What is the policy in the immigration reform towards U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants?
407753
The problem with The Fourteenth Amendment Is That it has been MISINTERPRETED  in recent years to mean simply that anyone born in the U.S, under any circumstances, is an American citizen.\nThis is neither the original intent of the law nor the way it was interpreted by the courts in subsequent decades. \nSome Americans speak of birthright citizenship as if it were an immutable law of nature. \nIt is NOT, and most other nations do not, in fact, recognize it. It is only a BAD HABIT that could be broken with a simple Executive Order. \n\nAccording to estimates, some 200,000 so-called anchor babies are born in the United States every year. \nOnce a mother has birthed a child on American soil, she can then seek to obtain citizenship for herself on the strength of the family-reunification laws. \nEven before this happens, she is very hard to deport, as the mother of an American, and the full panoply of welfare benefits is available to her, as is affirmative action if she is a member of a racial minority. \n\n"The situation we have today is absurd," alleges Craig Nelsen, director of Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement, \na group of attorneys and immigration experts that is trying to do something about the problem. \n"There is a huge and growing industry in Asia that arranges tourist visas for pregnant women so they can fly to the United States and give birth to an American. \nThis was not the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment; it makes a mockery of citizenship."\n\nThe key to undoing the current misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is this odd phrase\n \n"AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF." \n\nThe whole problem is caused by the fact that the meaning of this phrase, which was clear to anyone versed in legal language in 1868, has slipped with changes in usage. Fortunately, there is a large group of court precedents that make clear what the phrase actually means: \n\nThe Fourteenth Amendment EXCLUDES the children of aliens. (The Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873)) \n\nThe Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. (Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874))\n \nThe phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence. \n(Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)) \n\nThere is NO automatic birthright citizenship in a particular case. (Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) \n\nThe Supreme Court has NEVER confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, temporary workers, and tourists. \n(Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n.10 (1982)) \n\nThere are other cases referring to minor details of the question.\n\nthe so-called 14th amendment was never properly ratified either. \nIn the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968), \nthe Utah Supreme Court recited numerous historical facts proving, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the so-called 14th amendment was likewise a major fraud upon the American People.\n\nThose facts, in many cases, were Acts of the several State Legislatures voting for or against that proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution. \nThe Supreme Law Library has a collection of references detailing this major fraud.\n\nThe U.S. Constitution requires that constitutional amendments be ratified by three-fourths of the several States.\n As such, their Acts are governed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution. See Article IV, Section 1.\n\nJudging by the sheer amount of litigation its various sections have generated, particularly Section 1, the so-called 14th amendment is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written in American history. \nThe phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” is properly understood to mean “subject to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress.” \n\nFor this one reason alone, the Congressional Resolution proposing the so-called 14th amendment
585423
Are You Trying To Say, In A Politically Correct Way\nThat Your Son Is An ANCHOR BABY???\n\nThe Fourteenth Amendment EXCLUDES the children of aliens. (The Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873) \n\nThe Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. (Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874)\n\nThe phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" REQUIRES "Direct And Immediate ALLEGIENCE" to the United States, NOT just physical presence. \n(Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884) \n\nThere is NO automatic birthright citizenship in a particular case. (Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) \n\nThe Supreme Court has NEVER confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, temporary workers, and tourists. \n(Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n.10 (1982)
352691
The answer is yes they are giving auto citizenship until otherwise they disown or renos it.\nSorry wrong one, 14th amendment\n\nThe several bills and resolutions now before Congress that would deny citizenship to children born in the United States to certain classes of alien parents raise various issues of law and policy. My testimony today will address two points of constitutional law. First, because the rule of citizenship acquired by birth within the United States is the law of the Constitution, it cannot be changed through legislation, but only by amending the Constitution. A bill such as H.R. 1363, 104th Cong. (1995), the "Citizenship Reform Act of 1995," that purports to deny citizenship by birth to persons born within the jurisdiction of this country is unconstitutional on its face. Second, the proposed constitutional amendments on this topic conflict with basic constitutional principles. To adopt such an amendment would not be technically unlawful, but it would flatly contradict our constitutional history and our constitutional traditions. Affirming the citizenship of African-Americans that Dred Scott had denied, in 1862 President Lincoln's Attorney General wrote an opinion for the Secretary of the Treasury asserting "[a]s far as I know . . . you and I have no better title to the citizenship which we enjoy than the 'accident of birth' -- the fact that we happened to be born in the United States." (5) Today, in 1995, we cannot and should not try to solve the difficult problems illegal immigration poses by denying citizenship to persons whose claim to be recognized as Americans rests on the same constitutional footing as that of any natural-born citizen. Members of both of your Subcommittees have worked vigorously, with the Department of Justice on an evenhanded bipartisan basis, on legislation and oversight to address these problems.