Immigration debate gnaws at meaning of citizenship

In California, and elsewhere in the United States, activists are debating not only immigration – but who should get to be a citizen.

The 14th Amendment

The following section of the U.S. Constitution is at the heart of U.S. citizenship. The amendment was ratified in 1868.

"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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

At street rallies, border control activists rail against "anchor babies" and U.S. laws that grant benefits to the children of undocumented immigrants. On the flip side of the debate, immigrant advocates decry the federal government's policy of deporting the parents of U.S.-born children who are left here to grow up in divided families.

The debate over immigration has reached a feverish pitch and the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants increasingly find themselves thrust into the spotlight.

For centuries, the United States has granted citizenship to anyone born here, except the children of foreign diplomats. And for many, there is nothing to debate about birthright citizenship, a practice enshrined in the Constitution and one they feel is as American as apple pie.

But there is a growing push by anti-illegal immigration groups to prevent the children of undocumented immigrants from acquiring birthright citizenship – a policy they believe is a magnet for illegal immigration. In Congress, 95 lawmakers this year backed a proposal to do just that.

And in California, two activists are working on a statewide initiative that could indirectly challenge birthright citizenship. The proposal, which needs nearly 434,000 signatures to make the November 2008 ballot, would distinguish between birth certificates issued to the children of U.S. citizens and green-card holders and to the children of temporary visitors and illegal immigrants.

"This is the beginning of the citizens' movement," said Ted Hilton, a San Diego real estate developer who co-authored the proposal. "It is certainly going to raise the issue."

The proposal would also prevent children of undocumented immigrants from getting state welfare.

Hilton and co-author Tony Dolz, a Cuban-born immigrant who is running for Congress in Santa Monica, say they haven't yet hired a political consultant. Virtually all initiatives that land on the California ballot are handled by professional petition management firms that pay people about $1.50 for each signature collected – a daunting task in a massive state.

Many immigrant advocates take proposals like this one with a grain of salt, surmising they're unlikely to get passed without major cash – and if they did, they'd be challenged in court anyway.

But the Center for New Community, a Midwest-based civil rights group, is taking it seriously. The nonprofit tracks "nativist movements" across the U.S. and worries the push to change birthright citizenship is gathering steam, fueled by anti-immigrant fervor on right-wing talk radio.

"Anything that strikes a blow at that is striking a blow at the very heart of our democratic process," said Devin Burghart, director of the CNC's Building Democracy Initiative.

CONSTITUTIONAL DIVIDE

More than 3 million U.S.-born children have at least one parent who is undocumented, according to a 2006 study by the Washington-based Pew Hispanic Center.

The constitutional debate over birthright citizenship dates back decades. At the heart of the discussion lies the 14th Amendment, which was passed in the wake of the Civil War to counteract a Supreme Court decision that had denied citizenship to the descendants of slaves.

Many scholars argue that changing the definition of citizenship would require a constitutional amendment – a cumbersome political process demanding hefty support in Congress and in the states. In recent years, some scholars have questioned this interpretation with regard to the children of undocumented immigrants, arguing the authors of the amendment did not have these young citizens in mind.

John C. Eastman, dean of Chapman University's law school, said the amendment wasn't meant to apply to children born in a particular place but to those born to parents who had ties to the U.S.

"Citizenship means 'I owe allegiance to,'" said Eastman, who has given testimony in Congress on the subject. "You can't owe allegiance to two different sovereigns. What if they're at war?"

Other scholars say this reading is incorrect.

James C. Ho, an appellate lawyer in Dallas said the 14th Amendment was written to include any person subject to the laws of the United States much in the way that Microsoft Corp. is subject to the rules of the Federal Trade Commission – whether or not it follows them.

Ho said he understands people are deeply frustrated by illegal immigration but U.S. citizenship rules can't be changed simply by law. "It is pretty clear the Constitution does not allow getting rid of birthright citizenship, no matter how genuine and sincere and heartfelt these policy arguments are," he said. "If you want to change the policy, you need a constitutional amendment."

