Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

July 11, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOLLIES....Colorado just passed a stringent immigration bill that denies public assistance to anyone who isn't in Colorado legally. However, it still allows children to get food and healthcare, and some Republicans find that outrageous:

Rep. Debbie Stafford, R-Aurora, said at the caucus that she was upset that the bill exempted children under 18. "We're helping create the next generation of terrorists," she said.

The next generation of terrorists! That's telling it like it is, Debbie. Other Republicans were upset that Republican Governor Bill Owens backed down on his support for a bill that would have required all prospective employees to have a Colorado ID card:

Republican Rep. Al White, the sponsor of House Bill 1018, told his Republican colleagues that Owens was supportive of the bill until business leaders told him that the price of a house might go up by 5 percent because some homebuilders could lose illegal-immigrant labor.

"That tells me that business in Colorado is really not serious about doing away with illegal immigration in this state," White said. "And if that is the case, this whole special session is nothing but bull."

Rep. Lynn Hefley, R-Colorado Springs, said it bothered her "when businesspeople come and talk to the governor and tell him what needs to be done."...."We know, and names were named here, who came and who gives big bucks to the party. It's my party too, and I came here for us to do a job, and I'm ashamed of us," Hefley said.

That's a shocker, isn't it? A Republican governor caving in to business interests. Who would have seen that coming?

However, there's a serious discrepancy between the news reports on this dustup. According to the Denver Post, White said "this whole special session is nothing but bull." But according to the Rocky Mountain News, he said "this whole special session has been b---s---." Which was it? Inquiring minds want to know.

Kevin Drum 4:01 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (194)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Apparently, Colorado Republicans want to see illegal children starving in the street.
Good for them.

Posted by: rusrus on July 11, 2006 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

Humorously written post, Kevin. Enjoyed it.

Posted by: shortstop on July 11, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

Get it right- they want to see illegal terrorist children starving in the street.

Posted by: SP on July 11, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

As a Democrat from Colorado I think that the Democratic party handled this very deftly.

The Supreme Court rejected on technical grounds a constitutional amendment that was going to the ballot. This amendment was being pushed by Republicans and was pretty restrictive.

The Republican governor called a special session to address immigration in order to put pressure on Democrats to deal with the issue. They surprised him by quickly coming up with a bipartisan bill that probably will deny some services to adult ilegal immigrants but will not hurt under age immigrants. Its true that I don't have the details of the program so that is largely an impression that I cannot verify.

In short, the Colorado Democratic party has some exceptional leadership in Andrew Romanoff and other strong Senators, including Angie Paccione who is now contesting Marilyn Musgrave for a seat in the US House of Representatives.

Posted by: NeilS on July 11, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

What I want to know is why the Democrats, who control both houses in Colorado, aren't being tarred and feathered as racist xenophobes. Where's the quote from the La Raza spokesman condemning this outrage? If this were Texas or Arizona enacting something like this, we'd have endless blog posts and earnest articles from the American Prospect telling us how those meanie racist jingoist bastard repukes want to murder all the brown people.

Posted by: Homer on July 11, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

Rep. Debbie Stafford, R-Aurora, said at the caucus that she was upset that the bill exempted children under 18. "We're helping create the next generation of terrorists," she said.

Completely correct. Just look at the child Islamofascist homicide bombing terrorists who attack Israel. If we don't stand up to them, the child terrorists could be here in America also. Liberals as usual are trying to seek therapy and understanding for the child homicide bombing terrorists instead of killing them before they attack again.

Posted by: Al on July 11, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

....told his Republican colleagues that Owens was supportive of the bill until business leaders told him that the price of a house might go up by 5 percent because some homebuilders could lose illegal-immigrant labor.

Nice.

So, let me get this straight - I'm not allowed to go to Mexico to fill a prescription for zantec, but home builders are allowed to go to Mexico for laborers (and pocket the difference in cost).

