Oklahoma Senator submits bill that violates the 14th Amendment

[Conan71]

I may be mistaken, but I'm pretty sure that the idea behind the 14th Amendment being passed was so that ANYONE born in the United States was a citizen, regardless of how they got here, rather through immigration or slavery.  Of course, I'm sure that it would never have been dreamed of at the time that a person wishing to be an American citizen would have been denied that because too many had been accepted as such that year from that particular country.

And no one thought about people coming here for the express purpose of exploiting our overly generous access to medicine, good doctors, and other rights of citizenship, including allowing the mother to stay in the country and get on the government dole to support the child.

There are other ways to tighten the noose which would have a real impact.  This is simply some moronic, newly minted state legislator trying to get a star on his door.

[Oil Capital]

If, as the TulsaNow constitutional scholars seem to be claiming, the 14th amendment clearly means that all babies born on US soil are automatically citizens of the US, then what is the meaning of the restrictive language "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?  Is it just there for decoration?  If it means nothing more than the Black's Law Dictionary of jurisdiction, it is indeed nothing more than decoration.  An odd approach to constitutional construction.

During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." He was supported by other senators, including Reverdy Johnson and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.[6] Howard further stated the term jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now"[6] and that the United States possessed a "full and complete jurisdiction" over the person described in the amendment.[7][8][6]

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull, participating in the debate, stated the following: "What do we [the committee reporting the clause] mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

[nathanm]

including allowing the mother to stay in the country and get on the government dole to support the child.

This does not happen. Having a citizen child does not entitle one to stay here. A person under 18 can't even sponsor their parents for a green card, much less citizenship. The parent's application must stand on its own.

After the child is 18, they are subject to the same rules as I would be if I were to sponsor some guy from Qatar with whom I had no familial relationship, including having the income to support whoever it is they sponsor.

[Gaspar]

This does not happen. Having a citizen child does not entitle one to stay here. A person under 18 can't even sponsor their parents for a green card, much less citizenship. The parent's application must stand on its own.

After the child is 18, they are subject to the same rules as I would be if I were to sponsor some guy from Qatar with whom I had no familial relationship, including having the income to support whoever it is they sponsor.

Incorrect. 

Immigration lawyers use the legal principal of Jus soli to initiate family reunification provisions outlined in the Immigration and Nationality Act.  Many even advise their clients to return to the US to give birth.  The process is long, but takes less time than the standard citizenship application and approval process. It also gives the child the advantage of American education, healthcare, and opportunity.  I would probably do it too if I lived in Mexico.

While the practice does not allow them to stay in the US after the child is born, it does build the legal foundation that many need to eventually immigrate legally, and provides provisions for them to do so much faster than they could otherwise. 

In many cases birthright citizenship is used not to help the parents to immigrate, but to help siblings gain sponsorship.  US immigration law allows birthright citizens to sponsor siblings starting at age 18.  They actually cannot sponsor their parents until age 21 (W.T.F?).  Some never have any intension of immigrating to the US at all.  Some simply want the opportunity for their children to have a healthy childhood and a good education.

I have an Indian friend who was born here 46 years ago.  His parents spent every dime they had 46 years ago to travel to the US and give birth under a temporary travel visa. They falsified the document indicating that she was not pregnant.  Subie was raised by a foster family and educated here.  He received a scholarship to the University of Michigan and received his Master's degree in business.  He moved back to Mumbai and started his own pharmaceutical company.  This is very common practice, especially in countries with high child mortality rates and poor educational systems.

[nathanm]

I like how you say "incorrect," but then go on to back up what I said. Minors can't sponsor immigrants.

[swake]

If, as the TulsaNow constitutional scholars seem to be claiming, the 14th amendment clearly means that all babies born on US soil are automatically citizens of the US, then what is the meaning of the restrictive language "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?  Is it just there for decoration?  If it means nothing more than the Black's Law Dictionary of jurisdiction, it is indeed nothing more than decoration.  An odd approach to constitutional construction.

During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." He was supported by other senators, including Reverdy Johnson and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.[6] Howard further stated the term jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now"[6] and that the United States possessed a "full and complete jurisdiction" over the person described in the amendment.[7][8][6]

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull, participating in the debate, stated the following: "What do we [the committee reporting the clause] mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

How do infants born in the United States owe allegiance to a country that they have never visited? Because of mom and dad's allegiance? That's thin.

[Oil Capital]

How do infants born in the United States owe allegiance to a country that they have never visited? Because of mom and dad's allegiance? That's thin.

Not thin at all.  An infant's entire existence is wrapped up in and entirely dependent upon the allegiences and decisions of the infant's parents.

[Gaspar]

I like how you say "incorrect," but then go on to back up what I said. Minors can't sponsor immigrants.

LOL!  It was the "this does not happen" part.

[Conan71]

This does not happen. Having a citizen child does not entitle one to stay here. A person under 18 can't even sponsor their parents for a green card, much less citizenship. The parent's application must stand on its own.

After the child is 18, they are subject to the same rules as I would be if I were to sponsor some guy from Qatar with whom I had no familial relationship, including having the income to support whoever it is they sponsor.

How exactly is this new U.S. citizen supported then, and why is it few of the mothers return to their home country after giving birth?

Familiar with the term "Anchor Baby"?  Now just what do you suppose that implies?

