Arizona: jus soli v. jus sanguinis

[wuapinmon]

Arizona's getting a little big for its britches, trying to deny federal citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants who are born in the US. This editorial critiques the wrongheadedness of that idea.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...-american-soil

[oxcoug]

Disagree: "Birthright citizenship" is a farce

Arizona's getting a little big for its britches, trying to deny federal citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants who are born in the US. This editorial critiques the wrongheadedness of that idea.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...-american-soil

and it's based on a simple misreading of a sentence in the 14th Amendment - and correcting that misreading would remove one massive incentive for illegal immigration.

As has been pointed out in a few places, a poor person from a poor country can hardly do their child a greater service than to ensure that they are born as the citizen of a rich country that will that will provide them with education, health care and other benefits. So it's "difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry." (Lino Graglia of the U of Texas Law School).

Writing in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, Graglia says this irrationality is rooted in a misunderstanding of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." What was this intended or understood to mean by those who wrote it in 1866 and ratified it in 1868? The authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants because in 1868 there were and never had been any illegal immigrants because no law ever had restricted immigration.

http://www.trolp.org/main_pgs/issues/v14n1/Graglia.pdf

[The_Tick]

I think this is a good thing.

Get rid of the "citizen when you drop" and folks stop coming here illegally.

Way to go Arizona.

[New Mexican Disaster]

and it's based on a simple misreading of a sentence in the 14th Amendment - and correcting that misreading would remove one massive incentive for illegal immigration.

As has been pointed out in a few places, a poor person from a poor country can hardly do their child a greater service than to ensure that they are born as the citizen of a rich country that will that will provide them with education, health care and other benefits. So it's "difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry." (Lino Graglia of the U of Texas Law School).

Writing in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, Graglia says this irrationality is rooted in a misunderstanding of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." What was this intended or understood to mean by those who wrote it in 1866 and ratified it in 1868? The authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants because in 1868 there were and never had been any illegal immigrants because no law ever had restricted immigration.

http://www.trolp.org/main_pgs/issues/v14n1/Graglia.pdf

Those damn liberal Justices from 1898.

[wuapinmon]

and it's based on a simple misreading of a sentence in the 14th Amendment - and correcting that misreading would remove one massive incentive for illegal immigration.

As has been pointed out in a few places, a poor person from a poor country can hardly do their child a greater service than to ensure that they are born as the citizen of a rich country that will that will provide them with education, health care and other benefits. So it's "difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry." (Lino Graglia of the U of Texas Law School).

Writing in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, Graglia says this irrationality is rooted in a misunderstanding of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." What was this intended or understood to mean by those who wrote it in 1866 and ratified it in 1868? The authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants because in 1868 there were and never had been any illegal immigrants because no law ever had restricted immigration.

http://www.trolp.org/main_pgs/issues/v14n1/Graglia.pdf

Something can't be 'misread' if you claim that the intent was never there.

Hermeneutics: pissing off people since God said "don't eat the fruit of THAT tree."

[pellegrino]

Something can't be 'misread' if you claim that the intent was never there.

Hermeneutics: pissing off people since God said "don't eat the fruit of THAT tree."

read the article, Ox din't 'splain hisself well.

[RobinFinderson]

and it's based on a simple misreading of a sentence in the 14th Amendment - and correcting that misreading would remove one massive incentive for illegal immigration.

As has been pointed out in a few places, a poor person from a poor country can hardly do their child a greater service than to ensure that they are born as the citizen of a rich country that will that will provide them with education, health care and other benefits. So it's "difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry." (Lino Graglia of the U of Texas Law School).

