While 2010’s immigration debate centered on the controversial Arizona law, 2011’s promises to be focused on a different — and even more explosive — topic: birthright citizenship.
Kris Kobach, the recently elected Kansas secretary of state, is a lawyer and professor of law who specializes in immigration issues. The architect of Arizona’s SB-1070, he is the legal mind behind two new proposals to challenge the automatic granting of citizenship to any child born in the United States, regardless of the legal status of his parents. The first proposal is state-level legislation that would not affect the federal citizenship of an illegal immigrant’s child, but would deny him citizenship of that state. The second is a state compact, which has to be adopted by at least two states and approved by Congress to be enacted, that would deny the children of illegal immigrants citizenship at both the state and the federal level.
Advertisement
“They’re two routes to the same destination,” says Kobach. “They attempt to restore the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Not everyone on the right is lauding these initiatives, although there are different grounds for opposition. Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, is concerned that redefining birthright citizenship before securing the border could lead to “a large, multi-generational population of illegal aliens.” Linda Chavez, chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity, calls the efforts “a direct assault on the meaning of what it means to be an American.” Alfonso Aguilar, executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Values, says the backers of the legislation are embracing a “constitutional-activist position.”
On the left, there is no interest in — and some horror at — the prospect. In August, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano called efforts to change the Fourteenth Amendment “just wrong,” a position that reflected President Obama’s, according to White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. In Tuesday’s State of the Union address, Obama urged lawmakers to “take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration.” But the solutions he offered — secure borders, law enforcement, and some version of the DREAM Act – indicate that he continues to think that changing birthright citizenship is an inappropriate solution.
Joining Kobach in the effort is Pennsylvania state representative Daryl Metcalfe, who founded State Legislators for Legal Immigration. Metcalfe reports that lawmakers from 32 states have expressed interest in at least one of the initiatives, although he concedes he has “no idea” how many states will ultimately pass the legislation. Kobach estimates that ten or more states will pass at least one of the initiatives.
If even one state passes the law that denies state citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, there is likely to be a lawsuit. “Hopefully, it would eventually present the issue to the Supreme Court,” says Kobach, “so that we would have an authoritative statement from the court on whether ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ — whether those words have any meaning or not.”
To Kobach, it is “nonsensical” to understand “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as meaning anything other than that at least one of the parents must be a citizen of, or at least legally residing in, the United States. Talking about United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court decision in 1898 that many view as having settled that all babies born in the U.S., regardless of parenthood, are citizens, Kobach points out that Wong Kim Ark was the son of Chinese immigrants legally living in this country at the time of his birth.
“There are two very powerful reasons why I think the majority of the Supreme Court would agree with us. And one is that every ounce of evidence of original intent says that our understanding is correct,” says Kobach, remarking that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended that birthright citizenship be given only to children whose parents had no allegiance to a different country.
“The other factor,” he adds, “is that there is a long-standing rule of interpreting the Constitution that says there are no surplus words in the Constitution. And the way the liberals want to read the Fourteenth Amendment, they treat ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ as if they are surplus words meaning nothing.”
There is a very common, activist thought in this nation: the laws should be enforced, and that the Immigration Law does not suit the Democratic Party who seem to refuse to enforce it.
There is another idea out there also. The Immigration Law should not be enforced. That according to those folks and 'those folks' include Obama.
Obama has selected a path that does not include interior enforcement of the current Immigration Law, and does not include enforcing the law per the 'words-mean-something' crowd who want the Citizenship law for children enforced. Non-enforcement is not acceptable and, coincidentally, I do not support anyone out there selecting laws they don't want to obey.
But in support of enforcement of the law, all parties in this country need to encourage the President to obey the laws concerning his position and the Immigration Law. And that is something we really need to do.
========================
We need a national ballot vote in the coming election in the form of a question and let the people of this country choose one of perhaps five immigration law outlines. And we DO need to do that.
"Linda Chavez, chairman of the Center for Equal Opportunity, calls the efforts “a direct assault on the meaning of what it means to be an American.” "
Linda is incredibly wrong. Not just wrong, but stunningly so. Allowing people to sneak across the border from another country and drop a baby - who we pay to birth - then using that child to bring in everyone related to the child - this is what it means to be an American? Doesn't this lady write for this publication? Can she really be called a conservative if she's willing to dilute and dishonor something as precious as American citizenship?
Speaking as she did is generally indicative of a larger, secondary purpose that goes beyond logic and conservatism.
IF we did not have a welfare state (no social programs) then I would be for 99% open immigrations (barring of course those carrying diseases or criminals). If no American citizen had to "pay the way" of anyone and everyone had to "pull their weight" then there can be little argument against immigration. Everyone coming here would be doing so to work and make a living, not to work a bit and mooch a bit (or mooch alot and not work at all).
BUT, this is the real world. And we do have a welfare state DESIGNED not to help, but to ensnare. And inviting more souls to become enslaved to the state is morally wrong. Helping the Left to enlarge their indentured underclass ('forced' to vote for Democrats to continue their means of living) is foolish for conservatives.
