“Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona — and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution — to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens.”
Think what you want about the immigration issue, this cannot be allowed to happen.
“Think what you want about the immigration issue, this cannot be allowed to happen.”
Why not?
Yea, why not?
The 14th amendment?
“Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
So your argument is Constitutional, not philosophical. Is that correct? If so, what do you think of this argument made here:
Based on the language of the first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th amendment, the following two applicable conditions are possible:
- All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.
- All persons born in the United States, and NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are NOT citizens.
We can all agree that if a person is naturalized, which means going through the legal immigration process, that you will become a U.S. Citizen and are clearly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. But if you are born in the USA, there are two possible conditions. You are either subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or you aren’t.
What does it mean to be subject to the United States, within the scope of the 14th? Put simply, it can only mean that a person is born to parent(s) who are citizens of the United States. If a child is born to parents who are NOT U.S. Citizens, then the USA can have no jurisdiction over the child’s citizenship. The child will naturally take on the citizenship of the parents since that country has jurisdiction over them.
The way the 14th amendment is written, this is the only logical conclusion that we can come to. And it makes sense. The fact that the leadership in the United States has failed to recognize this simple truth is amazing, but not unexpected. The leadership has failed to comprehend the limitations of the constitution for 200 years. Immigration policies are just the tip of the iceberg.
I think what most north american libertarians want is to live in a prosperous north american territory but not be subject to any territorial monopolies on law (that would have ‘jurisdiction’ over them)
Why is the 14th amendment important?
In this case, I think this legislation will get struck down on pre-emption grounds. The Congress would have to amend the 14th amendment and change related federal law for state legislation like this to really be able to stick.
"A child automatically becomes a U.S. citizen when all of the following conditions have been met under section 320 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Child Citizenship Act (CCA):
To qualify as a “child” for purposes of this section 320 of the INA, the individual must be unmarried. Also, a person who was born out of wedlock (meaning that the parents were not married at the time of the person’s birth), must be “legitimated” while under the age of 16 and while in the legal custody of the legitimating parent. See section 101(c)(1) of the INA. Finally, a stepchild who has not been adopted does not qualify as a child under this section."
EDIT: I should probably add that I don’t particularly want people to be able to become citizens just by being born here but the law really seems clear on this one: you can become a US citizen if your parents were naturalized here.
True, this is just more nativist bs. Arizona will not be allowed to deny birth certificates to amerian citizens.
If we allow ourselves to merely reinterpret the constitution whenever we see fit without going through the amendment process we wind up with things like the Commerce Clause being used the way it has been for the last hundred years.
I am An-Cap, I don’t think the constitution is even a legal document, but I am also a realist and am working within the framework of present-day society. I think a government bound by a constitution is less bad than a boundless government. They both are awful though.
On that same note, I don’t really believe immigration is a problem in an An-Cap society. The division of labor leads me to believe that low-wage workers are a good thing. Most of the arguments against free Immigration revolve around either the loss of jobs and on their access to welfare programs and other taxed services such as schooling.
I think the loss of jobs argument is completely bogus. On the value of the division of labor primarily but those jobs wouldn’t exist if there wern’t below-minimum-wage workers to be the labor. If you want to create jobs for unskilled americans than remove the minimum wage.
My opposition to the welfare argument is that why are we concerned about immigrants using services we shouldn’t have anyway. If immigrants are supposedly overwhelming the welfare system, how about we get rid of the welfare system and have the immigrants work making american products at low low prices.
Here’s an argument by a political science professor named Edward Erler. It is similar to the one posted by Skyler. It seems to me that Arizona might actually be trying to interpret the Constitution correctly, for once.
Who is a Citizen?
