See other Immigration Articles
Title: House Conservatives Want End to Birthright Citizenship
Source:
HumanEvents
URL Source: http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10752
Published: Dec 8, 2005
Author: Robert B. Bluey
Post Date: 2005-12-08 22:16:46 by robin
Ping List: *The Border*
Keywords: Conservatives, Citizenship, Birthright
Views: 244
Comments: 17
House Conservatives Want End to Birthright Citizenship by Robert B. Bluey
Posted Dec 8, 2005 House conservatives today announced plans to amend a Republican-sponsored immigration reform bill with language calling for the construction of a 2,000-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border and a provision that would deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. whose parents aren’t citizens.
The legislation, sponsored by House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R.-Wis.), is expected to be voted on by the full House as early as next week. Sensenbrenner has worked closely with the White House to craft the bill (H.R. 4437) -- the reason conservatives cited for the exclusion of key enforcement tools.
Rep. Tom Tancredo (R.-Colo.) organized Thursday’s press conference featuring about 20 other conservative Republicans. Each complained about a particular area they want to see addressed (see full list below).
Among those issues likely to be the center of debate next week: the lack of language authorizing a physical structure along the border and the exclusion of a so-called “anchor baby” provision undoing birthright citizenship.
The House conservatives said they would attempt to attach two bills previously introduced to Sensenbrenner’s legislation. House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter (R.-Calif.) is sponsoring the TRUE Enforcement and Border Security Act (H.R. 4313), which authorized the fence construction, and Rep. Nathan Deal (R.-Ga.) introduced the Citizenship Reform Act (H.R. 698), which denies birthright citizenship.
Responding to Sensenbrenner’s bill, Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R.-Ariz.) said, “Both the timing and the thin patchwork context of this proposed House bill reinforced my concern that Washington continues to view illegal immigration as a political problem to be managed, rather than an invasion to be stopped.”
Conservatives flatly rejected any compromise with the Senate that would include a guest-worker or amnesty proposal. During a House Judiciary Committee meeting today, Republicans rejected a Democrat-sponsored amendment that would have attached a guest-worker proposal to Sensenbrenner’s bill.
Tancredo, leader of the 92-member House Immigration Reform Caucus, wouldn’t commit to any specific plan of action regarding amendments. His spokesman said no vote count had been done on any of the potential amendments, adding that the first priority is to simply convince GOP leaders to allow votes on amendments to the bill.
The full list of concerns, released by Tancredo’s office, is printed below.
Fixing our Broken Borders:
Enforcing the Law throughout our Country:
Stopping Businesses from Hiring Illegals:
Reducing the Incentive to Come Illegally:
Disentangling Foreign Policy from Immigration:
Restoring the Meaning of Citizenship:
Reforming Legal Immigration:
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
Judiciary panel backs border security bill
Death has a tendency to encourage a depressing view of war. – Donald Rumsfeld
This is fine and dandy, but what isn't mentioned is the Senate will place Getting rid of H-1B visas and unskilled worker green cards is a great idea, but I don't think he has much hope of getting it passed, and certainly none getting Bush to sign it.
God is always good! Wait a minute; we don't need these people in our jails, that would be worse than giving them amnesty. Send them back to where they came from while Paul McCartney is singing "Get back to where you once belonged", blaring over loud speakers. Just to make sure they understand it, play it Spanish too.
God is always good! Execute them.
Don't force feed me your views... talk to me so I can hear you...
