Steve King Moves Forward on Bill to End Birthright Citizenship

Dwight said:

The tense does not matter one iota for this:


Further, the principles of your stand are indeed at cross purposes with that past tense AND/OR the Constitution. How do you propose reconciliation of that, then?

Click to expand...

The change I proposed does not make being born in the US illegal, unless the parents are illegal, in which case, yes, that is ideal. A newborn would be deported with the mother.

jonny5 said:

The ideal discussion is a differnt one. You have been discussing a hypothetical change to the constitution in 1787 about birthright, wheras the ideal discussion was a totally seperate topic about earning citizenship.

Click to expand...

How can be be separate in from you advocating seeking to change (AKA remove) a path to citizenship? :doh

Dwight said:

How can be be separate in from you advocating seeking to change (AKA remove) a path to citizenship? :doh

Click to expand...

Because i didnt suggest that. Someone else did. I only agreed with the op :2wave:

jonny5 said:

The change I proposed does not make being born in the US illegal, unless the parents are illegal, in which case, yes, that is ideal. A newborn would be deported with the mother.

Click to expand...

Well there-in lies one of the problems, you entirely misunderstood my question and answered a different one.

Your actual answer to my question would be another, saddening problem. But I guess we already got to that place earlier in the thread, and you are just another data point that this is really about enacting a legally entrenched, hereditary class system. Which puts you at odds with a lot more than the 14th Amendment.

jonny5 said:

Because i didnt suggest that. Someone else did. I only agreed with the op/

Click to expand...

That is what the OP is all about. Removal of an existing path to citizenship, a position entirely entwined with your “ideal” comment as your “ideal” comment was meant to explain/justify/support the change.

Dwight said:

That is what the OP is all about. Removal of an existing path to citizenship, a position one entirely wrapped up in your “ideal” comment as your “ideal” comment was meant to explain/justify/support the change.

Click to expand...

No the ideal comment was about removing all citizenship and making citizenship earned through things like military service. Which I disagreed with. I said that newborns should be citizens so long as their parents are.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had just granted citizenship to all persons born in the United States, if they were not subject to a foreign power.

Click to expand...

If someone retains citizenship to their original country, does this exempt them since they would be still subject to a foreign power?

Dwight said:

Well there-in lies one of the problems, you entirely misunderstood my question and answered a different one.

Your actual answer to my question would be another, saddening problem. But I guess we already got to that place earlier in the thread, and you are just another data point that this is really about enacting a legally entrenched, hereditary class system. Which puts you at odds with a lot more than the 14th Amendment.

Click to expand...

Well feel free to state a new argument and provide examples. I have no clue what your problem is now.

pinqy said:

the 3/5ths clause only applied to slaves, not all Blacks and had nothing to do with citizenship.

Click to expand...

Actually the constitution never mentions slavery in that compromise clause and in effective reality freeman status for blacks wasn't recognised in all the proto-states/colonies.

pinqy said:

I'd have to see evidence for that since it would have violated the Dred Scott decision. Under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then protected by the 14th Ammendment. Civil Rights Act of 1866:
14th Ammendment

Click to expand...

Civil War black soldiers were eager to enlist in the Union Army. They were anxious to join the fight against slavery and they believed that military service would allow them to prove their right to equality.

Celebrated abolitionist Frederick Douglass was a strong advocate of allowing black men to fight, believing that this would prove their right to citizenship and the vote. Two of Douglass's sons served in the Union army. John Brown was another abolitionist who strongly believed that black were capabable and willing to fight for their freedom if given the chance.

...

A Union militia act allowed enrollment of blacks early in 1862 and the Emancipation Proclamation permitted blacks to enlist in the military. This began African American military history. However, it was thought that African Americans would be used as military laborers, rather than fighters. For this reason, black soldiers were originally paid a laborer’s wage ($10 a month) rather than the wage paid to white soldiers ($13 a month). In 1864, after much opposition, Congress passed a bill allowing retroactive equal pay for Civil War black soldiers, but this act allowed for equalization only from January 1864.

Source

Click to expand...

pinqy said:

So they were made citizens under the concept of birthright citizenship.

Click to expand...

No, they were made citizens by act of congress as you have shown. However you do have a point about the 14th which was the ratified to roll up the issue you mention, as well as a few others to clean up after the war.

pinqy said:

So if Birthright Citizenship had NOT been enacted, then no person of African Descent would have been made a citizen, and then their children would not have been, etc.

Click to expand...

That's not so. Even IF the 14th weren't ratified, the ones who served or who had freemen status were considered to have citizenship. And what of the women in your scenerio? If all blacks, all people residing within the US at the time were given citizenship - why couldn't they vote? Wouldn't the 14th have over-ridden any constitutional bar to that?

Well said:

If someone retains citizenship to their original country, does this exempt them since they would be still subject to a foreign power?

Click to expand...