Posted by: American Fuck on July 11, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

As a Democrat from Colorado I think that the Democratic party handled this very deftly.

Wow, you're right. The party succeeded in passing what are being called the "toughest illegal immigration laws in the nation"; something the national party cannot abide. May the Republican party ever continue to lose battles like that.

Posted by: Homer on July 11, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

Actually Hamer, the bill passed by the state legislature pretty much mimics already existing federal law, so there's no significant change here.

Posted by: Doug-E-Fresh on July 11, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

I just want Lynn Hefley to go ahead and name the names of the business interests that have bought up the GOP in Colorado. Could be a double coup for the Dems, expose the GOP members for the corporate puppets they are and manage to piss off the patrons at the same time.

I do have to say I have actually enjoyed Owens as a GOP governor working with a Dem Controlled legislature. He sold out the far-right on C and D last year too, much to the dismay of the GOP loonies.

Posted by: Doug-E-Fresh on July 11, 2006 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

Rep. Debbie Stafford, R-Aurora, said at the caucus that she was upset that the bill exempted children under 18. "We're helping create the next generation of terrorists," she said.

While this is over-the-top retarded, the one issue of illegal "immigration" that has been completely ignored is changing our retarded law that grants citizenship to any child born in the U.S., regardless of its parents' legal status.

What percentage of the 10-12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. (probably more like 15-20 million) is the offspring of illegal parents? Are they counted among the official estimates or do they comprise a second number not discussed separate of their parents' legal status?

A new Hispanic (read Mexican) couple move into the apartment building where my parents lived in Tucson last winter. The wife was several months pregnant. When asked how long they'd be staying (the complex, like many in town, caters to short term snowbirds and military personnel), her response was, "Oh, just long enough."

Until we change this law, we will continue to feed this part of the problem.

Posted by: JeffII on July 11, 2006 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

"A Republican governor caving in to business interests. Who would have seen that coming?"

Sure, no Democrat has ever caved in to business interests or taken corporate contributions. Only difference is a Democratic governor would have pretended he was killing the bill for moral reasons.

Posted by: hankj on July 11, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

our retarded law that grants citizenship to any child born in the U.S., regardless of its parents' legal status

you mean the 14th amendment ?

Posted by: cleek on July 11, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

Is a "Colorado ID" card as referenced in the article constitutional?

(Real question, would appreciate answer, or perhaps clarification.)

Posted by: Gene O'Grady on July 11, 2006 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, if the Democrats succeed, generations of illegal immigrants can survive off the public bankroll. Good work.

Posted by: American Hawk on July 11, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

Homer --

You're being spun.

Remember that the deal was between the Democrats in the House and Senate and a Republican governor. They then announced that a deal had been made. Both had a stake in calling this "toughest illegal immigration laws in the nation".

Posted by: NeilS on July 11, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

I hear Rep. Debbie wants all those under-18 future terrorists to get numbers tatooed on their forearms.

Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on July 11, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

"What percentage of the 10-12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. (probably more like 15-20 million) is the offspring of illegal parents?"

Well, I would guess that pretty much all illegal aliens in the US have parents that were not citizens (otherwise they would not be illegal), so if that's what you're getting at, 100%.

Now, if you're asking what percentage of illegal aliens are the offspring of illegal alien parents and were born in the US, that would be 0%, as one born in this country is automatically a citizen.

My thinking, though, is that for the most part you're an idiot and have no idea what you're talking about.

Posted by: Doug-E-Fresh on July 11, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

Generations of pharmaceutical company CEO's can eat caviar and drive Lamborghinis off inflated prices for drugs while sick people die -- that's Republican success.

Posted by: Slothrop on July 11, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

I'm also a CO resident & have been following this pretty closely. As others have alluded to, this whole deal was nothing but politics. Republicans wanted an anti-immigration ballot measure solely because they thought it would turn out the vote. When it was declared unconstitutional (for addressing more than one issue), Gov. Owens called for an "Extraordinary Session" (yes, that's its official name).