Fixing our Broken Borders: * Begin building a border security fence * Put military on the border * End ‘catch and release’ * Mandate passport usage for everyone traveling internationally * Make volunteer border patrol a sanctioned federal activity * Suspend visa waiver program Enforcing the Law throughout our Country: * Require a federal response when local law enforcement asks to have illegal aliens arrested * Restrict federal money that goes to local governments that have illegal alien sanctuary policies * Close the loophole which allows religious organizations and their agents to be immune from illegal alien harboring laws * Make a DUI a deportable offense * Increase penalties for smuggling of illegal aliens * Increase penalties for terrorists who are illegal aliens * Increase penalties for gang members who are illegal aliens * Draft minimum standards for birth certificates and birth/death registries * Make unlawful presence in the U.S. a felony Stopping Businesses from Hiring Illegals: * Make employment verification mandatory * Eliminate the business tax write-off for illegal workers * Increase the penalty for employers who hire illegal aliens * Make businesses who hire illegal aliens ineligible for future guest workers Reducing the Incentive to Come Illegally: * Disallow all federal funding from going to states that offer in-state tuition to illegal aliens * Disallow the matricula consular card as a legal form of identification * Reform the use of ITINs * Eliminate social security totalization for illegal aliens Disentangling Foreign Policy from Immigration: * Block any immigration provisions from being inserted into trade bills * Block visas to countries that refuse to take their nationals back * Reduce the availability of yearly legal visas per country by the number of illegal aliens from such country Restoring the Meaning of Citizenship: * End birthright citizenship for illegal aliens * Eliminate dual citizenship * Make English the official language * Write the oath of citizenship into law Reforming Legal Immigration: * Eliminate the visa lottery * Eliminate chain migration * Eliminate H-1B visas * Eliminate unskilled worker green cards * Create a Department of Immigration or a cabinet-level agency Nowhere on this list does it say, CUT OFF ALL WELFARE AND MEDICAL PROGRAMS TO ILLEGAL ALIENS. You do that, and the flow of illegal aliens stops.
#2. To: robin (#0)
amnesty a guest worker program in their version. Then when it goes to conference committee it will be included in the final version that the house gets to vote on. Since they can only give a yes or no on the whole enchilada, it is very likely we will be hit with another amnesty for illegals. It is time to make some noise and call and email our congress critters. I already have.
"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of all." - John F. Kennedy
#3. To: robin (#0)
Reforming Legal Immigration:
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#4. To: robin (#0)
Make unlawful presence in the U.S. a felony
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#5. To: RickyJ (#4)
#6. To: robin (#0)
The full list of concerns, released by Tancredo’s office, is printed below.
 | So many morons, so few bullets. |
#7. To: robin (#0)
The Constitution cannot be amended by a Federal law; any law which conflicts with the Constitution is null and void. Article 14 clearly 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." This action will require an amendment to the Constitution.
House conservatives today announced plans to amend a Republican-sponsored immigration reform bill with ... a provision that would deny citizenship to children born in the U.S. whose parents aren’t citizens.
#8. To: TommyTheMadArtist (#6)
Nope. You have to cut off the SOBs that hire them.
CUT OFF ALL WELFARE AND MEDICAL PROGRAMS TO ILLEGAL ALIENS. You do that, and the flow of illegal aliens stops.
#9. To: nolu_chan (#7)
True, it says nothing about their parents, however..
Dubya to the serfs: "It's Raining!"
#10. To: nolu_chan (#7)
No. Read the 14th Amendment again: Then recheck Federal Law where it specifically states that children of Foreign Diplomats do NOT automatically get "birthright citizenship." The key phrase "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" is what to look at here. That can simply be extended to "all foreign nationals." Keep in mind that American Indians did NOT get US Citizenship automatically until the late 1800s and a separate Federal law was required for that. There is precedent here. An amendment is not needed. A redefinition is all that is required.
This action will require an amendment to the Constitution.
"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."
#11. To: mirage (#10)
That can simply be extended to "all foreign nationals." The spouse and children of foreign diplomats enjoy diplomatic immunity and therefore are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Your "solution" would be to grant diplomatic immunity to each and every foreign national. I think you fail to consider the consequences of such a move. Any foreign national could commit any crime in the United States, e.g., murder one of your family members, and he or she would be immune from prosecution. The courts could not act because they would lack jurisdiction over the person. This purported "solution" results in millions of people running around with diplomatic immunity.
Then recheck Federal Law where it specifically states that children of Foreign Diplomats do NOT automatically get "birthright citizenship." The key phrase "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" is what to look at here.
#12. To: nolu_chan (#11)
Negative. Recheck how this applied to American Indians. As I've said before -- there is precedent.
Your "solution" would be to grant diplomatic immunity to each and every foreign national.
#13. To: nolu_chan (#7)
This action will require an amendment to the Constitution. Or reconsideration by the Supreme Court. This interpretation of the 14th amendment was devised by the same people who gave us "separate but equal."
The Constitution cannot be amended by a Federal law; any law which conflicts with the Constitution is null and void. Article 14 clearly 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."
#14. To: DeaconBenjamin (#13)
The 14th amendment is not a real amendment. It was never passed legitimately. You see they had puppet governments in the south at the time. In violation of Article V. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. NO STATE, WITHOUT ITS CONSENT, SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF ITS EQUAL SUFFRAGE IN THE SENATE. There you have it. There is no such thing as the 14th amendment. It would have been the 15th anyway. They threw the real 13th in the trash.