\n\nI.\n\n\n       H.R. 1363, the "Citizenship Reform Act of 1995," exemplifies the various legislative proposals before the committees. The stated purpose of the bill is "to deny automatic citizenship at birth to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens." Section 3(a) of the bill amends section 301(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which grants U.S. citizenship "at birth" to all persons "born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Specifically, section 3(a) proposes to define the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to include only children born to U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens.\n\nthe Supreme Court held that a child born in San Francisco of Chinese parents (who, under the Chinese Exclusion laws then in effect, could never themselves become U.S. citizens) became at the time of his birth in the United States a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.\n\n       The Court, in a detailed review of the Anglo-American common law of citizenship and the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, established several propositions. First, because the Constitution does not define United States citizenship, it must be interpreted in light of the common law. Under the common law of England, which was adopted by the United States, every child born within the territory of alien parents was a natural-born subject, with the exception of children born of foreign ambassadors, of alien enemies during hostile occupation, and of aliens on a foreign vessel.
430609
Are you married?  If so, do you have children?  You should have an opinion to this Immigration Reform, if not for yourself, for the future of your children and their children.  In 1985, I believe, Reagan had a similar bill pass congress allowing those illegal immigrants to stay and become citizens.  Since then, the flood gates of illegals have opened wider, 11 plus million have crossed from 1990s to 2004.  Now, we are facing yet another immigration reform, why?  Because the government didn't step up to the plate when it was time to do so and enforce the illegals from crossing over.  They allowed it, day after day, month after month, year after year.  Now they must face the music on this and do something about it.  But at who's expense?  Not the illegals, but the true Americans that struggle making ends meet.  If the American people don't step up and stop our government doing this, we might as well open the border completely and let any and all who want to come here from Mexico, Canada, and all over the world in.  It's not just Mexicans from Mexico that are here illegal.  Watch the news, they are interviewing many from all regions of the world that are here and have been here for years illegally.  I know we all come from immigrant backgrounds, unless you are a true blooded Indian from North America.  But, our forefathers before us come the legal way.  That's how these illegals should have to do.  Send them home and let them come through the proper channels.  If they had children here, send the children with them.  Just because they were born in the USA should NOT constitute them to be classified as an American citizen if in fact their parents are illegal aliens.  There's a lot to the topic that needs to be addressed and resolved for the betterment of the American people, not the American government.
874617
We certainly shouldn't consider it at all.This nation is neglecting its least educated and poor to take care of another nations uneducated and poor.I'm sorry If I'm paying for the welfare(and I am) I want my taxes to go for feeding and taking care of Americans first.This plan has been offered as a way to end the illega aliens,coming to the USA .Anything is worth looking into as a solution.\n\nSecure the borders immediately (with a mere 5.9% (i.e. 153,000 border patrol) of the total 2.6 million military, guard, and reserves). \n\nRequire enforcement of all immigration laws.  Enforce the existing laws.  \n\nRequire deportation of ALL illegal entries and visa overstays currently within our jails and prisons (i.e. within our custody).  \n\nRequire ALL employers to use the Social Security Verification System for ALL hires.  Prosecute violators. \n\nDeny ALL illegal alien births automatic citizenship.   Stop the abuse of anchor babies to acquire Blue Passports. \n\nDeny ALL illegal aliens a FREE K-12 education. \n\nDeny ALL illegal aliens ANY and ALL public benefits (welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, etc.), except Emergency healthcare \n\nDeny ALL illegal aliens driver's licenses. \n\nDeny ALL illegal aliens college tuition. \n\nVerify ALL voter's citizenship, before permission to vote.  Biometrics could be helpful. \n\nProvide $500 (per person) and pre-paid transportation to each illegal alien volunteering to leave the U.S. \n\nWith no more magnets (no jobs, welfare, education, etc.), the remaining illegal aliens will leave voluntarily.  Allow all illegal aliens to leave on their own, with their own property. Those wishing to immigrate to the U.S. must get in line behind those already seeking to immigrate legally.
