Rep. Duncan Hunter has called for the deportation of the children of illegal aliens born in this country. I discussed this issue last night on Countdown. Jus soli (“law of ground”) or “birthright citizenship” is recognized in some form by nations like France and the United States while rejected by others.
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment 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.” Opponents argue that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” limits this meaning and excludes the children of illegal aliens.
The Supreme Court indicated in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) that this language covers the children of illegal aliens. However, critics argue that this language is at best dicta and unclear. Some members have introduced legislation to mandate that such children are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States to deny citizenship.
To accomplish such a change, Hunter would have to pass sweeping new legislation and ultimately face a showdown with the Court over the language in the 14th Amendment. Such a challenge would likely focus on statements before ratification of the 14th Amendment that indicated a narrower view of the language. The author of the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan proposed the addition of the jurisdiction phrase and stated that it tracked what he believed was already the law of the land. As such, he stated, “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the family of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
Of course the recognition of birth right citizens is different from deporting already recognized citizens. Even if Congress changed the current law, Hunter suggested that he would deport existing citizens. That would raise a host of constitutional problems in the retroactive stripping of citizenship since you cannot simply deport a U.S. citizens because they are too costly.
For the story, click here.
Doesn’t anyone realize that, if America starts to revoke children of illegal immigrants Citizenships that will cause generations to be removed from this country which everyone should already realize America was form by Illegal immigrants that sailed over here and took the land from the Native Americans, before this country was ever formed! And even after Independence Day when America was born, how many people for generations were illegally coming on those boats. Get off the subject of whose got papers, how about we educate them to get papers, the legal way and stop wasting time and money building an imaginary wall, when we can build a real one with cameras and more jobs monitoring the miles of walls. … WHY aren’t we pushing to show the immigrants it’s a great life being legal? Come on illegal people are the safest to be around cause the all are scared to get in trouble. So when they do commit a crime then you rid of them if they don’t have kids. Now if they have legal kids you put them on a billing method to get them to pay for their papers or they will have to give their kids up to an orphanage and face deportation. Or vice versa…But it’s pretty much simple! If you have legal kids you should be given the chance to change, that’s the bottom-line. Stop the hate and create the answer to all problems by educating.
The people siding with Congressman Hunter will find out that the US Government will merge with Mexico, and Canada, and eventually with the rest of America, hence the name the United States of America. They have already coined the new currency called the Amero. Ask yourselves this question, why is the US Government not securing the border they way they should? Once you all bigoted dumbbells are buried, and consumed by worms, the word illegal will be a thing of the past, and America will be overwhelmed with American citizens from Mexico, Canada, and with American citizens from Central and South America, and your decedents will enjoy the diverse, and rich culture, and will welcome them with open arms.
@James
The Children can stay but the “illegal” parents have to go.
—
That is how it works today. The anchor baby concept is not real because children need to wait until they are age 21 before they can petition for a visa for their parents.
—
Secondly, all places of employment that knowingly hire ileegal immigrants should be heavily fined.
—
Good luck with that. The reality is there have been crackdowns on businesses in all administrations going back to Reagan. Once the crackdown is underway, the Chamber of Commerce swings into action and the lobbyists come out of the woodwork. The crackdown slowly disappears until there is a call for immigration reform under a new president. As long as the business community can influence politics in the States, no real change will take place.
The Children can stay but the “illegal” parents have to go. We can put the kids in foster care because they are in compliance with the 14th amendment. There should be no path to citizenship otherwise we would be condoning illegal behavior. Secondly, all places of employment that knowingly hire ileegal immigrants should be heavily fined. The first mistake many make in regards to sending the parents back is acting as if America did something wrong. We didn’t! Secondly, If a dad or a single mom lose their job, the kids will suffer as well. All of us are effected by the behavior of our parents and therefore I am not willing to give an illegal immigrant one inch.
Instead of occupying a seat in Congress, Congressman Duncan Hunter should be sweeping the streets of Alpine, California. Hunter is another impostor, another moron among many in Washington DC, inflicting unnecessary pain, and suffering on fellow Americans. The law clearly states that persons born in the United States of America including the territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands are automatically granted U.S. citizenship. And there is another law, which is far greater than all manmade laws put together, which is brotherly love, the law that does not harm ones neighbors, but it does them good. Only cruel morons would separate innocent American children from their parents, therefore the parents of these children must be granted full citizenship, and everyone will discover to their utter dismay, that it will not cause the world to end. People like congressman Hunter are devoid of common sense, they are full of cruelty, full of greed, full of contempt, they are self serving, infantile, vulgar, arrogant, boastful, lacking humility and compassion. They consider themselves Americans because they were born in America, but in reality they act, speak and carry on like foreigners, they are the real aliens, because they do not have what it takes to be real Americans.
A “natural-born” citizen can become President under the Consitution. Under Hunter’s plan, if such a person became President, he would have him or her deported as a child of an illegal alien. Ironically, Senator McCain — who is arguably not a natural-born President because he was born in an American military hospital in Panama — was deemed suitable by the good Congressman to run for the Presidency.
ishobo,
Thanks for that clarification. I certainly am against Mr. Duncan’s proposal, although as the world’s resources shrink through population increases and/or concentrations, I would prefer a change in the law to disallow “Jus soli (“law of ground”) or “birthright citizenship” in the United States of America.
“birthright citizenship” is recognized by nations like France
Incorret. Only children born to a parent that is a French citizen receive citizenship at birth. The only exception is if the child is stateless.
