Colorado - Illegal Immigrants no longer eligble for state health care - page 14

Effective Aug. 1, state services, including the state health plans and welfare, will no longer be given to illegal immigrants in Colorado. This law, enacted by Gov. Bill Owens, in considered the... Read More

  1. by   HM2VikingRN
    ina: act 301 - nationals and citizens of the united states at birth


    sec. 301. [8 u.s.c. 1401] the following shall be nationals and citizens of the united states at birth:


    (a) a person born in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

    this is a mirror image of section 1 of the 14th amendment. congress does not have jurisdiction over the citizenship status of people born in the us. citizenship attaches to the child at his/her birth on us territory under the 14th amendment. where congress did retain jurisdiction was over people not born in us territories or possessions who desired to become naturalized citizens. the 14th amendment simply states that any person born in the us is a citizen.

    further: (findlaw)
    while clearly establishing a national rule on national citizenship and settling a controversy of long standing with regard to the derivation of national citizenship, the fourteenth amendment did not obliterate the distinction between national and state citizenship, but rather preserved it.6 the court has accorded the first sentence of sec. 1 a construction in accordance with the congressional intentions, holding that a child born in the united states of chinese parents who themselves were ineligible to be naturalized is nevertheless a citizen of the united states entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship.7 congress' intent in including the qualifying phrase ''and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'' was apparently to exclude from the reach of the language children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, both recognized exceptions to the common-law rule of acquired citizenship by birth,8 as well as children of members of indian tribes subject to tribal laws.9 the lower courts have generally held that the citizenship of the parents determines the citizenship of children born on vessels in united states territorial waters or on the high seas.10
    in afroyim v. rusk,11 a divided court extended the force of this first sentence beyond prior holdings, ruling that it withdrew from the government of the united states the power to expatriate united states citizens against their will for any reason. ''[t]he amendment can most reasonably be read as defining a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it. once acquired, this fourteenth amendment citizenship was not to be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the federal government, the states, or any other government unit. it is true that the chief interest of the people in giving permanence and security to citizenship in the fourteenth amendment was the desire to protect negroes. . . . this undeniable purpose of the fourteenth amendment to make citizenship of negroes permanent and secure would be frustrated by holding that the government can rob a citizen of his citizenship without his consent by simply proceeding to act under an implied general power to regulate foreign affairs or some other power generally granted.''12 in a subsequent decision, however, the court held that persons who were statutorily naturalized by being born abroad of at least one american parent could not claim the protection of the first sentence of sec. 1 and that congress could therefore impose a reasonable and non-arbitrary condition subsequent upon their continued retention of united states citizenship.13 between these two decisions there is a tension which should call forth further litigation efforts to explore the meaning of the citizenship sentence of the fourteenth amendment.
    Last edit by HM2VikingRN on Sep 1, '06
  2. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from hm2viking
    ina: act 301 - nationals and citizens of the united states at birth


    sec. 301. [8 u.s.c. 1401] the following shall be nationals and citizens of the united states at birth:


    (a) a person born in the united states, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

    this is a mirror image of section 1 of the 14th amendment. congress does not have jurisdiction over the citizenship status of people born in the us. citizenship attaches to the child at his/her birth on us territory under the 14th amendment. where congress did retain jurisdiction was over people not born in us territories or possessions who desired to become naturalized citizens. the 14th amendment simply states that any person born in the us is a citizen.
    you can deny that the 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;' is part of the text all you want. and you can deny the plain text that it is congress' right, a de facto additional enumerated constitutional power, to make appropriate legislation on point. but both of those concepts are inherent parts of the 14th.

    the 14th does not simply state any such thing that birth alone confers citizenship. it definitively states the two other points that i bring forth: jurisdiction is part of the test, and congress does have final authority on the issue.

    that is not simply my reading of it. all case law on point supports my interpretation of the plain text of the 14th, and not yours. i've discussed that case law several times in this thread. you have brought up one of those cases as well, but you leave out the critical distinction made in that case: it was the legal status of the parents to be here that conferred the jurisdiction to substantiate the citizenship claim of kim wong ark's birth.

    ~faith,
    timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Sep 1, '06
  3. by   HM2VikingRN
    Legality of the child's parents has nothing to do with the childs eligibility for citizenship. Please see Findlaw for a review of this issue. The 2 step test to citizenship is nonsense.
  4. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from HM2Viking
    Legality of the child's parents has nothing to do with the childs eligibility for citizenship. Please see Findlaw for a review of this issue. The 2 step test to citizenship is nonsense.
    I,

    The plain text of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,

    The Supreme Court cases of Kim Wong ARK, Elks v. Wilkins, and Plyler v. Doe,

    and, The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924,

    all disagree with you.

