I've posted before about how this is being abused. My friend is working pediatrics right now in Montreal. (Same crap there) 3-5 babies per work from parents on vacation! Primarily from China. Russians are doing this as well. This is a major problem that is not getting any attention. The system was not designdes for this predatory behavior. At a minimum, simply require one parent to have permanent residence status.
Birthright citizenship
- Thread starter toastedbread
- Start date
unlike you, who actually deserved to be born on the right side of the man made lines on the map.
the nerve of those people, thinking they could crash the party.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
Originally the law was made so that freed slaves who had children would not have to worry about their children being denied citizenship. This was a good idea back then so that our country could be unified. If a person is a legal citizen then they are just as much a citizen as those whose families have been here since the beginning. Now this is true in law and in principle. The actual experience of immigrants is pretty rough. The Irish came here in droves because of the Potato famine and were not accepted immediately. The Italians came in the late 1800's-1930's and were not immediately accepted. Each new group has to get here and plant their stake in the ground. With freedom comes the responsibility of toughening up and saying, "come hell or high water I will become an American". Once any group makes these choices then we accept them. If you love our country and bring value to the communities in which you live then you are welcomed with open arms. What we don't like is people who seem to game the system, who never want to incorporate into the American ethos. If one comes here and stays separate then they will not be accepted as well. As I said before the original law was a good idea that needed to happen. It should be changed now because some people are taking advantage of our good will.
This is less progressive than I expected from you (not that I disagree about drawing the line somewhere). Do they have any financial obligations as non citizens?
Both parents should have to be here legally on a non-tourist visa for your child to get birthright citizenship.
The law/amendment should clarify that 1) You are a natural-born citizen if one of your parents are citizens (even if you physically weren't born in the US) and 2) all Native Americans are automatically US Citizens. My understanding are those are already the judicial precedents but in 2018 those norms/precedents should be in the law.
Those born before the law/amendment takes effect should retain citizenship, and it would be need to be passed amongst other immigration reforms so that siblings living here in the US aren't in a situation where the older siblings are US citizens but the younger brother/sister is separated because they are not citizens.
The law/amendment should clarify that 1) You are a natural-born citizen if one of your parents are citizens (even if you physically weren't born in the US) and 2) all Native Americans are automatically US Citizens. My understanding are those are already the judicial precedents but in 2018 those norms/precedents should be in the law.
Those born before the law/amendment takes effect should retain citizenship, and it would be need to be passed amongst other immigration reforms so that siblings living here in the US aren't in a situation where the older siblings are US citizens but the younger brother/sister is separated because they are not citizens.
Well excuse me. I agree with you in theory. In fact, I think there shouldn't be any borders at all. But the reality is that we live in a system that does not allow this.
Who exactly do you think is benefitting from this birth tourism?
The oligarchs and corrupt elite are one of the major beneficiaries of this birth tourism. Yes, I have a big problem with dirty Russian money gaining American citizenship for their kid on a tourist visa. You should too.
I totally agree.
See? I sometimes agree with our right wing friends.
I'm not right wing you know? When it comes to Immigration, I think our system is a huge mess though.
Not sure what you mean by financial obligations? In some cases I've read reports where after the birth they simply ignore their hospital bills and depart. Guess who picks up the tab?
But the financial aspect isn't the main problem to me. It's a total abuse of the system. Then later this child will invite their parents.
Fyi, I believe elderly parents of US citizens who come here, work 10 years, and then collect Medicare are a major drain on the system.
There is major abuse throughout the immigration system. Don't even get me started on H1B and those consultancy firms.
This hurts both the American tax payer and people doing things the right way. The current wait times, processing times, etc are outrageous.
Agreed. I would actually take it a step further and look into making some aspects of it retroactive. I.e. children born to tourists who have yet to reach the age of 18 and have never established residency in the US could have their citizenship revoked. Possibly extend that to anyone of any age actually.
Wow. You're hardcore.
lol.
It's not simply a question of predatory behavior, but also a major national security threat imo.