Ho said he was surprised by the groundswell of interest in birthright citizenship on talk radio, cable television and Internet blogs. According to a 2005 poll by Rasmussen Reports, 49 percent of respondents believed the children of illegal immigrants should not receive U.S. citizenship.

Ray Lopez, producer of "The John and Ken Show" on KFI/640 AM, said listeners are driving the debate on the airwaves. "When it comes to this issue, everybody is pretty passionate," he said, adding that his show draws a million listeners at any given time throughout the afternoon. "In their mind, there's only one way and that is to completely change the way birthright citizenship is being done."

STATES AND CITIZENS

Since the federal government failed to pass an immigration overhaul, states have been increasingly taking immigration policy into their own hands. Just this year, state lawmakers proposed more than 1,400 bills on issues ranging from driver's licenses to work eligibility.

While states cannot determine who gets to be a U.S. citizen, a Texas lawmaker tried to propose a law this year to cut benefits for the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. The bill was abandoned in the state Legislature, which doesn't meet for another year.

The debate may be coming to California. Hilton and Dolz say they don't aim to change birthright citizenship, per se, but to stir debate. Under the "California Real ID Act of 2008," at least one parent would need to show proof of U.S. citizenship or a green card to qualify for a "type 1" birth certificate – the document that would be required for a child to receive state welfare benefits.

Hilton and Dolz expect their proposal, if passed, would be challenged in court. But that's precisely why they want to get it on the ballot. They hope any such challenge would eventually wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court, which could respond by issuing a ruling on the definition of citizenship.

The pair is counting on conservative talk radio to get out the word and a groundswell of interest in immigration enforcement around the country to start raising money. They hope to get enough donations – at least $500,000 – to hire petition gatherers and consultants to make the November 2008 ballot – which they also believe will help insert the issue in the presidential debate.

Several undocumented immigrants questioned whether such a proposal, if passed, would deter anyone from crossing the border, noting they came here seeking work, not citizenship.

"People are still going to come," said Rosa, 35, an undocumented immigrant from Mexico who has lived here a decade. "I didn't come here to have children – but they were born here."

The initiative is currently pending review by California's attorney general. Signature gathering cannot take place until the review is completed.

A presidential election year may be a tough time to float such an initiative because many interest groups are fighting for the spotlight and limited cash. "Especially in a presidential election year, where money becomes a premium for the candidates, there's less money for the initiatives," said Michael Arno, who owns a petition management firm.

Dolz, who lost a state Assembly bid last year, is betting Republicans will rally around the initiative, noting the attention presidential candidates are already paying to immigration on the campaign trail. "I believe the Republican Party as a whole is going to embrace this issue because it will help turn out the vote – and I don't know any other issue right now that will do it," Dolz said.

The state Republican Party, which will discuss initiatives at its February convention, has not formally reviewed the proposal. But members will likely question its viability since birth certificates need to be acceptable in other states. "What you're basically saying is you're trying to create two classes of citizens," said Hector Barajas, a spokesman for the California Republican Party.

That worries Aide, 35, an illegal immigrant from Mexico who lives in Orange. She can't imagine how she would have told her four U.S.-born children that the country they loved and the flag to which they pledged allegiance in school was not their own. "This is their country," she said.

Louis DeSipio, a UC Irvine political science professor, said he doubts California Republicans want to touch an issue that could potentially mobilize a powerful backlash from the Latino electorate.

"I don't think debate will go there because in most states, particularly in California, political elites really don't want to mobilize that single-issue anti-Minuteman core of the party because the cost they pay for it is so high," DeSipio said. "It mobilizes people who vote against the party on other things. The Republican Party doesn't want things like this on the ballot."

Neither politicial party wants the anchor baby problem on the ballot. Far to many in both parties have sold their soul and their country for money, power and votes.

The will of the voters dosen't count anymore !