Since we're talking about children born on US soil, the US is their original country. But in any case, the 14th ammendment trumps the CRA of 1866 and the language in the 14th is "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]" which basically only excludes children of diplomats. At the time it also included Indians born on a Reservation.

So a child born of non-citizen parents who gains citizenship at birth from their citizenship, is still a citizen of the US. The US does not officially recognize dual citizenship.

Well said:

If someone retains citizenship to their original country, does this exempt them since they would be still subject to a foreign power?

Click to expand...

Interesting question and probably why, for the most part, the US did not officially recognise dual citizenship.

clownboy said:

Interesting question and probably why, for the most part, the US did not officially recognise dual citizenship.

Click to expand...

They do not recognize it but in practice it still happens. Part of the process of being naturalized is renouncing any prior citizenship(s). However not all countries recognize renouncement. A classic example is Britain. A British citizen that emigrates to the US and becomes a citizen will be, in fact, a dual citizen enough though the US will not acknowledge it.

As a side note, I believe because his father was a citizen of the Commonwealth the President could lay claim to that citizenship if he desired. It is not going to happen but theoretically he could. He certainly is not the first President in such a position.

Dwight said:

I am unclear why it is actually a problem? Seriously, a couple of people that have put in collectively over 4 decades of effort, and have a number of years ahead of them yet. Buddha on a bike, what exactly do you want out of people to become citizens?

Click to expand...

How about to follow the law? Is that really too much to ask?

pinqy said:

Being born is bad behavior????? The parents receive no reward. Unless you seriously consider waiting 21 years to be legally admitted a "reward." How is that more of a reward than a 21 year old marrying a US citizen gaining citizenship, and then bringing his/her parents over?

Again...21 years delay is not really a reward in my book.

Click to expand...

Its a reward in my book.

pinqy said:

Since we're talking about children born on US soil, the US is their original country. But in any case, the 14th ammendment trumps the CRA of 1866 and the language in the 14th is "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]" which basically only excludes children of diplomats. At the time it also included Indians born on a Reservation.

So a child born of non-citizen parents who gains citizenship at birth from their citizenship, is still a citizen of the US. The US does not officially recognize dual citizenship.

Click to expand...

When the 14th was originally written it also was meant to include illegals. But SCOTUS did not follow the spirit of the law. Only the letter.

clownboy said:

Actually the constitution never mentions slavery in that compromise clause and in effective reality freeman status for blacks wasn't recognised in all the proto-states/colonies.

Click to expand...

Well, let's look:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Click to expand...

So we have 3 categories: Free Persons (including indentured servants), Indians not taxed (and the grammar implies that Indians who are taxed fall under "free Persons," and All other Persons. Who, besides slaves, are you proposing that "all other Persons" refers to? It doesn't say "slaves" but it can mean nothing else. Oh, I forgot, you're proposing some other category for Blacks who were not slaves but not recognized as free. I'm not aware of any such category. I downloaded a copy of the Census of 1820 and there were 3 basic categories: Free White, Slaves, and Free Colored. And of note: ALL states had listings for Free Colored.
And looking at the 1860 Cenus, same thing.

In any case it has NOTHING to do with citizenship.

Your source for Black Civil War soldiers only states that " believing that this would prove their right to citizenship and the vote" but nowhere does it say any Black soldiers were actually granted citizenship.

they were made citizens by act of congress as you have shown. However you do have a point about the 14th which was the ratified to roll up the issue you mention, as well as a few others to clean up after the war.

Click to expand...

ummm the act of congress made them citizens via birthright citizenship. The 14th just made it constitutionally protected from a new act of congress changing things. So my point remains...it was birthright citizenship and ONLY birthright citizenship that made Blacks citizens.

not so. Even IF the 14th weren't ratified, the ones who served or who had freemen status were considered to have citizenship.

Click to expand...

Untrue. Right at the beginning of the Dred Scott Decison it states "A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States." Can't get much plainer than that. Note that Immigration was restricted to Free White Persons.

And what of the women in your scenerio? If all blacks, all people residing within the US at the time were given citizenship - why couldn't they vote? Wouldn't the 14th have over-ridden any constitutional bar to that?

Click to expand...

No, why would it? Citizenship has never automatically given the right to vote...certainly not in the Constitution. the 15th ammendment forbids denying the right to vote based on race, color or previous condition of servitude, the 19th forbids denying it based on sex, the 24th forbids denying the right to vote for Federal Offices due to failure to pay tax, and the 26th forbids denying it based on age (for those 18 and older). But there is nothing in the Constitution saying citizens have the right to vote...that's all state law. A state can quite constitutionally allow non-citizens the right to vote for President.

Kal'Stang said:

How about to follow the law? Is that really too much to ask?

Click to expand...

How about we fix, and fix the damage of dumb, busted down laws. I know you find that too much to ask, because when we get right down to the sticky parts of it for you is not really about following laws or even really immigration or citizenship. Amiright?