The Democrat-controlled legislature put together a package they've called the "toughest in the nation"; though I'm not sure how much of that is just spin. I do know that the bill concentrates in large part on punishing employers, which is something some Republicans (including Owens) wanted nothing to do with.

Republicans were split on whether to support the measure and were basically forced to show their true motives: at one point they were calling for a ballot measure in November even though the Democrats were offering a solution that was ready to be signed into law and become effective August 1.

Final result: The Dems used a brilliant political ju-jitsu move to turn the Rep's issue against them, and in doing so made it clear to Coloradans that the Republican's only real interest in immigration is political.

More information for those interested:
Square State
Colorado Pols

Posted by: Dug on July 11, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

Wait did he say BS or bullshit?

Posted by: klyde on July 11, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

on bull vs. bullshit...coming from a Republican politician is there much difference???

Posted by: tat on July 11, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

JeffII may be retared himself, the way he uses "retarded" but that aside, yeah, the 14th Amendment, that's the one that needs changing.

Not a whole LOT of changing. But now that there are no more slaves to be made citizens, I think we should be discussing whether children of ILLEGAL immigrants should automatically become citizens.

It is definitely not PC to point it out, but many pregnant women do come here to deliver, in emergency rooms, in order to have a citizen child.

Just change the first sentence 14th amendment to apply to persons born to people RESIDING LEGALLY in the United States, and you'll have made big difference.

You'd also end the inequality people those born here to illegal immigrants, and the very young children they've brought with them.

Yes, it is tough to deport someone who has lived here virtually their whole life, but that's because of decision their PARENTS have made (to come in illegally) and it is NOT the fault of the US.

Posted by: Cal Gal on July 11, 2006 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

It is just like NYC in 1863!

How will this immigration insanity end?

When twelve million human beings are rotting in the desert.

Posted by: Hostile on July 11, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

What really gets me is there is nothing in this bill to stop illegal adults and children from using public toilets connected to tax-payer funded sewage treatment plants and from using public drinking fountains connected to tax-payer funded chlorination facilities.

Turning away diseased adults from public health clinics is a good start but treating diseased children is still a giant loophole the illegals will no doubt turn to their advantage. There is an epidemic of free loaders out there and they are having a huge impact on all of our wallets. All in the name of "public health" and directly counter to fundamental free market principles.

Posted by: American Hawk on July 11, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

We're helping create the next generation of terrorists.

Sorry, the next generation of terrorists have already been created. They are just waiting to come home from Iraq so they can act out their aggression with militancy.

Posted by: Hostile on July 11, 2006 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

I've often wondered why illegals who have a baby here are allowed to stay, hence the term "anchor babies." While it's true that anyone born here is a citizen, why shouldn't the child just stay and become a ward of the state? If the parents don't want to give the child up, they should all go back to their native countries. Being a US citizen, once the child reaches the adulthood, he or she can return.

Posted by: Chicounsel on July 11, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

I think the CO republicans just got a wedgie.

Posted by: Tripp on July 11, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

Wait a second, imposing economic hardship on children stops them from growing up as terrorists?

If that worked, Palestine would be one of the most terrorist-free areas on the planet.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 11, 2006 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK
While this is over-the-top retarded, the one issue of illegal "immigration" that has been completely ignored is changing our retarded law that grants citizenship to any child born in the U.S., regardless of its parents' legal status.

I actually think not taking parents legal status at the time the child was born into account was probably a pretty good idea in the 14th Amendment, both today and in its original context.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 11, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK
I've often wondered why illegals who have a baby here are allowed to stay, hence the term "anchor babies."

Because Americans have family values, and believe that the immediate family of a US citizen should be allowed to immigrate, without delay (unless their country has poor record-keeping systems, in which case its pretty hit-or-miss.)