Article 14 clearly states,
If you support Bush you are an Capital A ASSHOLE!!!
#15. To: DeaconBenjamin (#13)
This interpretation of the 14th amendment was devised by the same people who gave us "separate but equal." There is no interpretation there. The black letter language of the amendment is quite clear. "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." All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. While there may be many arguments about what the drafter intended to say, there can be little argument about what he actually did say. Often overlooked is the attack on state sovereignty. This nation was founded as a republic of republics, made up of sovereign states. The 14th Amendment told the States who they would accept as citizens. While you are working on separate but equal, you might consider Federal law on naturalization. http://uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/history/1790Act.htm Act of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat 103-104) "That any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof...." http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/LegisHist/450.htm Chinese Exclusion Act of May 6, 1882 (22 Statutes-at-Large 58) Barred Chinese from naturalization. 1922 - In the case of Takao v. United States the US Supreme Court upholds the 1790 Naturalization Act that barred Asian-Americans from becoming citizens. This enforces the policy of no voting rights for Asian immigrants. On December 17, 1943, the Chinese exclusion laws were repealed.
Or reconsideration by the Supreme Court.
#16. To: A K A Stone, DeaconBenjamin (#14)
As a practical matter, the 14th Amendment is certainly treated as a valid amendment, and there is approximately zero chance that the courts would find it invalid. That having been said, your observation is not without merit, but it involves more than just puppet governments in the south at the time. Not even that was enough to get this dog a dubious passage. The following essay provides an interesting overview of the processing of the "due process" amendment. The fourteenth amendment to the constitution has arguably the most sweeping and important. It is the due process of law amendment that has caused so many to our legal system. But, few know the story of the fourteenth and how the egg of "due process" was hatched. At the Civil War's end Lincoln granted amnesty to nearly all and "with malice towards none", all the southern states were soon functioning again in a legal and proper manner. Because the war was over his emancipation proclamation was effectively ended and so the need of the thirteenth amendment to abolish slavery. There were 36 states in the union and the necessary 3/4 to pass the constitutional amendment was accomplished easily when 10 of the southern states voted for ratification. Then came the 39th congress in December of 1865. Article 1 of the constitution states that a majority of the either house can deny the seat to any member of its respective house of congress. The Senators and Representatives of the 25 northern states voted to deny seats to the newly elected congressmen from 11 southern states. This meant that the seated congress had 182 of a possible 240 representatives, and only 50 of the rightful 72 senators. There were 36 recognized states in the union. (Keep in mind that in the 38th congress the southern representatives were allowed to vote and have their state votes count in passage of the 13th amendment). In the beginning of the 39th congress came resolution #48 which sponsored the fourteenth amendment. The amendment was especially important to northern liberals as it's privileges and immunities clause would sweep power from states and hand it to the federal government. The sponsors of the amendment needed a two-thirds majority of each house to submit the amendment to the states for ratification, and remember, the house is short 58 representatives from the southern states and senate 22 senators as well! The constitution states amendments need the vote of "two-thirds of both houses". Does this mean of the seated members or the available seats? Well, it depends on who is counting the votes. At the time there were 33 senators in favor of the resolution #48 which was, 23 short of 2/3rds of the full compliment and 1 short of being 2/3rds of the 50 seated members. Either way you count it, passage is doomed. NO PROBLEM. Senator John Stockton of New Jersey was elected by a plurality and not a majority vote and was seated to the senate, he was against the fourteenth . A plurality was all that was needed by New Jersey law, and other states as well, however, Stockton's seat was taken from him (after being seated) by the senate majority because he had not received a majority vote and the 33 affirmative voting senators comprised a two-thirds majority of the remaining 49 seated senators. In the house there were 120 of the 182-seated members in favor of the amendment, 2 short of the necessary two-thirds. NO PROBLEM. Because 30 members abstained, their numbers were not recognized at all, meaning only 152 votes were recognized and 120 is well over two-thirds of the number that voted yes or no. I remind you that the full house compliment was 240 members and that 120 is 1/2 of 240 not 2/3. Hang on, we are only half way there but it gets better. Now the amendment must be passed by three-fourths of the states and Nebraska has been admitted meaning 28 states must ratify the 14th amendment. By March, 1867 10 states said no and 17 said yes. California then took no action on the amendment, which was the same as a no vote, meaning there could be at most 26 yes votes when all the