Citizenship, of course, does not exist by nature; it is created by law, and the identification of citizens has always been considered an essential aspect of sovereignty. After all, the founders of a new nation are not born citizens of the new nation they create. Indeed, this is true of all citizens of a new nation - they are not born into it, but rather become citizens by law.Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution, with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is the familiar language: “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.” Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. We have somehow come today to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction. But this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous and without force. If this had been the intention of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, presumably they would simply have said that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are thereby citizens.
Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the new language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the U.S. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation’s geographical limits; but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, rose to support his colleague, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard interjected, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Thus “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or American courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.
Consider as well that in 1868, the year the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, Congress passed the Expatriation Act. This act permitted American citizens to renounce their allegiance and alienate their citizenship. This piece of legislation was supported by Senator Howard and other leading architects of the Fourteenth Amendment, and characterized the right of expatriation as “a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Like the idea of citizenship, this right of expatriation is wholly incompatible with the common law understanding of perpetual allegiance and subjectship. One member of the House expressed the general sense of the Congress when he proclaimed: “The old feudal doctrine stated by Blackstone and adopted as part of the common law of England . . . is not only at war with the theory of our institutions, but is equally at war with every principle of justice and of sound public policy.” The common law established what was characterized as an “indefensible doctrine of indefeasible allegiance,” a feudal doctrine wholly at odds with republican government.
In sum, this legacy of feudalism - which we today call birthright citizenship - was decisively rejected as the ground of American citizenship by the Fourteenth Amendment and the Expatriation Act of 1868. It is absurd, then, to believe that the Fourteenth Amendment confers the boon of American citizenship on the children of illegal aliens. Nor does the denial of birthright citizenship visit the sins of the parents on the children, as is often claimed, since the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. are not being denied anything to which they have a right. Their allegiance should follow that of their parents during their minority. Furthermore, it is difficult to fathom how those who defy American law can derive benefits for their children by their defiance_or that any sovereign nation would allow such a thing.
He should probably check cases related to the Expatriation Act, expatriating does not exempt anyone from either federal or state jurisdiction.
Skyler it seems you are also arguing from legal terms, too, rather than philosophy. You are just comparing 14th amendment to other laws. Rather than the new Arizona law to the constitution. So if the constitution is arbitrary in its definitions, so is yours. One can say laws are inadequate or the constitution is, but I tend to go with the constitution being above anything that contradicts it. Since that is where the bill of rights are.
Where will logic and philosophy take you? Away from statism entirely…
good luck.
@John Ess, oh yes, I know. That is the reason I posted what I did, to argue on the same foundation the OP was. It didn’t seem he had considered the Constitutional argument in it’s entirety.
btw, I agree completely with your last sentence ^_^.
What bloom said. Erler is just pushing the conservatoid argument, that makes no logical sense.
He should probably check cases related to the Expatriation Act, expatriating does not exempt anyone from either federal or state jurisdiction.
Why would anyone expatriate if it doesn’t exempt them from federal or state jurisdiction? Isn’t that the whole point of dissolving ties with a country?
So I could go to the US and kill and steal with immunity?
“Why would anyone expatriate if it doesn’t exempt them from federal or state jurisdiction? Isn’t that the whole point of dissolving ties with a country?”
Yeah, that’s what people who expatriate probably want. That and to avoid taxes. But it doesn’t work that way. An expatriate can be arrested and tried for committing a crime just like anyone else. They can also be taxed under certain conditions. I forget exactly what they are but you can look it up.
EDIT: Nothing certain in this world but death and taxes.
Are you comfortable with the fact that the government can take away your citizenship? Do you believe in the rule of law?
@Esuric, how is that happening if the 14th Amendment never gave citizenship to a child born within the territorial United States to non-citizen parents?
It comes back to the 14th Amendment and what it actually means. If it means what I quoted above, and others have followed up on, then this Arizona law would not be in violation of the Constitution or it’s 14th Amendment.
Could it be in violation of other Federal laws? Sure, but those other Federal laws are illegitimate (Constitutionally-speaking) if they were passed in violation of the Constitution or it’s 14th Amendment.