Posted by: cmdicely on July 11, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

The Colorado GOP'ers are perfect examples,of today's"Good(Fundamentalists) Christians".Not an ounce of kindness or compassion!

Posted by: proudleftists on July 11, 2006 at 5:29 PM | PERMALINK

Illegal immigration in Colorado has reached epidemic levels. It is not suprising that even Dems were willing to support legislation restricting public handouts.

To not support it would have been political suicide.

Posted by: sportsfan79 on July 11, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK
JeffII may be retared himself, the way he uses "retarded" but that aside, yeah, the 14th Amendment, that's the one that needs changing.

No, it doesn't.

It is definitely not PC to point it out, but many pregnant women do come here to deliver, in emergency rooms, in order to have a citizen child.

Yeah, well, if we fixed the legal immigration system so that legal immigrants from many places, including Mexico, didn't often have to wait a decade or more, that wouldn't be much of a problem.

Yes, it is tough to deport someone who has lived here virtually their whole life, but that's because of decision their PARENTS have made (to come in illegally) and it is NOT the fault of the US.

If the US does it, its the fault of the US. If its genuinely the right thing, deflecting responsibility isn't necessary; if you start deflecting responsibility, its a good sign that you don't really believe the policy is justified.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 11, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know, is denying them food and healthcare really that much worse than denying their parents jobs?

Look, if it were up to me, I would legalize pretty much all of the illegal immigrants, but the positions taken by both parties are quite illogical.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on July 11, 2006 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

Re 14th Amendment:

Is it just me, or is it entertaining how a constitutional amendment clause passed to ensure citizenship for the children of aliens who arrived in the US against their will, now has as its primary effect ensuring citizenship for the children of aliens brought to the US against OUR will?

Posted by: Shelby on July 11, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

Lotta xenophobia in this thread, and it's hard to distinguish some of the earnest comments from parody.

Posted by: sglover on July 11, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK
Look, if it were up to me, I would legalize pretty much all of the illegal immigrants, but the positions taken by both parties are quite illogical.

Neither party has a coherent position on the issue; both parties contain a diversity of conflicting positions (and try to appeal to a diverse array of consituencies with conflicting interests), and when politicians in either party take a stand, its often, consequently, an bizarre compromise intended to win votes from different groups whose priorites are often utterly contradictory.

So its not really surprising that they are "illogical". Real solutions are going to considerable development through interest groups and public advocacy outside of the electoral dialogue before there is the kind of consensus that would make non-confused approaches politically attractive to most politicians.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 11, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

The newborn child has no idea that it is an American citizen and that the decision to have it born here was made solely by the parents with the goal of remaining here. So why should we award such blatant lawbreaking by the parents?

Amercian "family values" by which i take you to mean our social safety net extends first and foremost to American citizens, which the parents clearly are not. So offer them the choice of giving up their child to be raised here in America or going back as a family. Again, since the child is a US citizen, there is no question that the child can return once its grown. A certified copy of the child's birth certificate that can be verified by the one kept at the hospital where it was born should be enough to establish the child's status of citizenship

Posted by: Chicounsel on July 11, 2006 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

I actually think not taking parents legal status at the time the child was born into account was probably a pretty good idea in the 14th Amendment, both today and in its original context.Posted by: cmdicely

The amendment was only used after the fact as a definition of citizenship, and is meaningless in the context of today's discuss of illegal immigrant "rights." It's a law that needed to be fifty years ago.

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.

Posted by: JeffII on July 11, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

I thought just unborn children were called "it"? What caliber of productive, English-speaking citizens are you hoping for, Chicounsel, upon their return?

Posted by: Doug M. on July 11, 2006 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

Just an aside, the cherry crop in the Pacific Northwest is evidently being devistated. With all the illegal immigration hysteria, it seems the growers can't find enough pickers to handle the crop. So much for the much professed Republican love for the family farm. Still, the price of cherries in the grocery probably won't go up much. Chile and New Zealand have lots of cherries in cold storage to fill the gap.