states were counted. Then, Oregon which had voted yes with the help of two legislative members later held not to be duly elected changed its vote to no when those two state representatives were replaced by two legitimate representatives, sure doom? NO PROBLEM. The US Congress recognized the first Oregon vote and discarded the second even though two members of the Oregon state government were not legally able to vote and replaced by the state of Oregon, remember Senator Stockton of New Jersey? The US Congress unseated him (a no vote) because it questioned his validity as a Senator, but recognized the yes votes of State representative held to be illegitimate. Now the 39th congress passes the Reconstruction Act that placed military occupation on 10 of the 11 southern states and denied the congressional seats to those states until they passed the 14th amendment. Many northern states began to have second thoughts about the manner and validity of these federal moves, after all, what can be done to one state can later be done to yours. California now took a stand and voted no on the 14th. Maryland, Ohio and New Jersey who first voted yes, changed to no. 16 of the 37 states now said no and 3/4ths or 28 were needed to win approval and there was at most only a possible 21 yes votes when all the remaining states voted. NO PROBLEM. 6 of the southern states that originally voted against the amendment had their legislative bodies forcibly removed by the military occupation resulting from the Reconstruction Act and changed into yes votes. Recall that the 13th amendment was passed by the 38th congress with the original and proper representatives from the southern states. Those congressmen were recognized when voting yes to 13 but thrown out when voting no on 14. Now, what to do about those states that voted yes and then changed to no? NO PROBLEM. The congressional leaders simply recognized the original yes votes and ignored the no votes, claiming the yeses were already resolved. In other words, the states that voted no and then forced to vote yes had their new votes recognized, those who voted yes then no did not. When all states had voted, congress and Secretary of State William H Seward recognized 28 affirmative votes for ratification. This is how the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified and made a part of our constitution on July 9, 1868. The Fourteenth is known as our "due process" and "equal protection of the law" amendment. The 14th amendment is not a real amendment. It was never passed legitimately. You see they had puppet governments in the south at the time.
Passage of the Fourteenth Amendment
#17. To: A K A Stone (#14)
There is also the strange status of the state of Ohio which, in 1953, was declared a state retroactive to 1803, making up for a century-and-a-half old oversight. http://www.szd.com/news/pub_info.php?PID=66 Ohio's 200th birthday is fast approaching. All over the Buckeye State barns are being painted, ceremonial bells are being cast and the citizenry - at least the portion not busy discussing Ohio State's performance in the New Years Day bowl game - are giddy with anticipation. But if you're planning a party for the Bicentennial, you might want to hold off on those plans for a while - say for another hundred and fifty years. There are also those who say that you should hold off paying your income tax for about that long as well. It all has to do with a little known historical quirk, namely that Congress did not officially recognize Ohio as a state until August 7, 1953. As is often the case, the problem started in Washington, D.C. In 1802, Congress passed an enabling act authorizing the inhabitants of the Ohio Territory to form a state provided that the new state met certain conditions: possessing a certain population and adopting a state constitution and a republican form of government. On November 1, 1802, a constitutional convention was held which resulted in the adoption of Ohio's first state constitution. This news was reported to Washington, where on January 19, 1803, a special committee of Congress found that Ohio had formed a republican government and otherwise satisfied the requirements of the Enabling Act. Based on the committee's report, on February 19, 1803, Congress, without establishing that Ohio had met the conditions of the 1802 enabling act and without formally admitting Ohio as a state, passed a law providing that the laws of the United States would have force and effect within Ohio and establishing a federal district court. Congress's oversight went undetected until the eve of Ohio's Sesquicentennial. When it was discovered that Ohio had never officially been admitted to the Union, politicians reacted with their usual poise and restraint. Convening a special session in Chillicothe, Ohio's original capital, the General Assembly drafted a new petition for statehood. Ohio's second petition for statehood was sent by horseback to Congress and on August 7, 1953, President Eisenhower signed a joint resolution recognizing that the conditions set forth in the enabling act had been met and stating: "It's Ohio's Bicentennial- Or is it?"
By: Jeffrey B. Hartranft
Published January 20, 2004 in Winter 2003 (Columbus Bar Briefs) Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the State of Ohio, shall be one, and is hereby declared to be one, of the United States of America, and is admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatever. This joint resolution shall take effect as of March 1, 1803. Approved August 7, 1953.
All this is a matter of public, if not publicized, record.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest