So what?
I also can't own a M16 in England and can here.
Rights are determined by law and the highest law of the land, the US Constitution says they are citizens. It can be Amended, but until then it's the law of the land.
If my wife and I sneak into England illegally and she gives birth should that baby become a British citizen??
Citizenship should not be determined by where you are born, but by who you are born too.
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is up for interpretation, but reading the thread is hard.Fools!
Better Amend the US constitution.
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is up for interpretation, but reading the thread is hard.
So what?
I also can't own a M16 in England and can here.
Rights are determined by law and the highest law of the land, the US Constitution says they are citizens. It can be Amended, but until then it's the law of the land.
from your own link,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
This is nothing new courts decided over 100 years ago about your issues. As I said this law will be tossed by first Federal court is goes to and never make an appeal. You want to change law? change the Constitution.
It's funny how conservatives are as bad as liberals at reading comprehension. (libs w/ second cons w/ 14th)
I don't see how the birth of an American is a problem. It seems like it should be a happy event.
Even if you consider it to be a problem, there is no civilized remedy.
lack of imagination... Just have a cut off.
Do you realize that some illegals have 6 kids get public assistance for all of them and ride high on the hog. They get the money even though they are here illegally. This has problem written all over it.
I wonder what other countries laws are about births of illegals in their country?
I think you answered your own question
er, aren't we doing that right now?As a more general comment, the federal government will never adopt a policy that calls for the automatic deportation of the parents of American citizens. No matter what the loony tunes right wingers might wish for.
derrrrr wut?Imagine if Palin/McCain won, this would have never happened.
So you guys pushing for your Republicans to win control again would you push the illegal issue back under the rug for your business friends again or are you conceding this was a bad idea along with the tax cuts for you and your wealthy friends?
Wow, all these posts and only a few touched on the reality of the situation. Anchor babies are NOT citizens according to the Constitution and Amendments. The 14th amendment was for freed slaves - not random ILLEGAL immigrants. The guy who wrote the damn thing was quite clear - it's just that the freak libs keep trying to twist the Constitution and amendments to suit their fancy instead of going with the actual words and intent.
This law is unneeded/redundant by AZ. We just need the rest of the states to stop automatically giving kids born here a BC/etc. It's a disgrace that the system has been bastardized for so long - hopefully this redundant law by AZ will help people wake up the reality of the 14th amendment and how it ties in with the citizenship portions.
from your own link,
"Held: In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth."
Just out of curiousity, prior to the 14th Amendment, how did one become a US citizen?
Also, since laws and (I'm assuming) Amendments are applied ex post facto, then how does the 14th Amendment apply to slaves born prior to its passage?
Throughout much of the history of the United States, the fundamental legal principle governing citizenship has been that birth within the territorial limits of the United States confers United States citizenship,[12] although the United States did not grant citizenship to all black former slaves until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was subsequently confirmed by the Fourteenth Amendment. American Indian tribal members are not covered specifically by the constitutional guarantee, but they were made citizens automatically by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
[edit] English common law
Birthright citizenship, as with much United States law, has its roots in English common law.[13] Calvin’s Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608), was particularly important as it established that under English common law “a person's status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birth--a person born within the king's dominion owed allegiance to the sovereign, and in turn, was entitled to the king's protection."[14] This same principle was adopted by the newly formed United States, as stated by Supreme Court Justice Noah Haynes Swayne: "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country…since as before the Revolution." United States v. Rhodes, 27 Fed. Cas. 785 (1866).
[edit] Federal law
The Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. Since that time, laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States have undergone a number of revisions.
[edit] 1857 opinion of Supreme Court Justice Benjamin R. Curtis
In his opinion dissenting from the decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. (How. 19) 393 (1857) Justice Benjamin R. Curtis wrote in considerable detail on this topic. His writing there is too lengthy to requote here in entirety; partially requoted, Justice Curtis wrote,
The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in the history of this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred Citizenship to the place of birth. At the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, the received general doctrine has been, in conformity with the common law, that free persons born within either of the colonies, were the subjects of the King; that by the Declaration of independence, and the consequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States, all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States, [...] .
The Constitution having recognized that persons born within the several States are citizens of the United States, one of four things must be true:
First. That the constitution itself has described what native-born persons shall or shall not be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of the United States; or,
Second:. That it has empowered Congress to do so; or,
Third. That all free persons, born within the several States, are citizens of the United States; or,
Fourth. That it is left to each State to determine what free persons, born within its limits, shall be citizens of such State, and thereby be citizens of the United States.
If there is such a thing as Citizenship of the United States acquired by birth within the States, which the Constitution expressly recognizes, and no one denies, then those four alternatives embrace the entire subject, and it only remains to select that one which is true.
[...]
The answer is obvious. The Constitution has left to the States the determination what person, born within their respective limits, shall acquire by birth citizenship of the United States; [...] [15][italics in original]
[edit] 1862 opinion of the U.S. Attorney General
In 1862, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase sent a query to Attorney General Edward Bates asking whether or not "colored men" can be citizens of the United States. Attorney General Bates responded on November 29, 1862, with a 27 page opinion concluding, "I conclude that the free man of color, mentioned in your letter, if born in the United States, is a citizen of the United States, ... .[16][italics in original]" In the course of that opinion, Bates commented at some length on the nature of citizenship, and wrote,
... our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.
If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in a country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the natural born right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or any other accidental circumstance.[17][italics in original]
[edit] Civil Rights Act of 1866
This act declared, "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States."[18]
[edit] Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution on July 9, 1868, birthright citizenship in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states:
"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.[3]"
from your own link,
"Held: In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth."
10%? 5%?
I'm trying to figure out how low of a percentage of the Latino vote the GOP will get in the next few election cycles.
Feds vs Arizona National Guard and the most heavily armed populace in the nation.... cute.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark
This is nothing new courts decided over 100 years ago about your issues. As I said this law will be tossed by first Federal court is goes to and never make an appeal. You want to change law? change the Constitution.
It's funny how conservatives are as bad as liberals at reading comprehension. (libs w/ second cons w/ 14th)
In the end, no one can really know how the Supreme Court might rule in a new case challenging the citizenship of U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants until and unless such a case were actually heard, and ruled upon, by the court.