Kal'Stang said:

When the 14th was originally written it also was meant to include illegals. But SCOTUS did not follow the spirit of the law. Only the letter.

Click to expand...

During the debates, both opinions were expressed. Some explicitily declared that children of non citizen parents would be citizens under the ammendment. So you can't say there was only one single intent when I can show multiple opposite views by those who enacted it.

Ray410 said:

"We?" Next you're going to be talking about "Our" country. You know nothing of the American experience.

What equivalence is there between the hard working, self reliant, Western European immigrants of 100 years ago and you 3rd world, welfare seeking, Obama worshiping illegals of today? America's former immigrants were culture and nation builders, you were imported here to destroy and steal.

Click to expand...

I want from being born to abject poverty to becoming a millionaire business man through hard work,education, perseverance and wise investments?
Why don't you try to tell ME that I don't know anything about the American experiance.

You seriously not suggesting that people like me whose ancestors were forced here on slaveships in the mid to late 1600's,and the descendants of Chinese and Japanese immigrants in the mid to late 1800's are "really" Americans.We also helped to build this country.

Wow,you really are a racist.

pinqy said:

During the debates, both opinions were expressed. Some explicitily declared that children of non citizen parents would be citizens under the ammendment. So you can't say there was only one single intent when I can show multiple opposite views by those who enacted it.

Click to expand...

It matters not what the debaters thought it should be. It matters what the writer thought it should be.

Whipsnade said:

[FONT=Georgia, Time New Roman, serif]Updated at 1:40 p.m. ET with a correction.[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Time New Roman, serif]WOW! this'l sure shore up the Hispanic vote for the midterms.[/FONT]:2wave:


<Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa, a leading conservative voice on immigration issues, introduced a bill on Wednesday to end the practice of birthright citizenship.>

<It's generally thought that the 14th Amendment provides a constitutional guarantee of citizenship for anyone born in the United States -- known as "birthright citizenship" -- but King told Hotsheet last year that he does not interpret the 14th Amendment that way.>

<Meanwhile, holding Washington's feet to the fire on the issue, Republican state lawmakers from five states came to the capitol Wednesday to unveil their ownstate-driven plan to curtail birthright citizenship. The lawmakers said that legislation addressing the issue will be introduced in 14 states, though they expect it to be immediately challenged in court as unconstitutional.>


Steve King Moves Forward on Bill to End Birthright Citizenship - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Click to expand...

I support this.The intent of section 1 of the 14th amendment was to never grant citizenship to just anyone born on US soil.Which is why "and the subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part was added to section 1 of the 14th amendment.If it clearly meant anyone born in the US it wouldn't have the and subject to the jurisdiction thereof part.


The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

Dwight said:

How about we fix, and fix the damage of dumb, busted down laws. I know you find that too much to ask, because when we get right down to the sticky parts of it for you is not really about following laws or even really immigration or citizenship. Amiright?

Click to expand...

Huh? Might want to give a few examples of those "damage of dumb, busted down laws".

But yes, it is exactly about immigration and citizenship. What else would it be about?

Kal'Stang said:

It matters not what the debaters thought it should be. It matters what the writer thought it should be.

Click to expand...

Not the case at all. Without the approval of the intent the writers words are nothing. Further:

"The question [w]hether one generation of men has a right to bind another. . . is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also among the fundamental principles of every government. . . . I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’ . . ..” - T. Jefferson

And he was not really alone in this, this is not the only example of a warning to not look back and read into and cling.

Kal'Stang said:

Huh? Might want to give a few examples of those "damage of dumb, busted down laws".

But yes, it is exactly about immigration and citizenship. What else would it be about?

Click to expand...

Others have made it quite clear that it is about entrenching intergenerational inherited social class. In the face of founding and since then widening acceptance of individual merit and rights, certainly innocence of the child in spite of his parents transgressions.

Dwight said:

Not the case at all. Without the approval of the intent the writers words are nothing. Further:

Click to expand...

The fact that the 14th Amendment passed shows that there was enough approval for it to be accepted. Those that debated things other than what the writer intended mean nothing due to that approval to pass the 14th.

Dwight said:

"The question [w]hether one generation of men has a right to bind another. . . is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also among the fundamental principles of every government. . . . I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’ . . ..” - T. Jefferson

Click to expand...

Which is why we have an amendment process.

Dwight said:

And he was not really alone in this, this is not the only example of a warning to not look back and read into and cling.

Click to expand...

Which is why they implemented an amendment process. Ignoring the spirit of the law and just going by the letter of the law can be dangerous. Take a look at the Sex Registry. Its intent was to put those that were truely dangerous rapists in the spotlight. But in reality due to people just going by the letter of the law we have people on it that just simply pissed behind a tree and 18 year olds that had consensual sex with thier 17 and 1 day shy of 18 year old partners on it.