"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.""... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
(14th Amendment, US Constitution)
It's that clause that the anti-immigration faction is pinning their argument on. They claim that illegal immigrants, being citizens of a foreign country, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, even when they are in this country.
Ironic isn't it, that in order to deny citizenship to babies born in the United States, the anti-immigrant crowd has to argue that illegal aliens are not subject to our laws. On the one hand, they pass a wave of anti-immigrant laws in places like Farmers Branch. At the same time, they have to argue that illegal immigrants are not subject to US jurisdiction. Pretzel logic, if you ask me. Lawyer talk. ;-)
It's doubly ironic that the argument comes from strict constructionist Republicans who are outraged over activist judges interpreting the Constitution to suit their own notions of the way the world ought to be.
P.S. I guess its triply ironic that the other bill introduced by Leo Berman, HB 29, is a tax on international money orders. Republicans do like new taxes, after all. ;-)
6 comments:
Let's go back 150 years. One reason that maddeningly ambiguous clause, "... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is in the 14th Amendment is to deny the right to vote to American Indians. Because the US signed treaties with tribes as sovereign nations, the authors of the 14th Amendment wanted to exclude citizenship from Indians.
Today, no one pretends that illegal immigrants are a nation that the US negotiates with and signs treaties with. Illegal immigrants are subject to US laws. Period. The strictest anti-immigrant conservative would insist on that. Nevertheless, I suspect that the framers of the 14th Amendment, if alive today, would want to exclude citizenship from today's illegal immigrants, too, not just American Indians.
So, if you believe that amendments should be interpreted as the framers would likely have interpreted them in today's changed world, then maybe birthright citizenship is not a Constitutional right. On the other hand, if you believe that amendments should be interpreted as written, then birthright citizenship should be the law of the land.
Ironically, few people really care about what the Constitution says. They just want the courts to agree with what their own interpretation of common sense leads them to believe themselves.
It isn't. We should enact a guest worker program that legalizes the immigration this country needs and penalizes the immigration it doesn't. And do it all in conformance to the United States Constitution.
America just voted. If you didn't like the outcome, don't worry. There's always another election of one kind or another just around the corner.
Did we finally vote people into office who are going to uphold and enforce the law? Is that what you are getting at?
The new Congress is more likely than the old Congress to go along with President Bush's desire for a guest worker program. That'll result in a situation where more of the immigrants will have legal status. If you don't like legal immigration, either, then you'll have to try again in the next election to get a Congress suited to your desires.
When a law is being broken daily by tens of millions of people, it indicates a problem with the law, not with the overworked people hired to enforce the law. That's true with drug laws, speed limits, tax laws and immigration laws. What's needed is reform of the law, not a futile attempt to put tens of millions of people in jail or on planes back to Latin America.
Post a Comment