State GOP: No Automatic Citizenship for Kids Born in U.S. to Illegal Immigrants
| AR Articles on Signs of Hope |
|---|
| Prospects for our Movement (Feb. 27, 2004) |
| Europe on the March (Jun. 2002) |
| Twelve Years of American Renaissance (Nov. 2002) |
| Search AmRen.com for Signs of Hope |
| More news stories on Signs of Hope |
The state Republican Party adopted a platform Saturday that includes a provision aimed at opposing automatic citizenship for babies born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants.
{snip}
“Immigration is an issue that a lot of our party activists feel strongly about,” state Republican Party Chairman Luke Esser said. “And it’s certainly a very defensible position. It’s not at all something that’s based on race concerns. It’s a matter of what is citizenship going to be based on.”
State Attorney General Rob McKenna, one of the state’s most prominent Republicans, said he doesn’t support banning automatic citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants.
“We have more than 200 years of history in which children born in the U.S. are deemed U.S. citizens,” said McKenna, before reading the platform language. “What matters is where the children are born.”
{snip}
“The Constitution says that if you’re born in the United States you’re a U.S. citizen,” said Scott Workman, of Sequim. “I’m not willing to change the Constitution. If we’re going to let them in and they’re going to have babies here, then they’re U.S. citizens.”
{snip}
The plank covering immigration and homeland security says, “We welcome those who wish to build a new and better life in America and Washington state and to recognize that the only price of such opportunity is their willingness to embrace our language, culture and legal system, beginning at our national borders.”
The provision goes on to say that legal immigration “can best be facilitated by a transparent, traceable and enforceable guest-worker program that does not include amnesty or birthright citizenship and sanctuary cities.”
{snip}
Email Andrew Garber at agarber@seattletimes.com.
(Posted on June 2, 2008)
Comments
“We have more than 200 years of history in which children born in the U.S. are deemed U.S. citizens,” said McKenna, before reading the platform language. “What matters is where the children are born.”
{snip}
“The Constitution says that if you’re born in the United States you’re a U.S. citizen,” said Scott Workman, of Sequim. “I’m not willing to change the Constitution. If we’re going to let them in and they’re going to have babies here, then they’re U.S. citizens.”
How can one become a state attorney general with this degree of absolute ignorance of the US constitution? It is truly amazing. This great legal scholar should do a little reading before making pronouncements about the US constitution. The 14th amendment, which he mistakenly thinks established birth right citizenship was not ratified until 1868—-that does not make 200 years by my mathematics(perhaps he also uses a different method of addition from the rest of us). Prior to that, in accordance as was reaffirmed in the decision of chief justice Taney in Dred Scott, blacks, no matter where they were born could not be or become citizens.
Thus, it would be more accurate to say that there was no such thing as birth right citizenship in the US until at least 1868 with the ratification of the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment itself, however, does not establish birth right citizenship as it was intended to give citizenship to newly freed slaves who had no other citizenship, not to just anyone born here. It was written and passed immediately following the War of Northern Aggression for the purpose of making citizens of ex-slaves. It’s wording is quite clear in that it awards citizenship to those born in the US who when born were not subject to the authority of any other state. While this worked well for ex-slaves, it was never intended to apply to the children of foreign nationals who are subject to the authority of the state of citizenship of their parents when born. Thus, even today the children of foreign diplomats do not become US citizens if born here. There was never any intention in the constitution to automatically grant citizenship to the children of non-US citizens who happened by chance to be born here. To hold otherwise is not only to completely misunderstand the constitution but is to imply that the founders were morons.
Posted by at 5:42 PM on June 2
The whole “anchor baby” thing is an abomination. Since when are you rewarded when you break a nations laws by sneaking into it without permission. Americans should be outraged an calling for this to stop. It is insane how it robs us of our taxes.
Posted by Bobby at 6:07 PM on June 2
The Constitution says that if you’re born in the United States you’re a U.S. citizen,” said Scott Workman, of Sequim. “I’m not willing to change the Constitution. If we’re going to let them in and they’re going to have babies here, then they’re U.S. citizens.”
If they’re illegal nobody “let them in”. What is so hard about that?
Posted by slick at 6:08 PM on June 2
Interesting, but this will run afoul of federal law.