Posted by: fafner1 on July 11, 2006 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

So offer them the choice of giving up their child to be raised here in America or going back as a family.

This is an excellent idea. I can attest that a number of my friends and I would step in and personally raise these children. We can always use another caddy, pool boy or laundress, and training them while they're young is the only way to get quality service.

Posted by: Winnetkacounsel on July 11, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

Just an aside, the cherry crop in the Pacific Northwest is evidently being devistated. With all the illegal immigration hysteria, it seems the growers can't find enough pickers to handle the crop.

Messing with my summer cherry supply is reason enough to damn the GOP to HELL!

Posted by: shortstop on July 11, 2006 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

I think a few people on this thread are forgetting that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL....

A person born on American soil is an American citizen. This is the foundation of our democracy.

Y'all might want to reread the 14th Amendment.

Posted by: A US Citizen on July 11, 2006 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

First of all, housing prices are only going down in Colorado due to unprecedented inventory combined with speculator flight, and it has nothing to do with the price of labor. Second, any bill which limits resources to illegals but does not address EMTALA (the law which requires all emergency departments to provide care to anyone who walks in) will cost more than it saves. If they were serious about it, they would allow emergency departments to deny care to illegals--an act which would save health care but is politically and ethically unpalatable.

Posted by: Bad Shift on July 11, 2006 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK
The amendment was only used after the fact as a definition of citizenship,

I'm not sure what "fact" you are referring to, but its (pretty much by definition) not the "original context" I was referring to.

and is meaningless in the context of today's discuss of illegal immigrant "rights."

Well, that's true, in the sense that people born here are not "immigrants", illegal or not, under any reasonable use of the word.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 11, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

Just an aside, the cherry crop in the Pacific Northwest is evidently being devistated. With all the illegal immigration hysteria, it seems the growers can't find enough pickers to handle the crop. . . Posted by: fafner1

Only partially true. As a matter of fact, just a portion of the cherry, peach and pear crops got hammered by "weather events" twice in the last three-weeks. Furthermore, unless they all of a sudden deported thousands of migrant farm laborers in the last couple of months, not, or have successfully sealed the southern borders, not, I think you haven't been reading the papers very carefully.

Nary a word about labor woes.

Published on Saturday, July 8, 2006

Cherry crop still on pace for record harvest
By MAI HOANG
YAKIMA HERALD-REPUBLIC

While half the harvest remains to be picked, the state's cherry crop is still on track for a new record.

Despite some rain damage last month, the current crop is estimated at 110,000 tons, well above the record 106,000-ton harvest last year, the Washington State Fruit Commission said Friday.

About 6 million 20-pound boxes have been shipped so far and about 6 million more should be shipped by the end of the season, said B.J. Thurlby, president of the fruit commission.

Most Yakima Valley cherry orchards have been picked, with the remaining crop at the higher-elevations west of the Valley in Cowiche, Tieton or north toward Wenatchee, he said.

Despite some rain, hail and other bad weather, most of the Valley's cherry crop was spared.

"We just keep dodging these little bullets that keep flying at us," Thurlby said.

And the market has been good, too. With California's rainy weather causing its smallest crop in years growers only picked 2 million boxes this year compared with the average 6.5 million boxes demand for Washington cherries is high.

"So far it's been a great market," Thurlby said. "You hate to say that because we're only halfway through."

Indeed, there's several weeks of the season left and anything could happen.

Loren Queen, marketing and communications manager for Domex Growers, a grower, packer and shipper in Yakima, is still expecting a larger harvest.

"It appears that it's going to be a record crop barring any weather that would cancel that," he said. "It should be the biggest crop that Washington state has ever shipped."

But Thurlby said the challenge is to keep cherry demand strong in the next few weeks as other fruit, including grapes, nectarines, strawberries and watermelon, compete for attention.

"This is the peak of produce season," he said. "We got to remember that we're in a dogfight for shelf space."

