[surgpa]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

Convention on the Rights of the Child



Article 2

1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.

Article 7

1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.
2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.

Quoting a UN document is meaningless. Negative points for using this "New World Order" pap for your argument.

Mike

[ZASHAGALKA]

While I agree that the sins of the father should not be visited on the child, not granting a reward that was never rightfully the child's is NOT a punishment to that child.

~faith,
Timothy.

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

While I agree that the sins of the father should not be visited on the child, not granting a reward that was never rightfully the child's is NOT a punishment to that child.

~faith,
Timothy.

Citizenship is not a reward. It is an affirmative birthright under both Jus Soli and the Fourteenth Amendment. I have never defended people here under illegal status. There is no reasonable interpretation of section 1 other than citizenship is a birthright guaranteed to children by the constitution.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

Citizenship is not a reward. It is an affirmative birthright under both Jus Soli and the Fourteenth Amendment. I have never defended people here under illegal status. There is no reasonable interpretation of section 1 other than citizenship is a birthright guaranteed to children by the constitution.

Except that Jus Soli was clearly intended in the 14th Amendment to be ONE part of a TWO part Citizenship test. Jurisdiction, the legal RIGHT to BE in that place of birth, is the second part of that test.

~faith,
Timothy.

[subee]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

Tim,
I am glad that you took the time to read Wong Kim Ark. I will stand on my assertion that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter on what are considered to be Constitutional rights in the constitution. I think that you may have missed the other point that I was making. Jus Soli is part of English Common Law and by extension US law.

Under the Chinese Exclusion Act people of chinese origin were not legally allowed to become citizens. Taking a parallel to today the Chinese were the guest workers of the nineteenth and early twentieth century. The court made the point that regardless of the eligibility of the parents for citizenship that anyone born in the US was considered a citizen and could not be denied citizenship. The court indicated through this decision that they took an expansionist viewpoint of Jus Soli as a constitutional right.

The other reference about the 14th amendment and alienage that I posted was that the court did not believe that the sins of the fathers should be visited upon the children. I think that it is logically inconsistent to be prolife and simultaneously attempt to remove/deny the protections of law and the courts from children because of the mistakes of parents. Arguably, the courts have specifically extended the protections of Jus Soli and due process to these children because of their vulnerability. The courts have in the past thrown out congressional acts because of an impermissible infringement on individual liberties. So while congress may have the ability to write laws that interpret/implement the 14th amendment the Supreme Court does have the final say as to whether these laws are an impermissible infringement on the rights of the individual. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed as a specific expansion of the Bill of Rights to be equally applied to people living in all states. Section 5 was not a clause meant to limit the rights of people but can certainly be read as an authorization for Congress to pass legislation as needed to expand and protect the civil liberies and rights of all people living in the United States but not the right to constrict or selectively remove previously granted rights.

One other consideration: Can you guarantee that your ancestors were legal immigrants? Removing/modifying citizenship by birth opens a pandoras box of unending court challenges.

There needs to be a realistic immigration policy established. Part of that is to attack the economic conditions driving people north at the source. (Land reform, governmental reforms, and demands for labor/environmental protection laws.)

I think that we should all be careful about using terms to describe immigrants or thie children that could be construed as either pejorative and/or racist.

And how can we Americans "attack the economic conditions driving people north at the source"? And what about countries that are so over-populated that having anything resembling an economy is impossible? How are we to interfere with another friendly government's economic policies?

[TheCommuter]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

While I agree that the sins of the father should not be visited on the child, not granting a reward that was never rightfully the child's is NOT a punishment to that child.

The children of illegal immigrants who were born on American soil are accurately referred to as 'anchor babies' because their birth makes deportation of the parents nearly impossible. Since the children are U.S. citizens, they qualify for AFDC, food stamps, low-income housing vouchers, WIC, medicaid, and other public assistance goodies.

I see no end in sight.

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by TheCommuter

The children of illegal immigrants who were born on American soil are accurately referred to as 'anchor babies' because their birth makes deportation of the parents nearly impossible. Since the children are U.S. citizens, they qualify for AFDC, food stamps, low-income housing vouchers, WIC, medicaid, and other public assistance goodies.

I see no end in sight.

The term "Anchor Baby" is both offensive and racist and is on a par with the phrase "welfare queen." Both are used as a way to demean and attack the least powerful members of society. The children who are born here are citizens. All children born to a society are worthy of protection and inherent value by society regardless of their parents race, gender, national origin, religion etc. These children are the seedcorn for our future.

If we as a collective society want people to respect and honor society at large that we need to treat them as people and not stereotypes.