Posted by at 6:20 PM on June 2
The politicians who don’t support banning birth-right citizenship must be historically illiterate. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment was implemented to ensure citizenship to all blacks and former slaves; it was not implemented to give citizenship to US-born children of law-braeking illegal immigrants.
It’s about time our politicians and government took action to ensure the proper interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Posted by Tom at 6:39 PM on June 2
“The Constitution says that if you’re born in the United States you’re a U.S. citizen,” said Scott Workman, of Sequim. “I’m not willing to change the Constitution. If we’re going to let them in and they’re going to have babies here, then they’re U.S. citizens.”
It is way past time for a constitutional amendment addressing this issue.
Idiots who believe our country’s current demographic and population contexts are the same as 200+ years ago are — well, IDIOTS.
Posted by at 6:54 PM on June 2
The 14th Amendment doesn’t really say that. It says “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” meaning (in my opinion) that the parents need to be citizens or legal residents.
Posted by at 7:31 PM on June 2
This whole “anchor baby” thing is an abomination. It is insane how it robs us of our taxes.”-Bobby
Frankly Bobby, I`m more worried how it`s robbing us of our TEXAS…
Posted by Tim Mc Hugh at 9:17 PM on June 2
The 14th amendment applies only to african slaves born in america. We actually have no laws that define what a citizen is. The mexican constitution, in artical 30, says that if your parents are mexican, you are mexican. Let us follow mexican law until we define citizenship.
Posted by flyingtiger at 1:49 AM on June 3
I know this practice needs to stop. I live in Kansas City and the Mexicans are taking over. Judging from their numbers and lack of the English language they can’t all be legal. I have called the INS several times regarding apartment buildings which are known hotbeds for illegals. Nothing has been done to my knowledge. They have taken over the labor market in most areas of construction, lawn care, janitorial and fast food. Yet, our government is spineless in that they do not enact legislation to solve this problem. And now to further add to the problems of white Americans it appears that we may actually have the first hip hop president. America appears to be in her declining days and will end up like any other third world sewer nation once the minorities have taken over if they haven’t already.
Posted by at 7:03 AM on June 3
The best way to stop this is to bill Mexico for the medical bill. Then to start taking the property of Mexican investments if they do not pay the bill. This would save tax payers millions of dollars and also keep the hospitals solvent.
Posted by at 8:18 AM on June 3
From the original article:
‘Esser noted that prohibiting citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants could “require a change in the U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment, so, obviously, if that’s the case it will be difficult to ever accomplish.”’
If a law is enacted in a state banning birthright citizenship to illegals and then challenged, can this be used as a platform for the Supreme Court to review the 14th amendment and offer a clear definition, or would the Supreme Court simply strike down the state law, as it runs contrary to Federal law?
Posted by RaceandCountry at 8:56 AM on June 3
Do our politicians want a nation of compliant slaves? Or do they
hope for future voters who will vote they way they are told? I’m at a loss as to why they seem so intent on replacing American citizens. Surely, these low-skilled and poorly educated illegal (about to be citizens), can never keep our politicians in the style to which they’ve become accustomed. Just what is it? I suppose the mid-level jobs will be filled with Indians, while the low-skilled will continue to be filled by Hispanics. The ironic thing is that when La Raza and the other anti-American zealots take over, they will replace whites in Washington. Then we’ll see an America that none of us ever envisioned. I would love to come back in 50 years and see the banana republic this once-proud nation has become. Or, maybe not! Stop the anchor baby fiasco.
Posted by June at 9:06 AM on June 3
“The Constitution says that if you’re born in the United States you’re a U.S. citizen,” said Scott Workman, of Sequim. “I’m not willing to change the Constitution. If we’re going to let them in and they’re going to have babies here, then they’re U.S. citizens.”
Unbeleivable. The Constitution DOES NOT say that. The 14th amendment has been misinterpreted, and has never been to the Supreme Court. The 14th amendment was aimed solely at ensuring slaves were not denied citizenship. It expressly omitted foreign dignitaries from the amendment so why would the writers have meant to include anyone else who manages to lie/cheat/steal their way into the US to have a baby for citizenship puposes. They didn’t. Many scholars do not believe the 14th amendment is being interpreted correctly and beleive a simple clarification by congress is all that is required (simple majority required). Not an amendment to the constitution (2/3 majority for passage). Even liberal European countries and Canada eliminated birthright citizneship because they saw the abuse and problems caused by such and idiotic rule. End the anchor baby nonsense now. That is the first step required for us to begin getting illegal immigration under control.
