the problem that people in some of the border states (exclusive of NM) have with Mexican illegals. The problem isn't the poor folks from Mexico trying to save dollars that translate into a lot of pesos when they go home. The problem is with cheap labor conservatives who employ them and use them to drive wages down for US workers.

Once you realize this, the anti Mexican hysteria starts to look just a little bit silly.

[aquart]

2. They always get busy with phony amendments before recesses.

They know it has no hope of passage anywhere, but it keeps the loonies off their lawns when they go home. It's their proof they're working for the cause.

[RoyGBiv]

3. I thought the Know-Nothings were dead ...

Well, they did get swallowed up by the Republican Party at its origins. I guess they've just been dormant for awhile, unless of course you take the term literally, which would mean they're the leaders.

[f-bush]

4. Typical Repukes

Just another example of the repukes and their wing nuts trying to shred the constitution. I had to make my citizenship (was born in Germany) and no how important citizenship issues can be!!!

[tritsofme]

5. Their constitutional argument lies in the phrase:

"subject to the jurisdiction thereof" because they argue that illegals and their offspring are not subject to United States jurisdiction and hence birthright citizenship is not required by the Constitution.

This argument ignores 140 years worth of precedent, but who knows how today's RW courts would read it.

[Jim Lane]

6. The correct interpretation of that phrase

(or at least the interpretation that's been accepted) is that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes children born to persons present on diplomatic visas, who can't be prosecuted for crimes they commit.

If an illegal Mexican immigrant were to burglarize Tancredo's house, you'd see whether he really thinks that those folks aren't subject to our jurisdiction.

[Lexingtonian]

7. You have to understand

that the definition of hardline Republicanism is to deny that Section 1 of the 14th Amendment exists, let alone applies to anything. They even invented something called "strict constructionism" to give judges some kind of obfuscation sophistry to enable them to deny 14/1 rights.

The nice thing about this "issue" is that it's not about clever bypasses or inversions of 14/1. This is the dopeheads going at the plain sense of an unambiguous part of it.

2006 is becoming the year of The Constitution vs National 'Security'/Racism.