[HM2Viking]

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.(emphasis added)

The text of the amendment was neither conjunctive or additive. (If you take the "or" out you can see what Congress did in this case.) To be a citizen of the US the Fourteenth Amendment contains two ideas within one clause. The ideas are not interdependent but should be read as follows:

Section. 1. All persons born...in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Comment: This was intended as a guarantee of citizenship for all people born within the territory of the US and the states. People who live within the boundaries of the US are subject to US law and its jurisdiction with constitutional guarantees of equal protection of civil liberties within each of the states. The intent was to prevent any state from abrogating civil liberties and to ensure that there was due process protection under the laws. This clause codified Jus Soli as a birthright guaranteed to everyone born within the US (with two narrowly drawn exceptions. EG the children of diplomats are not eligible because they are nationals of a foreign power and are exempt from US law due to diplomatic immunity.)

The other independent idea contained within this section is:

Section. 1. All persons...naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Comment: This established that to become a naturalized citizen a person had to take a citizenship oath' agree to follow US and state laws and renounce any allegiance to any foreign powers in order to become a US citizen. As long as the person took the steps to become naturalized they were guaranteed citizenship on both the federal and state level.

[HM2Viking]

Originally Posted by subee

And how can we Americans "attack the economic conditions driving people north at the source"? And what about countries that are so over-populated that having anything resembling an economy is impossible? How are we to interfere with another friendly government's economic policies?

Through our trade agreements.
We also need to protect and promote democratic institutions within these countries.
Land reform is also key. I posted a link to the nation that reflects some of these issues.

[ZASHAGALKA]

Originally Posted by HM2Viking

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.(emphasis added)

The text of the amendment was neither conjunctive or additive. (If you take the "or" out you can see what Congress did in this case.) To be a citizen of the US the Fourteenth Amendment contains two ideas within one clause. The ideas are not interdependent but should be read as follows:

Section. 1. All persons born...in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Comment: This was intended as a guarantee of citizenship for all people born within the territory of the US and the states. People who live within the boundaries of the US are subject to US law and its jurisdiction with constitutional guarantees of equal protection of civil liberties within each of the states. The intent was to prevent any state from abrogating civil liberties and to ensure that there was due process protection under the laws. This clause codified Jus Soli as a birthright guaranteed to everyone born within the US (with two narrowly drawn exceptions. EG the children of diplomats are not eligible because they are nationals of a foreign power and are exempt from US law due to diplomatic immunity.)

The other independent idea contained within this section is:

Section. 1. All persons...naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Comment: This established that to become a naturalized citizen a person had to take a citizenship oath' agree to follow US and state laws and renounce any allegiance to any foreign powers in order to become a US citizen. As long as the person took the steps to become naturalized they were guaranteed citizenship on both the federal and state level.

You are trying overly hard to force the language to fit what you want it to mean.

Your linguistics lesson is NOT what the 14th Amendment had in mind. Keep in mind that this Amendment was one of the Reconstruction Amendments and had drawing permanent solutions to slavery in mind, not 'anchor' babies (which is, I believe, a fair description of the intent to have them born here.)

The 2 part test was designed to create a catch 22, in which any official recognition of a black person served the purpose of distinguishing him as a citizen. The jurisdictional clause is a guarantee of rights, or, more to the point, a prevention from stripping the rights of a person. In order for the state to claim jursidiction over someone born or naturalized, they had to recognize that such a person had the rights of a citizen. This was a two fold test PRECISELY BECAUSE the original writers felt that Jus Soli was not sufficient to prevent abuse of the intent. And just as it is a double protection that ensures citizenship, the converse is true, it's a double protection that DEFINES citizenship.

To read the 14th the way you describe above is to completely rob it of its ORIGINAL INTENT: and that intent was the permanent reversal of the 3/5ths designation within the original Constitution. No, the issue at original hand dealt w/ the jurisdictional status of people born on this soil.

You even recognize this when you point out the exceptions: children of foreign diplomats, etc. They don't have the right of citizenship by birth because of specific jurisdictional limitations. The two concepts, they go hand in hand.

Your attempt to parse the language into two clauses is not on point to original intent. Can you provide any case law, at all, to show that this was the intent, or any support or rationale as to why the original need was such that making a distinction between birth and naturalization (as opposed to them being a single concept within the wording) was on point to the intent?

Here are two Surpreme Court cases that DIRECTLY link the concept of jurisdiction as an additive concept to birth, as a 2 fold test.

1. YOU pointed out Wong Kim ARK - and the issues that dealt with what 'jursidiction' meant in THAT case turned on his BIRTH here, not a case of naturalization. Wong Kim ARK granted citizenship BECAUSE the legal right to be here conferred jurisdiction. And Wong Kim ARK established the standard that birth PLUS the jurisdictional right to be here = citizenship. Wong Kim ARK established that the 14th was designed to be a two-fold test.

2. Elk v. Wilkins, which denied citizenship to Indians prior to the Congress passing the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, turned on 'jurisdiction' in relationship to birth. Elk v. Wilkins also applied the two part test, and DENIED citizenship to those born here ON THE GROUNDS that gov't treaties with Indians created a separate jurisdictional authority on Indian lands.

The original intent and relevant case law deny your linguistical parsing. The phrase is (born or naturalized) AND subject to jurisdiction.

~faith,
Timothy.