Posted by at 10:32 AM on June 3
A simple change in the wording, “and the child’s parents being American citizens,”
Posted by Superman at 1:00 PM on June 3
“Do our politicians want a nation of compliant slaves?”
Yes.
Labor drives economies and cheap labor drives high profits.
Illegal immigration is nothing more than the new slavery. Keeping them illegal ensures they remain complacent.
Our government learned nothing from the Civil War and I believe a new human rights ‘slave’ revolt is in our future. Our new slave class have no intention of remaining slaves. They are going to fight and take what they believe they have earned and deserved for their cheap labor.
Posted by sbuffalonative at 2:25 PM on June 3
To RaceandCountry:
If a state legislature were to pass a bill doing away with birth right citizenship, the legislation would surely be appealed by the open borders, illegal alien advocates. Depending upon which court it went to and what their decision was, it might well go to the supreme court for “clarification”. Given the current composition of the supreme court, however, it is likely that they would rule that the state law was unconstitutional on the basis of some international or foreign law or on the basis of some “emerging consensus”(i.e. the particular personal morality of the majority of judges on the court). Such a ruling would be unconstitutional but unlikely to be challenged by any agency of the general government as the pernicious and unconstitutional doctrines of judicial supremacy and the “living constitution” have been accepted by far too many in authority.
There was an analogous case recently decided by the majority of the leftist wing of the court, in Lewis, whereby the majority of the court ruled that a Texas law making homosexual sodomy illegal was overturned in exactly the same way, viz. by an appeal to the laws of foreign countries and rulings of international organizations and the so-called “emerging consensus”. In this case the majority of the court basically stated that the constitution does not allow the states to legislate concerning public morality, something that has always been within the scope of state legislatures throughout American history.
This ruling was clearly unconstitutional because it was based upon the laws/regulations of foreign/international bodies (which is not allowed since the US is an independent country with its own laws/regulations) as well as on a supposed “emerging consensus” (i.e. the individual personal moral views of the majority of justices—which is no foundation whatsoever and never can be).
So the majority of the present court essentially stated that the constitution was whatever they felt it should be, regardless of its actual contents. It is likely that they would do the same with birth right citizenship. They like it, so it becomes the law of the land.
What is necessary, before bringing such a case to the supreme court, is to impeach every justice who concurred with the Lewis ruling. This can be done by the legislative branch which must interpret the constitution for itself and on the basis that judges of the supreme court are only allowed to serve “under good behavior”. The systematic, willful distortion and misconstruction of the constitution is surely grounds for dismissal under this standard as well as under the standard of high crimes and misdemeanors as determined by congress.
Posted by at 6:11 PM on June 3
Response to Anonymous at 6:11 PM on June 3:
Alito and Scalia have the reputation of being strict “Originalists” who interpret the Constitution without regard to Foreign law, and “Constructionists” who adhere to the language and intent of the lawmakers as written.
I am not sure how an “Originalist” Court would rule on this issue.
Posted by RaceandCountry at 10:57 PM on June 3
“cheap labor drives high profits.”
This is the labor theory of value of Karl Marx. Why don’t you tell us? Surely you know…
Posted by Madame Smythe at 1:32 AM on June 4
If you can manage to break our laws and give birth you are home free.
Posted by at 4:10 AM on June 4
The 14th Amendment was never intended to grant American citizenship to the American born children of foreighn illegals, foreign tourists, foreign students, foreign workers, foreign diplomats, or foreign politicians. The congress has known this all along and I believe we should exile our Hispandering politicians when we deport the illegals and the anchor babies…
Posted by at 4:42 PM on June 4
State sponsored birthright citizenship to illegal aliens is UnConstitutional. The illegal alien is already a felon! How can any official suggest it is OK to violate USA immigration law and make USA citizens pay for all the entitilements they delilberately came to collect! This is criminal. Gov commits crimes against its’ citizens for illegal aliens! Insane! V
Posted by at 12:15 AM on June 5
It’s about time. What took them so long?
Posted by Unemployed WASP at 1:52 AM on June 5