Some folks do not spend a lot of time thinking about the cache that comes with U.S. citizenship. So, it’s understandable that when some people do, they conclude that it ought not apply to just anyone.
And so, the immigration battle comes into play.
Among the many arguments swirling about the immigration dilemma, one goes beyond the “illegals” that enter the U.S. It focuses on their children born in America.
The 14th Amendment states: “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.”
U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga., and 91 co-sponsors want to change that.
The new “Deal” is called the HR 868, the “Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009.” It now sits in the House Immigration Committee.
It would 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.
The bill would limit citizenship to a person born in the U.S. if one of the person’s parent is:
- A citizen or national of the U.S.
- An alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S. whose residence is in the U.S.
- An alien performing active service in the armed forces.
Meanwhile, Sen. Joe Lieberman and Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., are pushing a bill that would update the 1940 Immigration and Nationality Act. It identifies seven categories in which citizens can lose citizenship if they voluntarily perform one of the acts, such as: serving in the armed forces of a “foreign state” engaged in hostilities against the United States; formally renouncing nationality whenever the United States is in a state of war; or committing treason.
The senators are targeting terrorists, they say.
So, how valuable is U.S. citizenship and is it time to change the rules?
I am interested in hearing your thoughts.
Resources:
- www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/…
- www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1868/show
- caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/
- www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2010/jun/11/…
- www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/opinion/20sun/…
- http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=courier-journal&sParam=33847113.story
Thanks for the post. I am not a big fan of constitutional amendments, either. I think bills such as HR 868 serve a lot of purposes, none of them necessarily helpful. First, they often represent political pandering to get re-election votes. And sometimes they serve as trial balloons to measure the potential success for an amendment — how do state lawmakers react to them and would they muster the needed votes in the House and Senate. It is worth keeping an eye on, I think. Mac
Change amendments? No way! But wait…we did that with the 18th amendment when it abolished liquor sales, but that was repealed with the 21st amendment. Does this mean we should go ahead and repeal the 13th, 19th, 26th? We could even repeal the 22nd and have presidents for life.
It seems to me that HR 868 is a knee-jerk reaction to Arizona’s illegal immigration problem. That’s a problem that needs to be tackled by the state, by not by targeting those born of illegals in the U.S. Don’t we have something written that says Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free?
First of all, this bill is NOT a knee-jerk reaction - it's been in the Immigration Committee since 2009.
Second of all, Mexicans are already free in their home country. That particular phrase applied to slaves. And, if they choose to come to this country LEGALLY, be productive, employed citizens and not commit crimes (such as human and drug trafficking) they are more than welcome. Our founding fathers did not have illegal immigrants in mind when they authored the 14th Amendment. it was meant to protect the children of legal immigrants and emancipated slaves born in the US. Not people sneaking across the border in the dead of night or wealthy foreigners trying to buy US citizenship for their children, for God knows what reasons. This practice cheapens and degrades the value of US citizenship for those who come buy it honestly. Some have died for this country in order to gain citizenship, why should others get it through illigal means?
Thanks for the post. Actually, there was concern early on about illegals, and it manifested itself in the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 — not too long after the creation of the federal government. A big reason for the laws was fear of agents of the French revolution creating problems in the U.S. A surge in immigration in the 1850s led to the creation of the Know Nothing Party. It wanted to ban Catholics and immigrants from holding office. It wasn't until 1882 that Congress passed the first immigration act. It prohibited the entry of "lunatics", "idiots" and those likely to become wards of the state. (I am OK with the "lunatics" and "idiots" language and would apply it to citizens, too.) And from there, immigration remained on the radar until present. So, knee-jerk, probably not. But historically, it seems the immigration issue has always been somewhat tainted by political pandering, and racial and even religious bias. I do not question the need to secure borders, keep criminals out and temper the drug trade. But let's be honest, if none of those problems existed, a good portion Americans would still want to run off Mexicans, Middle Easterners, Asians and so on. And so I continue to find a lot of immigration angst a smokescreen for racism and prejudice.
Post new comment