    But, I think the issue is sufficiently hashed, unless you'd like to provide some case law to support your assertions. In all my looking, I've only seen one legal opinion on point to your assertions, and that was a footnoted opinion of one Justice in Plyler, and NOT part of the actual decision. The actual decision, or at least, dissenting opinion, of Plyler, BEGGED for Congressional action to settle such issues.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Sep 1, '06
  5. by   Fuzzy
    I say send the illegal parents back to their country of origin. The children who are citizens can stay if they remain in the care of a legal citizen. Let the parents make the decision on whether the childern go back to the country of origin or stay in this country under someone else's care. I'll bet that that would stop the "anchor child" problem. ZZZZZipping up the flame-proof suit here.

    Fuzzy
  6. by   TheCommuter
    Quote from Fuzzy
    I say send the illegal parents back to their country of origin. The children who are citizens can stay if they remain in the care of a legal citizen. Let the parents make the decision on whether the childern go back to the country of origin or stay in this country under someone else's care. I'll bet that that would stop the "anchor child" problem. ZZZZZipping up the flame-proof suit here.
    I'm not going to flame you because I happen to agree with your post. However, nothing is ever going to be done about the crisis with illegal immigration because our influential politicians and business owners absolutely love the cheap human labor provided by illegals.
  7. by   CHATSDALE
    agree with fuzzy don't see any law that would require a child to hav e parents stay in usa to have legal siblings which would also require food stamps, welfare checks and medical care

    illegals usual send most of pay home where it does not enter the usa financial circle when they retire they get ss check sent to home country

    the reasoniung that southwestern states are still a part of mexico does not make any sense...i use to own a house which has since been sold...if i showed up and went in and started eating out of their refrigerator i would have a shoe shaped bruise on my hinny

    being bilingual is good and helpful in many situations but demanding that all children be taught spanish is really stupid

    maybe parents want children to learn chinese, french or something else as a second language
  8. by   cardiacRN2006
    Quote from Fuzzy
    I say send the illegal parents back to their country of origin. The children who are citizens can stay if they remain in the care of a legal citizen. Let the parents make the decision on whether the childern go back to the country of origin or stay in this country under someone else's care. I'll bet that that would stop the "anchor child" problem. ZZZZZipping up the flame-proof suit here.

    Fuzzy
    Actually, I also agree withyou. It would solve quite a few problems.
  9. by   weirdRN
    I agree with Fuzzy.

    Excuse me, I understand the legal by play here. I understand all the points made. However, many of the cases cited did not ever envision the massive INVASION that is occuring across our southern border.

    I put forth that most judges asked today if a child born of an illegal immigrant is a citizen of the USA and entitled to all the rights and privleges of a citizen would say NO.
  10. by   pickledpepperRN
    This is a difficult and complicated problem
    But SOME are ignorant and racist. So far they are simply rude and very angry. I know it seems obvious to us not to assume anything about strangers but some people don't think.

    30 years ago the miniseries "Roots" inspired her to do a family history. She discovered that all her ancestors had been in either California or Texas for at least 200 years. She has a common Spanish surname.
    We were shopping when an older woman very angrily told her to "Go back to Mexico"

    Worse in the shower at a campground another friends mother and aunt, both in their eighties, were threatened by young women with knives saying, "Get out of my country. I'm tired of you Mexican invaders taking jobs from good Americans like me!"
    My friend heard her wet naked Mama yell and with her husband ran over there and called the ranger.
    These women are Native American whose ancestors were in California before Columbus!
  11. by   casi
    Quote from Fuzzy
    I say send the illegal parents back to their country of origin. The children who are citizens can stay if they remain in the care of a legal citizen. Let the parents make the decision on whether the childern go back to the country of origin or stay in this country under someone else's care. I'll bet that that would stop the "anchor child" problem. ZZZZZipping up the flame-proof suit here.

    Fuzzy
    I acctually read a case on this in the St. Paul Pinoeer Press a month or two ago. Parents are getting sent back to Mexico, and the children are staying in the US with an uncle. I believe they had the choice whether or not to take their kids back to Mexico with them, but they wantted the children to stay in the U.S. It's sad, but necissary.
  12. by   weirdRN
    I think that by not allowing those who have broken FEDERAL laws to get away with it we are asserting ourselves as a nation.

    If assertiveness is good for the individual, why should it not be just as good for the Nation?

    Those people who come here with out taking the necessary legal steps should be shoved out on their behinds. I don't care what kind of grinding poverty they come from. Americans who pay taxes should not be responsible for their healthcare or anything else until they [illegal immigrants] go back to where ever they came from and immigrate here legally. And I am not just talking about those from across our southern borders, I am talking about every immigrant who stays here over their visa time limits too.
  13. by   HM2VikingRN
    My final comment on citizenship. Birthright citizenship has become a constitutional right. The Elk case preceded the Wong Kim Ark case by over 14 years. Quite obviously the courts understanding of section 1 evolved to the viewpoint in Wong Kim Ark that citizenship by birth was codified through the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress has accepted this court interpretation of Birthright citizenship for all people as a Constitutional right by implementation of the INA. This debate has become "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

    A much more productive way to reduce illegal immigration would be for the US to focus on changing the conditions driving immigrants and their families out of mexico. (Oh for example the 40% poverty rate.)

    I'm out of here....I have too much school work to do.

close