My reply to Hector Barajas, a spokesman for the California Republican Party, is that while he questions whether this initiative will create two classes of citizens, he should look around. Here in California we already HAVE two classes of citizens - the legals and the illegals. And the illegals number 40%. I believe that not only will there be two classes, but from the attitudes of these illegals marching in the streets, calling Americans racist, dragging our flag on the ground, or hanging it upside down below the Mexican flag, he will witness civil unrest very soon. And this legal citizen will not give one cent to a Republican party that is actually questioning this initiative! It should have been enacted long ago. Law abiding, hard-working, tax-paying, check-writing, patriotic and patient Americans have had enough. It's out of hand and we will see this anger bubble to the surface throughout the nation and for this election year. WE are the ones who have suffered the backlash for accepting a totally outrageous situation our own government has put us in! This election year will be a very big surprise for all the talking heads, the politicians, the candidates because this illegal immigration issue is on the minds of every American and the real backlash will be aimed at every incumbent currently in office!

---

Jani - when the Republican party calls or sends requests by Mail for donations to the Republican party - say when they come out in support of this California initative then I will give.  OR when Michael Chertoff closes the border I will give. OR when the SPP and the NAU no longer exist I will give.

That's what I do.  In fact for every single charity I say no until the border is secure I am only giving to groups who are pushing to enforce our Federal laws.

They will say what about the ....... and list the cause and I always say that right now fighting for the soverignty of my country has to be the top priority because when my vote and my voice stop counting then I have lost my country - and personally I dont want to move.

I have to say, I feel great putting all my effort and focus on one issue and since I personally never served in the armed services I find that this is a way I can try to pay back those who have.

Also only A candidates get any of my money (grade from Numbers USA).

My favorite is when the Democratic Party of CA send requests for money.

I print out these quotes:

Message from California Democratic Party Chairman Art Torres:

The last gasp of white America understand that, and people say to me on the Senate floor, when I was in the Senate - why do you fight so hard for affirmative action programs, and I tell my white colleagues, because you are going to need them.

 "We are millions, we just have to survive, we have an aging white America, they are not making babies,  they are dying, it is a matter of time, the explosion is in our population"

Mayor Antonio Villaragosia:  "It is not enough to elect Latino Leadership, if their supporting legislation that denies the  undocumented they don't belong in office friend, they don't belong here"

and put them on the request and write next to it - you didn't want me in your party so I am now Independent.  It never felt so good.

 

I AM NOT A LAWYER---had to get that out of the way first:

"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."

Excerpt from http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html"The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified."

This, in my opinion is in the same category as the oath of military service. The second part says that you "promise to obey the President". Did anyone ver envision that a President could be the country's greatest enemy.(ala globalism)

From the same source listed above:

 "In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14^th 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."

Wouldn't it be wonderful to stir up the hornets nest in CA one more time.  Since it seems to be a trendsetter in most cases, it sure would get national attention.

---

Simple issue really. No state dictates Federal law and jurisdiction. Elementary really. Federal standard for citizenship long in place. Now shut up you California imbeciles and comply.

misterbill said:

From the same source listed above:

 "In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14^th 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."

Alien birthright citizenship is a fable that lives through ignorance....What you state is an introductory clause which is declaratory of what is written in the Constitution.  The Constitution does not make a citizen, it in made by them. In other words, only a US citizen can make a citizens upon the birth of their child...

As stated in the Constitution:  all person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.  That means subject to complete jurisdiction thereof.  What do we mean by complete jurisdiction thereof?  Not owing allegiance to anybody else.  That is what it means.  In order to be a citizen of the United States they must not only be born within the United States, but born within the allegiance of the United States... Also the national law has always required direct allegiance to the United States by a child's parents before that child could be declared an American citizen. 

The fact that these pro-illegal immigration groups keep pushing for this birthright citizenship is an insult to American History!

The reason for the Federal Government is that the first 13 states agreed to it.  It was the states that created the Federal Government, not the other way around.

Currently there are two states that are reviewing legislation to pull out of the "union" as they feel the Federal Government no longer holds up the "agreement" as to why it was created in the first place.  I understand more states are looking at doing the same thing.

Lady Jane you are correct.  If all the states now declared they no longer wanted a Federal Government, then why would there be one?

