Thursday, January 06, 2011

In Reply: "...everyone in the US, legal or otherwise, is subject to US law..."

In reply to Steve King (R-Iowa) Submits Bill To Stop Anchor Babies | Right Wing News, and in particular, the following comment:
"Rep, we're basically on the same page with the point. the key being OUR current interpretation of the 14th is not what was intended by the Authors at the time, and the anchor baby provision of the current immigration law should be repealed. Because babies born to illegals are 'not subject to the jurisdiction' of US citizenship law."
B, the 14th says what it says. Whatever they intended it to mean --and there was debate about this topic at the time regarding the unwanted of their day, the Chinese in CA, so to say that they had no idea that in passing the 14th amendment, they would be granting citizenship to the children of non-citizens, seems a little disingenuous-- what they wrote gives citizenship to anyone born on US soil.

I don't know what you mean by the "anchor baby" provision of current immigration law, but if there is a provision that says illegal parents can stay because they have a citizen child, I agree with you... We should repeal that. Illegal mothers and fathers should be deported. And if they have minor children who are citizens, the kids should either go with their illegal parents (as US citizens, with the right to return to the US and live here as citizens when they're old enough to care for themselves) or stay and be raised by relatives who are here legally.

But B... Babies born to illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of US citizenship law. Except for diplomats (and in some cases, native Americans), everyone in the US, legal or otherwise, is subject to US law. (By which I mean, the law applies to them. They have to live according to it, and can be prosecuted (tried, convicted, locked up, deported) if they do not.) It is US citizenship law--in the form of the 14 amendment--that makes babies born to illegal aliens on US soil citizens. And it is US citizenship law that makes their parents illegal. Both parent and child is under the jurisdiction of US law, just in different ways...

1 comment:

repsac3 said...

A comment I received via Facebook, and my reply:

"Well, hey. This is a subject we can definitely agree upon. But what really is killer is the daily advertisements in the newspapers south of the border that encourage Mexican citizens to come to the US for the paid medical care birth of their child. If the perks ceased, would they still keep coming for the hospital stay and citizenship rights for their offspring, or would it stop the illegals from entering in the first place?"


While I'm sure there are some who come for the medical care and/or citizenship for their newborns, I believe the vast majority come to work and make money.

As for the latter problem, I am in favor of much stricter hiring laws, especially on employers, (along with some increased aid to Mexico, to help their economy, so that leaving one's home and family wouldn't be so enticing a proposition) to help stem the flow. I do agree that were we to stop that perk, the number of folks crossing our borders would go down significantly.

As for the former though, I'm not sure what we can do... We cannot let people suffer and die outside of hospitals because they cannot pay or do not meet some other criteria (such as citizenship). We are a better people, with better values than that.

As to the birthright citizenship question, perhaps it would've been better if the folks who wrote the 14th amendment specified that at least one of the parents had to be here in the US legally (not necessarily citizens, but not in violation of our immigration laws at the time of the birth), but I don't believe that it is worth amending the Constitution over, and I do believe that--contrary to what Rep King and a smattering of folks on the right believe--an amendment to the Constitution would be necessary to "repeal and replace" the 14th amendment.

It's unfortunate, but not everything that'd help cut down on illegal immigration is in keeping with the values and goals of the US. I mean, consider this: Our bad economy has lowered the number of illegals here, because jobs are harder to get. But just as I'm not in favor of stopping illegals/folks who can't pay from getting medical care, I don't advocate our maintaining a bad economy to solve the problem, either... Some solutions ain't really solutions...

Nerd Score (Do nerds score?)