* Mai Hoang can be reached at 577-7685 or mhoang@yakimaherald.com.
Sponsors

Posted by: JeffII on July 11, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK
Amercian "family values" by which i take you to mean our social safety net extends first and foremost to American citizens

No, such priorities have nothing to do with family values; legitimate or not, they serve other interests. Respecting, protecting, and strengthening families, as such, has to do with family values.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 11, 2006 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK

Chicounsel >"...the decision to have it born here was made solely by the parents with the goal of remaining here. So why should we award such blatant lawbreaking by the parents?"

Just as soon as those running these states of America cease being criminals I`d be willing to consider your viewpoint but until then (no time soon I`m sure) get lost & take your fascist nonsense with you

These people come here any way they can so that their children can have a better chance at a reasonable life they were denied by the corrupt chaos the rulers of the states of America have fostered around the planet over the last 60 years

Grow up & face reality (time to leave your mom`s basement !)

"Before the Internet, the idiot tended to stay in his own village." - unknown

Posted by: daCascadian on July 11, 2006 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

Because Americans have family values, and believe that the immediate family of a US citizen should be allowed to immigrate

Clearly the family values of illegals are not that strong, for if they were they would be back in their own country with their own family and wouldn't be depriving that family of getting to know their grandchildren.

It shouldn't be incumbent upon Americans to work to reconcile the families of illegals who made the choice to rip their families asunder.

Posted by: TangoMan on July 11, 2006 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

While this is over-the-top retarded, the one issue of illegal "immigration" that has been completely ignored is changing our retarded law that grants citizenship to any child born in the U.S., regardless of its parents' legal status.

Changing this law would require a Constitutional amendment. Never gonna happen, as whatever party pushes it can kiss the Hispanic and Asian vote goodbye for the next two generations.

Posted by: Stefan on July 11, 2006 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK
Clearly the family values of illegals are not that strong, for if they were they would be back in their own country with their own family and wouldn't be depriving that family of getting to know their grandchildren.

Do all adult illegals have living parents?

Of those that do, how many are enhancing those parents chances of knowing their grandchildren more than they otherwise would, by providing those parents resources with which to survive?

It shouldn't be incumbent upon Americans to work to reconcile the families of illegals who made the choice to rip their families asunder.

Nice try, but its those who are proposing using the power of the US government to rip families asunder in ways current practice of the US does not who would be making that choice, no one else.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 11, 2006 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINK

Clearly the family values of illegals are not that strong, for if they were they would be back in their own country with their own family and wouldn't be depriving that family of getting to know their grandchildren.

Yours and every other Americans' ancestors came here and deprived their families of knowing their grandparents.

Go back to where your anti-family values ancestors came from. I am guessing they were anti-semitics from Argentina.

Posted by: Hostile on July 11, 2006 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINK

Changing this law would require a Constitutional amendment. Never gonna happen, as whatever party pushes it can kiss the Hispanic and Asian vote goodbye for the next two generations. Posted by: Stefan

True. But it would be worth it in the long run. The U.S. is overcrowded already. We don't need the additional 50-150 million people, 90% of whom will be immigrants or the offspring of immigrants, projected to swell the population over the next century.

What we need is some good ol' fashioned plagues! Bird flu? Bring it on. Small pox? I've got your diseased blankets right here. Typhoid? Can I get you a glass of water?

Oh. I forgot to tell you. All this needs to happen outside the U.S.

Have a nice day.

Posted by: JeffII on July 11, 2006 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin asks:

According to the Denver Post, White said "this whole special session is nothing but bull." But according to the Rocky Mountain News, he said "this whole special session has been b---s---." Which was it?

Simple. The Rocky Mountain News story was a plagiarized rewrite by Anne Coulter.

Posted by: Disputo on July 11, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

What we need is some good ol' fashioned plagues! Bird flu? Bring it on. Small pox? I've got your diseased blankets right here. Typhoid? Can I get you a glass of water?