273009
Secure, not close.  Allow sane intelligent immigration and punish and deport offenders.  Do not allow children of foriegn parents to instantly become Americans.
660815
I agree with you. Tom Tancredo is the key of the survival of  american citizens and legal residents alike. Too bad he is not the one  running the Oval Office.\n\nUnfortunately, our deportation process of illegal aliens often contradict itself. Our law is spoiling them rotten! Giving  them a chance for a hearing and then release them.\n\nWe need a no nonsense immigration rules. If a four year old is not born here and therefore an illegal alien- then he must be deported! Immediately! Make it  simple and clear and no loopholes, therefore no hearing! There would be no illegal four year olds if there will be no illegal parents.
626663
Saul i would say to you that this issue is Americas decision ,not the illegals. i think you are referring to illegal immigration reform not immigration reform and the cost of illegals to the American tax payers out weighs the benefits. also we don't want a overpopulation crisis. if your so beneficial why wouldnt your talents be better served in your own country were it lacks people to fight for the people ?  but take heart there is always coming legal.\n\n\n\nWhile the workers are supposed to be temporary, they stick around. They get married, have kids and put down roots
1135043
Umm it is meant in a derogatory way. \n\n\nI found this from a site " illegal alien parents who have children born in the U.S. are seldom deported . That's why their children are called "anchor babies" - they anchor their families securely in the U.S.A."\n\n\nread more by clicking the link.
673808
Neither them, or their children should become citizens. They broke the law to get here - why reward them? It just encourages more to come here.
338692
It does not. unless they were born in the US (making them citizens). if they were born abroad, then it does not include them.
229238
Your question is sooooooo vague.   \n\nWhat policies, specifically?   Economic?   Governmental?   Schooling?  Taxes?   Importation/Exportation?  Immigration/Emigration?
541367
It is now the law that if you're born in the USA, you are a citizen.  \n\nIf the law was changed to say that if your parents were here illegally you cannot be (or are no longer) a citizen, we'd have to deport a lot more folks than Latinos.
1143271
You are 100% correct and I agree with everything you said here.  As well, yes, there are American citizens on welfare (some don't deserve it, either) but the distinction here is that they ARE AMERICAN CITIZENS and our welfare system is to help AMERICAN  CITIZENS, NOT ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!  Also, definitely NO green card or "path to citizenship" for illegals presently in the country - deport them ALL and stop saying it is impossible - yes, it is possible.  It may take time, but it is possible and it can be done and I am sure it will cost less than what they cost us while living in the country illegally.  Let them apply for a temporary worker visa AFTER they leave the country on their own steam - if they don't and are later deported, NO CHANCE FOR A TEMPORARY WORKER PASS OR LEGAL ENTRY BACK INTO THE USA EVER AGAIN, because they passed up their chance to do it the right way.  No rewards WHATSOEVER for illegal immigrants because that is sending the wrong message to other would-be illegals and that is also telling those who have sacrificed and waited in order to immigrate legally, that we don't respect them for doing it the right way.
294251
Over 95% of the population is immigrants..., most immigration policy is based on racial profiling...
390855
That's a lie not all American kids get food stamps. Those Mexicans can go and get them before an American do. Not there is no REASON that illegal immigrates should live here. They need to go back where they come from.
739623
That "law" should have been abolished decades ago.  A baby should only be a citizen if it is born of two citizens.  If our government would stop giving illegals all these incentives to come here they would stop coming.  No more birth rights, no free health care, no food stamps, no welfare, no jobs.  Without these incentives they would stop coming!