[Townsend]

How exactly is this new U.S. citizen supported then, and why is it few of the mothers return to their home country after giving birth?

Familiar with the term "Anchor Baby"?  Now just what do you suppose that implies?

Dispelling "Anchor Baby" Myths

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/08/11/dispelling-anchor-baby-myths/

[nathanm]

Familiar with the term "Anchor Baby"?  Now just what do you suppose that implies?

It implies stupidity, malice, or ignorance on the part of the person using the term.

As for what happens to the baby, they go home with the parents unless they have family or someone else to take the child.

And Gaspar, it doesn't happen like you said it does. Period. The law doesn't allow for it. Babies cannot, by definition, do anything to help the status of their parents.

[Conan71]

Dispelling "Anchor Baby" Myths

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/08/11/dispelling-anchor-baby-myths/

Is this proper statistical protocol?  The author "knows" so it becomes fact?

"...so I called Jeff Passel, co-author of the report. He told me that based on the years that the report's underlying data was produced, he knows [/t] that "well over 80%" of the 340,000 births cited in the report happened to women who had been in the U.S. more than one year.

Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/08/11/dispelling-anchor-baby-myths/#ixzz1EL3dlWQj"

[Townsend]

Is this proper statistical protocol?  The author "knows" so it becomes fact?

"...so I called Jeff Passel, co-author of the report. He told me that based on the years that the report's underlying data was produced, he knows [/t] that "well over 80%" of the 340,000 births cited in the report happened to women who had been in the U.S. more than one year.

Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/08/11/dispelling-anchor-baby-myths/#ixzz1EL3dlWQj"

I guess it will always be someone's opinion up until the SC gives theirs.

Another opinion:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/04/local/la-me-0204-tobar-20110204

Another:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/06/lindsey-graham/illegal-immigrants-anchor-babies-birthright/

[cynical]

Oil Capital starts off with a false argument that reducing the word "jurisdiction" to its legal meaning renders it merely decorative.  Jurisdiction is all about government power and being subject to that power.  Being subject to the coercive power of the government is not mere "decoration."

What about the quotes cited?  Legislative history is only admissible to resolve ambiguity, not to disprove the clear meaning of the statute or law in question.  Since the term "jurisdiction" had a clear meaning in 1868 that has not changed since, the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" would not be affected by any number of speeches.  But assuming that there is at least some validity to Oil Capital's concerns, does the reference to Indian tribes have any relevance to illegal immigrants today?

In Elk v. Wilkins, The Supreme Court decided in 1884 that a person born on an Indian reservation within U.S. territory was not entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment.  The court focused on the fact that the tribes were distinct entities with which the United States had treaty relations. The court described them as "alien nations" and "distinct political communities." There was some discussion about the allegience the tribal members owed to the tribes. It is important to separate out allegiance from jurisdiction. 

Allegiance is not and has not been an attribute of jursidiction.  It is an atribute of citizenship.  Neither legal nor illegal aliens owe "allegiance" to the United States, but both are subject to laws of the United States or the States. Being subject to the laws of a place is the essence of jurisdiction. On the other hand, if the offspring of one who has no allegiance is to have birthright citizenship, that offspring will owe allegiance. 

More to the point, in 1898 the Supreme Court expressly rejected Oil Capital's argument in United States v. Wong Kim.  In Wong, the Court held that in spite of the fact that Federal law prohibited Chinese nationals from obtaining citizenship via naturalization, the only persons excluded from birthright citizenship were persons born to foreign rulers and diplomats, persons born on foreign ships, and persons born to foreign military forces engaged in hostile occupation of United States territory, along with the previously mentioned exception of members of Indian tribes. The fact that Wong's parents owed allegiance to the Emperor of China was irrelevant, as was the fact that Wong also owed allegiance to the Emperor. 

The Wong opinion contains a long discussion showing beyond any serious contention that birthright citizenship was inherited from English Common Law and recognized from the very earliest days of our Country. The Dred Scott decision limiting birthright citizenship to offspring of parents who were themselves citizens was a departure from previous jurisprudence.  The 14th Amendment restored the status quo. Here's a link to the Wong opinion: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

If, as the TulsaNow constitutional scholars seem to be claiming, the 14th amendment clearly means that all babies born on US soil are automatically citizens of the US, then what is the meaning of the restrictive language "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?  Is it just there for decoration?  If it means nothing more than the Black's Law Dictionary of jurisdiction, it is indeed nothing more than decoration.  An odd approach to constitutional construction.

During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." He was supported by other senators, including Reverdy Johnson and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.[6] Howard further stated the term jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now"[6] and that the United States possessed a "full and complete jurisdiction" over the person described in the amendment.[7][8][6]

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull, participating in the debate, stated the following: "What do we [the committee reporting the clause] mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

[Conan71]

I guess it will always be someone's opinion up until the SC gives theirs.

Another opinion:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/feb/04/local/la-me-0204-tobar-20110204

Another:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/06/lindsey-graham/illegal-immigrants-anchor-babies-birthright/

I agree.  I think it's time SCOTUS hears the issue and rules on it so we can put it to bed...for now at least.  So perhaps this isn't such a "bad" thing though I still think the issue as it's being spelled out to deny Oklahoma citizenship is moronic.

Oh and FYI, we were on MSNBC when I was home for lunch.