Redefining Birthright Citizenship, One State at a Time

[babylonsister]

http://washingtonindependent.com/101162/redefining-birthright-citizenship-one-state-at-a-time

Redefining Birthright Citizenship, One State at a Time
GOP State Reps Seek to Deny Citizenship to Children of Illegal Immigrants
By Elise Foley 10/20/10 7:43 AM


In the best-case scenario, Texas state Rep. Leo Berman hopes his state will be sued. The representative for Texas’ 6th District, along with more than a dozen other Republican state legislators across the country, plans to introduce a bill in the next session calling for his state to discontinue automatic citizenship for U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. Instead of a birth certificate, children born to parents illegally in the country would be issued a document they could take to the consulate of their parents’ legal country — and would not be granted the right to stay in the United States.

The measure is, of course, a direct violation of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to anyone born in the United States. According to Berman, that’s precisely the point.

snip//

“When you get a whole bunch of states on board with this, we’ll try to get the Congress to change the 14th Amendment back to what it should be,” said Michigan state Rep. David Agema (R).

Otherwise, the lawmakers said they would fight the issue in the courts, as Berman suggested. If it did reach the Supreme Court, legal experts disagree on how the Court would rule, and even on whether the Supreme Court has already settled the matter. Some argue the Court affirmed birthright citizenship in United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, when the Court held that the U.S.-born child of Chinese immigrants was a citizen, and in INS v. Rios-Pineda in 1985, when the Court considered whether to deport the undocumented parents of a U.S. citizen child. Others, such as influential federal judge Richard Posner, claim the Supreme Court has never affirmed that children born to illegal immigrants in the country must be citizens.

But Daniel Farber, a constitutional law professor at Berkeley Law, said the 14th Amendment does not need to be interpreted by the Supreme Court because its meaning is already clear: Anyone born in the United States is a citizen.

“It also says in the Constitution the president must be over the age of 35; you don’t need the Supreme Court to tell you what that means,” Farber said. “I usually am not this emphatic about what I think the answer is because constitutional law has a lot of gray areas, but I do feel this one is pretty cut and dry. The 14th Amendment is clear about who is a citizen.”

[compassion now]

1. Jerks!

Mean jerks! How would they like to be shipped out???? Whadda' they think, that the US can't afford it or something? Sheesh!

[babylonsister]

2. Enjoy your short stay. nt

[compassion now]

6. What?

What is that supposed to mean? Please, observe the rules! Don't imply someone is a troll just because they are new!

[babylonsister]

7. Buh-bye, troll, and thanks, mods! nt

[NoPasaran]

3. Leo Berman is such a huge jerk he has his own gravity

[babylonsister]

5. He sure sounds like one. nt

[wilt the stilt]

4. I wouldn't trust this court

as far as I can throw them. If there is a will they will find a way.

[ET Awful]

8. Well, he can say whatever he likes, but since states don't grant citizenship and that's solely

in the power of the federal government, he's not going to accomplish much.

[Baalath]

10. I don't know what he will accomplish but

while agreeing that citizenship is granted by the feds, I think states or counties could certainly screw with the system if they refused to issue undocumented persons birth certificates. I am surprised they haven't tried to do it yet. Give 'em time and power and they will

[sinkingfeeling]

9. They're going to attempt this the same way they're trying to overturn Roe vs. Wade. They're

seeking a state law to be run through the courts to the Supreme Court where the 5-4 majority will rule in their favor.

[Romulox]

11. "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a modifying phrase of some sort. It means something

One may not ignore modifying phrases when construing the Constitution. So with all due respect to Mr. Farber, the plain language does not dispose of the issue.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. nice try

the only people not subject to the jurisdiction thereof are diplomats and others explicitly granted that immunity. All other people within our borders are subject to our laws.

[Romulox]

15. It's not a "try"--I'm not taking a stand on the issue, just on the idea that "plain language" solves

it.

"the only people not subject to the jurisdiction thereof are diplomats and others explicitly granted that immunity. All other people within our borders are subject to our laws."

OK. I don't dispute your point, but MY point is that the above is information above and beyond what is contained in the "plain language" of the 14th Amendment, and, in fact, is probably defined in statutory and common law. So again, just a "plain meaning" reading cannot dispose of the issue.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. No it is the plain language.

This is not at all ambiguous or subject to interpretation. It doesn't even rise close to that level. A supreme court ruling otherwise would present what is left of this republic with an affront of monumental proportions.

[Romulox]

19. That's not what "plain language" means w/r/t statutory construction

It means "without the requirement of referring to any extraneous source; self-contained."

"This is not at all ambiguous or subject to interpretation. It doesn't even rise close to that level."

Everything is subject to interpretation; it's what's courts do. :hi:

[Warren Stupidity]

21. you continue to fish in a very small pond.

Plain Meaning
When writing statutes, the legislature intends to use ordinary English words in their ordinary senses. The United States Supreme Court discussed the plain meaning rule in Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917), reasoning "t is elementary that the meaning of a statute must, in the first instance, be sought in the language in which the act is framed, and if that is plain... the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms." And if a statute's language is plain and clear, the Court further warned that "the duty of interpretation does not arise, and the rules which are to aid doubtful meanings need no discussion."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation

The words are clear and unambiguous. The meaning is clear and the court must enforce it according to its terms. "the duty of interpretation does not arise". Interpretation is what courts do when meaning is not clear.

[Romulox]

22. The "language in which the act is framed" doesn't explain what "subject to the jurisdiction..."

The "language in which the act is framed" doesn't explain what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means, and therefore, the plain meaning of the 14th Amendment cannot dispose of the issue. Other sources must be appealed to in order to determine the meaning of the phrases.

"Interpretation is what courts do when meaning is not clear."

And how does a court know if a meaning is clear or not? :hi:

[WolverineDG]

17. if you are inside the US, you are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

otherwise, you could commit murder & get off scot-free if you weren't a US citizen.

dg

[Romulox]

20. The 14th Amendment doesn't talk about being "inside the US"

Section 1. 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.

The amendment doesn't talk about people being "inside the US"--it talks about people born or naturalized in the US, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The last phrase cannot mean simply "is inside the US", as people do not lose citizenship when they travel abroad, and your interpretation would have the 14th Amendment implying that presence in the US is requisite (rather than birth in the US) for citizenship; clearly, it is not.

[struggle4progress]

12. "Congress freed our slaves and then made them citizens! It's so confusing and unfair!"

[treestar]

14. How is the state of Texas going to decide if the parents are legal or not?

Are they going to demand immigration documents at hospitals? Do they even understand the meaning of immigration documents?

They will be under federal injunction to issue BCs in no time.

[WolverineDG]

16. Rep Burnham might do well to read the Texas Constitution

(all 1 million volumes of it) as well as the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo....

dg