Business-oriented 'conservatives' should look past short-term profits and realize that the long-term prospective of being free TO PROFIT in a quasi-socialist welfare state is dubious at best.
Be for freedom: the freedom to succeed or fail, the freedom to make or lose money, and yes finally, the freedom to welcome anyone who wants to breath deep that freedom! Until then, operating in a fallen state, we perhaps should remove the lure of 'free services' by removing birthright citizenship.
If there are no surplus words in the Constitution, why has no one heard the words in the 9th and 10th amendments spoken by politicians, in the last 50 years or so, in any attempt to apply them?
" . . . every ounce of evidence of original intent says that our understanding is correct,” says Professor Kobach.
Forget about what Linda Chavez might think. You can read the decision for yourselves, both the opinion and the dissent, and decide for yourselves whether there was an "ounce" in the majority's opinion. You can also read for yourselves what the pinning was pinning its understanding on (note that the dissent says it's impossible to be a "dual citizen").
"I am of opinion that the President and Senate by treaty, and the Congress by naturalization, have the power, notwithstanding the Fourteenth Amendment, to prescribe that all persons of a particular race, or their children, cannot become citizens, and that it results that the consent to allow such persons to come into and reside within our geographical limits does not carry with it the imposition of citizenship upon children born to them while in this country under such consent, in spite of treaty and statute."
Anyone comfortable with this in light of the Supremacy Clause and the cases decided under it?
You'd better check on whether your parents or grandparents were citizens. Kobach gets his way, pretty soon all of us will be of questionable citizenship.
Immigration in general - but especially where immigration leads conservatives to attempt to mangle the constitution that they of all people treasure - this causes a special form of derangement among conservatives. Tell yourselves you are rationale, tell yourselves you are right. Echo echo echo in your little echo chamber. 1/10th of a tick off the far-right on the political odometer and from the center-right on down you look like loons.
Keep it up though. Reason cannot cure the derangement. Reason could never cure madness. Would that we knew the cure.
This is embarrassingly stupid. Of course illegal immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the states in which they re found. They may very well be subjects or citizens of a foreign power, but certainly they are subject to our laws. Indeed, such people are arrested and prosecuted all the time. Not even close.
Quite apart from whether the child is automatically a citizen, where does it say in the constitution that the parents must be allowed to stay in the country, and be granted citizenship? Why should there be such a thing as an "anchor baby"?
I would suggest a simple law: if a child is born of illegal immigrants, and becomes a citizen, he can NEVER sponsor his relatives as immigrants.
Presumably, when the parents are deported, they will want to take the baby with them. The new citizen can come back to America when he is old enough to go on his own steam. The parents may even apply to immigrate on any basis other than being parents of a citizen.
Get rid of the "anchor baby" syndrome, and most of the problem will disappear.
Here's the problem. Kobach's smart. Really, really smart. Ultra-genius smart.
And he's warped. Irredeemably warped. All his brains can't see the forest of the Wong Kim Ark decision for one tree of an irrelevant fact, i.e., that the appellant's parents were here legally. (Read the dissent and tell me whether the dissenters, who side with Kobach as to what the result should be, think that fact mattered.)
Jack in Silver Spring: read the majority opinion. It's all about what the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment must have intended, because it talks about the English common law of which the Founders, as well as the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment, were aware, as well as previous opinions construing the intent of the drafters.
The dissent dosn't really speak to Kobach's point. The dissent basically hangs its hat on a seriously racist proposition. See if you can figure it out.
Now think about, say, a Robert Bork. What if people around him, say, at Yale Law School, thought he was just as warped? Brilliant, but warped?
Every white country on earth is told to become multicultural and multiracial. EVERY white country is expected to end its own race and end its own culture. No one asks that of ANY non-white country. Immigration and intermarriage is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries.
Anti-white is called anti-racist, but it leads to the disappearance of one race and only one race, the white race. The true goal of anti-racism is to wipe out the white race.
It should take at least one American citizen to create another American citizen. Has American citzenship become so unimportant that we should just let anyone and everyone who manages to sneak into our country create citizens???
The 14th Amendment says what it says. ..."subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." means just that, subject to the jurisdiction of the US. This limitation excludes employees of foreign governments such as diplomats, foreign military here for training, etc. I support changing the 14th Amendment to exclude the children of illegal immigrants from citizenship. Accordingly, I find all of this blather about the meaning of the 14th Amendment nothing but a distraction from the goal we should be seeking - amending the Constitution.
Being a US citizen does not automatically confer the right to pass on one's citizenship to one's children. Spend most of your life outside of the country, and a well-dressed young paper-pusher at the US embassy will give your baby daughter a wary glance and coldly send you packing. If you wish to return, even for no more than a year or so to the US, you must go through the long and laborious process of visa application. Meanwhile, the paper-pusher's brother back in Chicago makes a comfortable living as an, uh, immigration lawyer. Absurd? Of course, but the bureaucratic and political elites prefer it that way, and that makes all talk of "reform" an exercise in futility.
Follow