I think your idea is sound. However, I would not trust the current administration to implement such revocations in an appropriate manner or with a reasonable scope.
But, I do think we need to end birthright citizenship now. There is simply no reason for it, and I think your approach (requiring at least one parent have permanent residency) is a sound way to handle the matter.
I have an elderly family member with a Canadian husband. When he's here, he can get full Medicare treatment/coverage. When they are in Canada she can't get shit...and must wait to travel home for medical care. He never paid a dime into the Medicare system, but comes down here for all his elective procedures and US taxpayers foot the bill.
Totally messed up system. Birth right citizenship the same. Should be changed and brought into line with the rest of the world.
Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Citizenship Clause of the 14th amendment:
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.
Whatever its merits, the discussion therefore seems academic to me.
I assume you agree that there can be no restrictions on the right to bear arms as well.
I disagree. A legit legal argument could be made against the validity of the current interpretation:
The origins of this language are a bit hazy, but it must be recalled that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to correct the infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision (1857) and recognize citizenship for the newly-freed slaves (but not members of Indian tribes living on reservations). The language of the Citizenship Clause derived from the Civil Rights Act of 1866, enacted by the same legislators (the 39th Congress) who framed the 14th Amendment. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 conferred citizenship on “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” (Emphasis added.) Foreign nationals resident in the United States, and children who become citizens of a foreign country at birth (by virtue of their parents’ citizenship) would obviously be excluded from this definition.
https://www.lawliberty.org/2015/08/...-congress-think-about-birthright-citizenship/
The SC hasn't touched on this issue for over 100 years.
Yes, the Federalist Society does argue that the Citizenship Clause doesn't mean what it plainly says, based on cherry-picked quotations that conflict with what others said. That's not law or history. It's just politics.
It's possible that the Court's conservative majority would go along with this, but it would require a decision that neither immigrants nor their children are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. That strains credulity, which explains why Mark Pulliam pretty much ignores the language of the amendment. Instead he says it must mean the same thing as a differently worded statute, even though it would have been the simplest thing in the world to say so if that's what was intended.
It's remarkable how often the Framers turn out to have intended whatever policy prescription partisans happen to prefer from time to time.
Last edited:
Examples of people who aren't "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States would include Native Americans and foreign diplomats.
The constitution and laws are meaningless. They only mean what the Supreme Court says they mean.
Anyhow, why isn't the 14th amendment open to discussion? Congress could get started on this today. It requires 2/3 of both houses to get the ball rolling. Is there anyone who is supportive of birth tourism?
https://www.thedailybeast.com/russians-flock-to-trump-properties-to-give-birth-to-us-citizens
https://www.wsj.com/articles/us-age...nesses-catering-to-chinese-1425404456?tesla=y
In the case of these Russians, many of them should not even be receiving any type of visa in the first place, wherein a simple google search would expose their criminal past. Alas, our government is fixated on non-existent threats from the middle east.
I think you are on the right track. The meaning of "Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" in the case of kids born here to parents who are not entitled to be here is not clear. At the time this clause of the 14th was written, there was no such thing as an "illegal immigrant". The drafters saw fit to exclude from citizenship the two classes which were relevant at the time; kids of foreign diplomats and Native American kids. What they would have done with the kids of others who had no right to be in the United States is a good question with no clear answer. Given that they excluded the classes of people they knew about at the time, I tend to think they would have also excluded kids of those who were here illegally if there was such a person.
Years ago, SCOTUS said kids born of foreign nationals who were here legally and who intended to make the US their home were citizens. Through roughly a century of legal and administrative hocus pocus, that ruling has been expanded to include kids of those who are not here legally and/or those who do not intend to establish residency even if they happen to be here legally.
The problem is that the idea of "anchor babies" is so firmly established that a reversal of that view would cause significant poltical and social upheaval and further reason to hate eachother. That said, I think the notion of anchor babies of illegal immigrants should be revisited and specifically decided.
