Should Children of Illegal Aliens Born in the US be Automatic Citizens?
Posted by richrobinson 9 years, 2 months ago to Politics
"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."
This blogger makes a pretty simple and straight forward argument that the 14th Amendment does not apply to illegal immigrants. Trump has been laughed at for making this argument but at least people are talking about it.
This blogger makes a pretty simple and straight forward argument that the 14th Amendment does not apply to illegal immigrants. Trump has been laughed at for making this argument but at least people are talking about it.
SOURCE URL: http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/
What we fail to understand today is that the point of the limits such as for ambassadors or staff, was to not impose citizenship on the birth of children to those who were not actually immigrating. It wasn't about who could or could not qualify but about not forcing U.S. citizenship on the kids of consulates and their staff.
Now, could you parlay they into something around unlawful presence? I think you could, but the record shows it isn't necessary. What most don't realize is despite the clear intent to avoid granting birthright citizenship to children of foreign diplomats and their staff, which is not in question by anyone, the process for ensuring this doesn't happen is as open as the sky. as a result we currently have these children becoming U.S. citizens.
What we should do is to put in place the mechanisms to ensure it doesn't happen. For example, birth certificates should require the presence and validation of at least one parent's SSN before they can be issued, and that for new SSN applications of newborn or underage children the SSN of at least one parent must be present and validated before issuance.
The perceptive amongst us will notice this neatly solves both problems, and clearly follows the laws as written today (and well, frankly for decades).
The trouble is "as its written" has been twisted into what we have today. Their lack of necessity anymore based on the reason for their existence could easily remove the problem entirely - no interpretation required ever again.
Glad to know there are more people out there that caught this.
And is why there is no such thing as birth-right citizenship for children born of illegal aliens, i.e., persons not lawfully in the United States..
First of all, the solution is NOT to change the existing Constitutional mandate. The answer lies in our immigration policy itself. If the granting of citizenship is rooted in a crime, in this case the crime would be illegally entering the US (or becoming and 'unregistered Democrat if you prefer), it seems to me that citizenship should be revoked. Here's the problem: in many cases, citizenship has been granted (you know...the whole 'anchor baby' thing). What of the family members that have been sponsored to emigrate to America based upon the citizenship of the infant? How do we deal with that?
This is a whole Pandora's Box that didn't need to be a problem in the first place, and by doing nothing the problem is getting exponentially larger.
There are lots of things we can do to fix mistakes of the past, we need to fix the current process first.
the "11 or 12 million" illegal residents in the u.s. are invaders,
not immigrants, and the "anchor baby" argument is a bad one. -- j
.
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," is pretty
clear and straightforward. The toddler, born in the
USA, of an illegal immigrant couple, still cannot
legally toddle on to the next-door neighbor's lawn, pull down his diaper, and pee on that lawn
without his parents' being liable for it. He is "sub-
ject to the jurisdiction thereof". As I understand
the law, such a toddler born to a visiting diplo-
mat would not thereby get his parents prosecut-
ed, because of diplomatic immunity; if too much
rambunctious stuff goes on, the remedy is to
get the diplomat recalled.
Does this provide a sort of incentive for
people to "jump the fence" and get their offspring
born in the United States to benefit by this tech-
nicality? Well, yes. Is it unfortunate? Yes. Does
it justify tearing up the Constitution and throw-
ing out the 14th Amendment? No, it does not.
Better guarding of the border; less tenderness
in allowing the American-born children's illegal
parents to stay in the U.S; barring immigrants
(at least those who are too new) from getting
payments from the welfare state; these are
proper remedies. (Also, dismantling the wel-
fare state itself). But the Constitution means
what it says, and says what it means.
+1
http://www.nationalreview.com/birthri...
Under the old Constitution the rule was anyone born within the country was eligible for citizenship. Under the new one it depends on the time of day on which date with no need for any explanation.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ind...
As you correctly state, rights are derived from the nature of man. However, a) the right to citizenship varies upon where someone is born, b) appears to depend on the government in that country, and c) can be taken away in the case of felonies ("right" to vote, "right" to keep and bear arms, etc.). I am not saying that taking away these rights are a proper role for government. What I am asking is "Can those truly be considered rights in the Objectivist sense?" Perhaps they should be in an Objectivist universe, but unfortunately we do not live in such a universe ... yet.
Moreover, term2 wrote that citizenship should be earned. From an Objectivist standpoint, should citizenship be granted to a newborn incapable of a) making its own moral decisions, or b) generating enough self-sustaining actions on its own to sustain its own life?
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/per...
Citizenship is a permission.
and then, what is required to gain that permission? . mere citizenship?
or should there be more? . as for my view, I believe that voters
should have taken an oath of loyalty to the u.s.constitution. -- j
.
the government can control voting and perpetuate its corruption
and .......
this brings about the question of the write-in referendum.
where do the voters get a say in voting? . and oops again --
democracies fail when the voters give themselves a
free ride. . somewhere in here there must be a statesman, a
leader, an Ayn Rand. . Representative Democracy with
wise leaders. . OOOoooooohhhhh, I wish!!! -- j
.
"""
Child born out of wedlock to a U.S. Citizen father: A child born outside of the United States to an U.S. Citizen father where there is no marriage to the non-American mother is entitled to U.S. Citizenship providing the American citizen father had been physically present in the United States for the period of time as specified in previous paragraphs for children born in wedlock to one U.S. Citizen and one non-U.S. Citizen parent, either before or after November 14, 1986; and
- the alien mother completes an "Affidavit to establish paternity of child" at this office before a consular officer;
- and the father signs a sworn statement agreeing to provide financial support for the child until s/he reaches the age of 18 years;
- and the father provides a written statement acknowledging paternity.
""" -- Taken from the Ireland U.S. Embassy site.
BTW, the "period of time" requirement it references is:
"A child born outside of the United States to one U.S. citizen parent and one non-U.S. citizen parent may be entitled to citizenship providing the U.S. citizen parent had been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for five years, at least two years of which were after s/he reached the age of fourteen. This period of physical presence must have taken place prior to the birth of the child."
So right now, legally and unequivocally,you could indeed sell yourself in this fashion. You (or your client) would have to either:
arrange for the temporary stay of the would-be mother in the U.S. for insemination
or
arrange for artificial insemination of the mother in her own country.
(... and agree to be on the hook for child support.)
And for soliders, they don't even have to do that as time spent abroad in the service of the federal government (or even the U.N.) counts as physical presence in the U.S.