Writing in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, Graglia says this irrationality is rooted in a misunderstanding of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." What was this intended or understood to mean by those who wrote it in 1866 and ratified it in 1868? The authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants because in 1868 there were and never had been any illegal immigrants because no law ever had restricted immigration.

http://www.trolp.org/main_pgs/issues/v14n1/Graglia.pdf

It certainly isn't a 'simple misreading of a sentence in the 14th Amendment.' The most straightforward reading of the 14th amendment, along with the bulk of case law, accepts that children born on US soil meet the two conditions of Federal citizenship -- 1. They were born here, and 2. They are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If there is any doubt about their being subject to our legal jurisdiction, just go to your local federal penitentiary, where you will find many illegal aliens locked up for life.

I think that it is telling that the legal precedents on which the author tries to build his case are rooted in the denial of citizenship to American Indians and former slaves.

Folks can argue whether or not it is good law, to allow automatic citizenship for the children of non-citizens, but it certainly isn't a 'simple misreading of a sentence in the 14th Amendment.'

[oxcoug]

Hah

Something can't be 'misread' if you claim that the intent was never there.

Hermeneutics: pissing off people since God said "don't eat the fruit of THAT tree."

Well OK.

The point stands -)).

The authors of the original language had no concept of 'illegal immigration' as a massive social issue for future generations, let alone any concept of immigration as 'illegal' at all.

[UtahDan]

Well OK.

The point stands -)).

The authors of the original language had no concept of 'illegal immigration' as a massive social issue for future generations, let alone any concept of immigration as 'illegal' at all.

They had no concept of a right to an abortion either. I support the right to an abortion, but I don't believe there is currently a constitutional right to one. I think you need an amendment to accomplish that. Same thing here. Overturning a whole lot of jurisprudence at this point is not a realistic. What is needed is an amendment.

Arizona is desperate enough that they would do it. But I doubt many who don't live there would.

[wuapinmon]

Well OK.

The point stands -)).

The authors of the original language had no concept of 'illegal immigration' as a massive social issue for future generations, let alone any concept of immigration as 'illegal' at all.

But, why should we care what their intent was? We can't know that. It is unknowable. Therefore, we need to read the language and interpret it as it is understood today.

I'm squarely on the side of jus soli. Jus sanguinis feels unseemly, like we're European, not American.

We don't talk about the "Land of our blood." We say, "The Land of Our Birth."

[oxcoug]

Those damn liberal Justices from 1898.

Yeah how'd liberals or liberalism come up again?

[New Mexican Disaster]

Yeah how'd liberals or liberalism come up again?

Reading the article and his argument about Kim Wong Ark being wrongly decided which then segues directly into his calling of Brennan a liberal-activist judge with his contempt clear. Uber professional.

[Hallelujah]

It certainly isn't a 'simple misreading of a sentence in the 14th Amendment.' The most straightforward reading of the 14th amendment, along with the bulk of case law, accepts that children born on US soil meet the two conditions of Federal citizenship -- 1. They were born here, and 2. They are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If there is any doubt about their being subject to our legal jurisdiction, just go to your local federal penitentiary, where you will find many illegal aliens locked up for life.

I think that it is telling that the legal precedents on which the author tries to build his case are rooted in the denial of citizenship to American Indians and former slaves.

Folks can argue whether or not it is good law, to allow automatic citizenship for the children of non-citizens, but it certainly isn't a 'simple misreading of a sentence in the 14th Amendment.'

If both parents are illegal, the child of those illegals should not get auto citizenship. And since the constitution is a living, breathing document, it's time to amend it. Two illegals don't equal legal.

And if California is so in favor of illegal immigrants, do as Reagan told the soviets, "tear down the wall (fence)" or send buses to AZ to pick up all those illegals that AZ doesn't want, but California does.

[RobinFinderson]

If both parents are illegal, the child of those illegals should not get auto citizenship. And since the constitution is a living, breathing document, it's time to amend it. Two illegals don't equal legal.

And if California is so in favor of illegal immigrants, do as Reagan told the soviets, "tear down the wall (fence)" or send buses to AZ to pick up all those illegals that AZ doesn't want, but California does.

That is a reasonable argument, and I'm sure many people agree with you. At least you aren't trying to pretend like it wouldn't take either a Constitutional amendment or a major reinterpretation of the Constitution by the SCOTUS.