Repeal Birthright Citizenship — and Then What?
No single document does more to warm the cockles of the Republican heart than the Constitution. Yet of late, the Texas GOP has evinced a special disdain for a particular constitutional amendment: The 14th, which contains the birthright citizenship provision.
U.S. Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison support a “review” of the amendment. Fifteen of Texas’ 20 Republican congressmen have signed on to legislation that would restrict it. One of them, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Surfside, has opposed it since 2002. State Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, has in each of the past two sessions proposed legislation ...
Comments (12)
Judi Purcell
We MUST repeal it or at least restrict it for the future of this country. We do not need to increase our numbers to the point that there is not enough food and water for all, and not enough jobs for all. It is the sound thing to do.
Dusty Harshman via Texas Tribune on Facebook
But you know the propaganda it will appear on windshields in sububurban and rural church parking lots all over the country
Jason Stoddard via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Reason Magazine article: http://reason.com/archives/2010/08/16/giving-birth-to-immigration-fe
Tony Abercrombie via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Not BRC, just the run and drop a tot by illegals. Don't confuse the issue illegals regardless of intent are breaking the law.
Diane Porter via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Brilliant story.
Michael Cosper via Texas Tribune on Facebook
So why don't you explain it to us, there is a long history of citizenship law in the United States read up on it. I am sure that if the law would change it would be something like one of your parents would have to be a legal resident and or citizen at the time of your birth.
Bob Brown via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Michael, I would think it would be that your parent or legal gaurdian which ever parent that was if there was a dispute. As far as birth certificate, you just have a second type of bitrh certificate for foriegn nationals. It doesn't have to be that complicated. The straw man of what if she was about to have a baby minutes before she became a citizen is ridiculous. I am sure that can be worked out very easily in the wording of the law such as any child born while the parent is in the last nine months of naturalization would automatically become a citizen when the parent does. What this law well be doing is fixing an unintended loophole in the 14th ammendement.
Is there anyone here arguing that illegal behavior should be rewarded?
Tim Collins via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Well the people you contacted ought to learn how to search on the Internet or Congress' web site
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.1868:
A BILL
To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009'.
SEC. 2. CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH FOR CERTAIN PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES.
(a) In General- Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1401) is amended--
(1) by inserting `(a) IN GENERAL- ' before `The following';
(2) by redesignating paragraphs (a) through (h) as paragraphs (1) through (8); and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
`(b) Definition- Acknowledging the right of birthright citizenship established by section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, a person born in the United States shall be considered `subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is--
`(1) a citizen or national of the United States;
`(2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or
`(3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States Code).'.
(b) Applicability- The amendment made by subsection (a)(3) shall not be construed to affect the citizenship or nationality status of any person born before the date of the enactment of this Act.
Patrick Fortner via Texas Tribune on Facebook
The legal guardians of the children, if illegally in the country, could be deported. The parents would either be able to waive their parental rights by leaving the child in the US, or taking the dual-citizenship child back to the country of origin.
Scott Kilpatrick via Texas Tribune on Facebook
You people don't seem to understand the point of the article. Rewriting the language to change the specification of citizenship is not the problem; instead, it's the *implementation* of such a law. Birth certificates are fundamental to proofs of citizenship, which concerns rules and paperwork in any jurisdiction you can think of -- federal, state, municipal, private, etc. -- in every nook and cranny of the entire country.
Tim, the author of this article provided the same link you did. And again, that isn't the point.
Bob, what makes it an "unintended loophole"? Is it still a loophole after 100 years of legal precedent? And how would a "second type of birth certificate" be granted? Does the mom need to bring her passport with her to the hospital when she's going into labor? When you depend on the citizenship of the parents, you've gotta put the burden of proof on someone. That would require new state agencies, or at the very least new software, that encompass every district in the country.
Bob Brown via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Scott, the law was never intended to allow foreign nationals to birth americans, it was intended force all the states to recognize the rights of slaves to citizenship.
Time does not make precendent, legal rulings do. I don't know that it has been challenged in the way this law would, if not this would set precendent.
I am not sure how birth certificates are given in all states but 50 some odd years ago my mother didn't get mine from the hospital it came from the State division of Vital Statistics days or weeks after I was born. So yes they would have to prove that the baby is legal. I would think forreign nationals would apply for the same thing at home.So the State agency is there.
Veronica Estrada via Texas Tribune on Facebook
.. just curious, but did y'all do the same with healthcare legislation? would've loved to see an article on that.