Oh, I wouldn't worry. If the last five years have shown us anything it's that a large percentage of the US population is literally too stupid to live. I predict a mass Darwinian die-off any day now as we eliminate ourselves in a vast orgy of SUV roll-overs, obesity, hurricanes, and banana-peel slipping.

Posted by: Stefan on July 11, 2006 at 7:15 PM | PERMALINK

AM Hawk Nails it There is to much corprate wefare in this country(Haliburton, Big Pharma)An epidemic that is hurting all our wallets.NICE JOB AMERICAN HAWK!!!

Posted by: Mann Coulter on July 11, 2006 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

Nice try, but its those who are proposing using the power of the US government to rip families asunder in ways current practice of the US does not who would be making that choice, no one else.

Nice try, back at ya. You're relying on de jure legitimacy in the same way that someone who exploits a tax loophole does. Further, you're arguing that the tax loophole shouldn't be closed for it has legitimacy because it is law.

Posted by: TangoMan on July 11, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

JeffII would have been a barrel of laughs on Ellis Island.

Posted by: SED on July 11, 2006 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

I don't know, is denying them food and healthcare really that much worse than denying their parents jobs?

Look, if it were up to me, I would legalize pretty much all of the illegal immigrants, but the positions taken by both parties are quite illogical.

上海耐博泵阀向大家推荐:阀门电磁阀调节阀球阀蝶阀闸阀隔膜泵离心泵水泵电动阀门气动阀门电动阀煤气电磁阀不锈钢电磁阀水用电磁阀防爆电磁阀电动调节阀气动调节阀衬氟调节阀波纹管调节阀电动精小型调节阀电动球阀气动球阀三通球阀电动调节球阀气动蝶阀电动蝶阀电动调节蝶阀电动截止阀电动闸阀电动隔膜泵气动隔膜泵管道离心泵排污泵磁力泵

Posted by: sam on July 11, 2006 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK

I am also a Dem from Colorado. The reason the Dems took both state houses back in 2004 is because the Repubs are seriously whacked. They were all about fear of teh gay and ramming through redistricting, while the state sank into near-bankruptcy. Good to see they haven't learned anything in time for 2006 elections.

I feel the whole immigration crises is pretty much invented nonsense, but I must admit the Dems handled it beautifully. They are fining businesses who hire illegal immigrants - which the Repubs didn't want but couldn't exactly admit they didn't want. And the Repubs don't get their red meat referendum issue to bring out the base. Ha ha.

Posted by: EmmaAnne on July 11, 2006 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

JeffII would have been a barrel of laughs on Ellis Island. Posted by: SED

See. You, too, missed the point.

American is no longer a great big empty country full of wonderful possibilities. The only open spaces we have are places no one in their right mind would want to live. And even if we wanted to provide housing in the dying Dakotas, eastern Colorado (oops, not there), Wyoming, Nevada (Ely's just lovely in the summer!), Nebraska, Kansas or Oklahoma, where will we get the water and power for these new pioneer communities? What will all these newly minted Americans do, hunt the buffalo? Oh, shit. Forgot that's not going to work. Hey! They could all be farme . . . er. That's not going to work either.

I know! We'll create "free trade zones" in violation of WTO rules, and build factories, just like the Chinese, and pay everyone a couple bucks a day, and retake the manufacturing advantage! Ain't overcrowded America grand?

Posted by: JeffII on July 11, 2006 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK
You're relying on de jure legitimacy in the same way that someone who exploits a tax loophole does.

Even ignoring the question of change from status quo policy, a policy that would rip families apart when they are here together is the responsibility of those who make the policy—they choose to rip families apart.

Now, if its right to rip families apart in the circumstances in which the policy does so, they should proudly trumpet their responsibility for doing that, not try to claim someone else is responsible for the policy decision they make.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 11, 2006 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK

"A person born on American soil is an American citizen. This is the foundation of our democracy."