Ron Paul raised 4.2 million dollars in one day because it looks like many American's and actually alot of college kids are learning about the constitution and how it was actually written.

To get a perspective when the Japanese invaded Pearl Harbor, if they would have landed 38 milliion Japanese on the shores and taken over say the state of California would we have then said OK - they came in illegally and started laying down families and Japanese Radio and TV stations and newspapers and business's and because in certain areas they flooded in, in such vast numbers and so quickly (and that wonderful Federal Government that was created to "protect" the citizens of the states) did nothing then I guess we need to make them all legal citizens and just give California and while at it, lets give them AZ and Nevada and New Mexico and TX too.

The founding fathers would most likely find it odd that 38 million illegals were allowed to flood our country with little notice - of course they most likely would have never supported the SPP and the NAU.  Interesting that in the last 7 years the majority of the illegals have flooded in?  Interesting that in the last 7 years (Bush) has been pushing his NAU and then the SPP.

UMM - I guess that Ron Paul supporter who yelled through his bull horn at Sat's march "Google NAU - get the truth" could see through all the bull.

CJBL, Love your replies to both the Republican and Democrat money requests! I will use them the very next time.  And, on your second post, Anybody who doesn't put the invasion and the NAU talk together and figure it out is either too horrified and defeated to do anything about it or too politically naiive to understand. Either way, those of us who get it will have to do the defending of our Sovereignty.

---

Ted Hilton and I, Tony Dolz are behind this California Initiative Measure.
The California Real ID Act of 2008 (Effectively Ends Anchor Babies in California)

 It also effectively ends Welfare for Illegals.

Read the Initiative here:   www.taxpayerrevolution.org
also here in a few days:  www.AnchorsAway.org

My website is    www.dolz.com
I am a candidate for the U.S. Congress (California 30th Congressional Dist. against Henry Waxman)

You can volunteer to pass and sign the petition at the above websites.
Sign up today.   Get the word out.  This is the one you have been waiting for.  People can contribute from any part of the country.  Get the word out.

AnchorsAway,   If you take this stand on the drain of illegals, you have my vote and many others that I know of.   Thanks

---

Tony - you have my support and I will help in any way I can!

Thanks so much for all that you are doing for our Country and our state

first thing my eyes saw on Tonys web site was "MinuteMan" in the big O . 1st

thought was "He Cares " . now for a closer inspection  

---

AnchorsAway said: ... My website is    www.dolz.com
I am a candidate for the U.S. Congress (California 30th Congressional Dist. against Henry Waxman) ...

Your stand on interior enforcement to stem the tide of illegal immigration is indeed rare among politicians.  It is hoped that you will succeed, as that is an approach that will do more than any other, and cause less conflict in so doing.

However, given that your district has voted in the likes of Henry Waxman, it will take more than a few prayers to overcome the boneheaded thought processes that got him elected.

---

In the first place, the 14th Amendment had nothing to do with immigrants. It was written to insure the citizenship rights of the newly liberated black slaves who were being denied their rights as citizens. But, just like everything else about our constitution the liberals and the activist judges uses it for a blanket coverage on what ever they want it to cover. We need to stay with the original intent of our constitution, and resign ourselves to the fact that the constitution is a legal document between the people and the government, and not a living document that can change with the whims of certain groups of people.

---

Yeah for you John07!   Enforce the U.S. Constitution as written period!  We need to see that it is too! It is "not" a living document that can be changed to suit the needs of people sitting in Washington! 

Lady Jane-

I think we are on the same page--the sentences I emboldened state flatly that citizenship is for the childrenn of citizens;

"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." 

Your interpretation is spot on:

"What do we mean by complete jurisdiction thereof?  Not owing allegiance to anybody else.  That is what it means.  In order to be a citizen of the United States they must not only be born within the United States, but born within the allegiance of the United States... "

So why are are our silly a** politicians in any doubt????  GRRRRRRR!

It's all for the votes misterbill,  It's all for the votes.   Makes me want to puke.

---