At the time the Second Amendment was written, there were no such things as fully automatic weapons, or nukes. The Second really doesn't appply to those "arms". Likewise, when the relevant clause of the 14th Amendment was drafted, there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant or anchor baby. We don't know that the answer is by looking only at the language.
Through history, supreme court justices have frequently surprised their appointing Presidents by turning out to be different than expected. John Roberts is probably the most recent example of this. In fact, in a recent post-Kavanaugh speech, Roberts recently gave some very interesting comments emphasizing the independence of the judiciary.Yeah, Justice Kavanaugh will fix all that!
I hope you are right. As I posted several times, what bothered me about Kavanaugh was that he is a liar, a big one at that. But then, liars often change their positions.
You acknowledge that the ratifiers of the 14th amendment didn't in fact intend to exclude illegal immigrants, because there weren't any such thing in 1868. And of course since no one doubted that immigrants to this country were "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, that language can't plausibly have been intended to reference immigrants. (Back when we absolutely were a nation of immigrants, literally advertising abroad for (white) people to come here.)
But you think, I guess, that if you could transport them forward in time to see how awful it is now with all the brown people, the ratifiers would go back then and re-write the Citizenship Clause. This abandons originalism for some sort of weird white voodooism. Also, by the way, much of the United States was suffused with brown people in 1868, because we'd only recently stolen the entire Southwest from Mexico. I'm pretty sure none of those Mexicans came through Ellis Island.
It's amusing that people like you criticize people like me for disregarding the original meaning, then when it's convenient you conjure up new meanings in a constitutional seance. It's almost like you're just making this stuff up as you go.
Well, that didn't take long. You always manage to inject a skin color rant into any discussion. meh!
Here's the thing. This issue is about anchor babies. That it! There were no anchor babies when the 14th was drafted. The question is how do we apply the 14th to anchor babies.
If you want to have a demographic rant, you'd be more relevant talking about whether male and female anchor babies were to be treated equally in the middle of the 19th century.
I don’t have to “inject” skin color. Nobody is worried about Canadian anchor babies.
LOL. Good question. I always thought Canadians giving birth in the US was because of our superior health care facilities. But maybe anchor baby citizenship is the real reason.
You must have hated Scalia. I missed your posts where you vehemently opposed Gorsuch who categorizes himself a textual originalist.
Clearly he doesn't have the power to change this by executive order.
I think it needs to be changed, but as part of a broader package of reforms (and what I sketched out earlier is probably incomplete in terms of what needs to happen first).
We shouldn't separate families nor the executive try to take away citizenship from people who are already US citizens.
Last edited:
The original post was complaining about (white) Russian anchor babies. So you are wrong.
I’m not sure Trump has the authority to change the constitution, although I’m sure he and his base think he does. Is this like the 10% tax cut the middle class is supposed to be getting this week?
I tease my Canadian wife about being from a backward, 3rd world country.
let me clear that up for you zeke. The President indeed has no authority to change the constitution--period. You don't need to have any doubt about that. I know of no individual who is part of Trump's base who thinks otherwise. But I admit, you have bigly more friends than I do so you might even know some of Trump's base who have told you otherwise.
If you are interested in the merits of the issue of birthright citizenship, as I posted above, SCOTUS has never decided the issue of birthright citizenship to the offspring of those here illegally or who are here with no intention of establishing residence. The birthright citizenship status of such individuals is seemingly established by administrative rule. President Trump indeed has the authority to order a change of administrate interpretations by the Executive Department of the United States.
Whether that order could withstand a legal challenge is questionable. Recent history shows that Trump's actions in particular are not reviewed by some judges according to traditional separation of power standards of judicial review of executive actions. Instead those judges review Trump's actions according to whether the judge agrees with the intent and purpose of the action. So far SCOTUS has applied the proper standards to judicial review and reversed the most egregious lower court abuses.
If I had to predict, I think SCOTUS would rule 5-4 against a potential Trump order about this, with Justice Gorsuch siding with the opposing justices.