We have a mix of citzenship by soil and blood. If both parents are not citizens, you must reside for a period of time in France (or an overseas department) before you can claim citizenship. At age 16 the child can claim on their own as long as they are currently a resident. A parent can claim for their child as soon as age 13, both the parent and the child need to be a resident. Otherwise, a person can claim from 18 onward as long as they have lived in France for a continuous 5 year period at some point in their life and they currently are a resident.
You must prove legal residency and France is very strict in this regard. Being in the country illgeally does not confer residency and an application to claim citizenship will be rejected if you do not have the proper documentation.
Throughout the great southwestern Border States, those babies dropped on our soil (soiled??) are termed “anchor babies.” (Cause once dropped; they provide an ‘anchor’ to this country for other illegal family members)
I suggest this campaign slogan for Mr. Hunter, with a slight variation of Aweigh to:
Anchors Away!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6gtISlR2dk&feature=related
Buddha,
I like your idea of deporting Duncan Hunter. That apple didn’t fall too far from the tree!
I, for one, would like to see Duncan Hunter’s birth certificate.
How about deporting Duncan Hunter?
That might be a good start.
once again another brilliant politician ( sarcasm intended) blaming the woes of California on the immigrant….the economy in California cannot function with out the cheap farm labor, now general labor, that the immigrants from all over provide…If you want get serious about budget woes, you have to talk about taxes. Yes, you actually have to pay them. The anti tax lobby has made it impossible to even talk about this issue. While the irony seems to be completely lost on them that their policies do not work. You can’t have all the things you say you want and not pay for it somehow. It is time for us to grow up and pay our own way, in stead of kicking the can down to those precious grandchildren we keep talking about. We have to think of it as an investment in our country, instead of some outrageous act of the left or the communists…thanks Michael P
I heard a story that there are prisons being built in the desert to handle the backlog of illegals….now I am wondering if it might true?..Manzanar 2.0 anyone…it is getting a little out of control if you don’t get my obvious point.
Does Representative Hunter understand that legally establishing a lack of United States jurisdiction over someone residing in the United States could have some unintended consequences?
From the article:
“To accomplish such a change, Hunter would have to pass sweeping new legislation and ultimately face a showdown with the Court over the language in the 14th Amendment. Such a challenge would likely focus on statements before ratification of the 14th Amendment that indicated a narrower view of the language.”
==============================================================
Is anyone seriously suggestion that Rep. Duncan Hunter, republican, and heir to his father’s congressional seat, actually has the brains to accomplish such a challenge?
Some countries are restricting lex soli by requiring that at least one of the child’s parents be a national of the state in question at the child’s birth, or a legal permanent resident of the territory of the state in question at the child’s birth, or that the child be a foundling found on the territory of the state in question. The primary reason for imposing this requirement is to limit or prevent people from travelling to a country with the specific intent of gaining citizenship for a child. The 27th amendment to the constitution of the Republic of Ireland was passed by referendum in 2004 for this purpose.
Child abandonment or the practice of abandoning ones offspring outside of legal adoption is a long standing social ill. … The Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution of Ireland, the founding legal document of the Republic of Ireland, provided that children born on the island of Ireland to parents who were both non-nationals would no longer have a constitutional right to Irish citizenship.
Jus soli is common in countries in the Americas, that wanted to develop and increase their own citizenry. Some countries that observe jus soli:
Argentina
Brazil
Canada (There are some limitations concerning the children of foreign diplomats)
Jamaica
Mexico
United States
In a number of countries, the automatic application of jus soli has been modified to impose some additional requirements for children of foreign parents, such as the parent being a permanent resident or having lived in the country for a period of time. Jus soli has been modified in the following countries:
United Kingdom on 1 January 1983
Australia on 20 August 1996
Republic of Ireland on 1 January 2005
New Zealand on 1 January 2006
France also operates a modified form of jus soli
German nationality law was changed on 1 January 2000 to introduce a modified concept of Jus soli. Prior to that date, German nationality law was based entirely on Jus sanguinis German citizenship is based primarily on the principle of Jus sanguinis. … German citizenship is based primarily on the principle of Jus sanguinis. … Jus sanguinis (Latin for right of blood) is a right by which nationality or citizenship can be recognised to any individual born to a parent who is a national or citizen of that state.
http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Jus-soli
I have spent time in Germany. They do not recognize the children of immigrants [primarily Turks] as citizens. I don’t know which other countries do not automatically recognize children of immigrants as citizens. I agree with Prof. Turley that you would have to amend the Constitution to prevent the children of illegal immigrants from automatically being citizens of the US. Also, the concept that people who are born here are entitled to citizenship is very deeply engrained in our culture and values.
However, I also think changing the Constitution is something we need to consider on a going forward basis, not retroactively. As a TX resident I saw illegals coming over the border for the sole purpose of giving birth, so the child could be an American citizen. With one American citizen child, the whole family can come over.
People who don’t live in TX and AZ have no idea what chaos and crime the unrestrained immigration is causing, not to mention the unbelievable financial burden. It’s fine for people in DC and others who live thousands of miles away from the problem to call the people who live in the mess and want greater restrictions racists. These mostly Northerners forget that most Hispanic citizens of AZ also support the act.
Who benefits from this infux (other than the immigrants who have a much better life)? Mexico and other south of the border countries, who get the remittances. Let them bear some of the cost of their citizens’ using our schools, hospitals, jails and social services. Any attempt to restrict immigration is resisted by Mexico.
There are demagogues on both sides of the issue. What a mess.
Regarding the Jurisdiction clause, wouldn’t Plyler v Doe be the controlling case? Where the Court held:
“no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”/i>