If it took 14 amendments before it happened, it can hardly be called the *foundation* of our democracy.

It made some sense when slavery was being eradicated and there needed to be a basis for making former slaves "citizens," but you still haven't articulated a reason that someone who walked across the border 9 months pregnant should gain citizenship for their child born here.

Children of people here legally, OK. Children of people who came here illegally, not so much. I don't see how 'family values' has anything to do with it.

Posted by: Cal Gal on July 11, 2006 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK
It made some sense when slavery was being eradicated and there needed to be a basis for making former slaves "citizens," but you still haven't articulated a reason that someone who walked across the border 9 months pregnant should gain citizenship for their child born here.

Child and parent are two different people. The parent doesn't gain citizenship for their child born here.

The child doesn't "gain" citizenship, either. They have it as an initial condition.


I don't see how 'family values' has anything to do with it.

It doesn't. Family values has to do with why we would let the parent stay, not with birthright citizenship.

Birthright citizenship is more fundamental.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 11, 2006 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINK

AH,

Jesus, you stupid fuck.

The biggest fucking freeloaders out there are the corporations who have sucked the public teat dry.

Posted by: angryspittle on July 11, 2006 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINK

I hope *to* *God* that the GOP adopts JeffII's little bitchie-whine as their slogan for 2006:

American is no longer a great big empty country full of wonderful possibilities.

Posted by: Disputo on July 11, 2006 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINK

"The parent doesn't gain citizenship for their child born here." No, but they gain the right to stay here indefinitely.

You still haven't given a reason why "birthright" citizenship should be fundamental.

Posted by: Cal Gal on July 11, 2006 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

a policy that would rip families apart when they are here together is the responsibility of those who make the policythey choose to rip families apart.

But those families are here illegally, and of their own volition. The onus of badness shouldn't fall upon the representatives of American citizens for simply following the law, nor should American citizens have to wear the badge of badness for recognizing that many people try to exploit the law by having anchor babies and thus wanting to protect the sanctity of the law by modifying it to curb such abuse.

Now, if its right to rip families apart in the circumstances in which the policy does so, they should proudly trumpet their responsibility for doing that, not try to claim someone else is responsible for the policy decision they make.

Why should they submit themselves to playing this process out according to your terms? It was the illegals who made the conscious choice to break the law, and then have an anchor baby as a means of working around the issue. Further, the 14th Amendment doesn't mention the rights of families of anchor babies, so the people who want illegals deported yet are recognizing the rights of the anchor baby to be adopted by fellow citizens are well within the limits of proper jurisdiction. Surely you're not going to advocate the the Supremes read into the 14th Amendment the right of illegals to stay because they had an anchor baby.

Posted by: TangoMan on July 11, 2006 at 7:48 PM | PERMALINK

Why is everyone treating Cal Gal's complaint that the illegal parents of US newborns get a free ticket to stay in the US -- they do not. In fact, I know of a couple of new parents who were recently forced to go back to Poland.

CG is just parroting GOP talking pt lies. Stop falling for it.

Posted by: Disputo on July 11, 2006 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

and now I see that TangoMan is also repeating the false meme....

Posted by: Disputo on July 11, 2006 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

If the children of illegal immigrants in the US were also considered illegal immigrants we would immediately have a permenant hereditary legal underclass in the country. People would then be born, live thier whole lives and die in this country never having had the legal rights of citizens.

If you need it to affect your own personal ass before you give a damn that is a real prescription for domestic terrorism.

The citizenship by birth rule prevents us from taking certain actions that might be politically convenient in the short run, but in the long run are likely (certain?) to lead to far greater injustices. We cannot have a hereditary legal underclass based on citizenship while it stands. We will immediately have such an underclass if it falls.

Posted by: jefff on July 11, 2006 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

Its my understanding a US citizen can't sponsor his parents for a visa until the child has become an adult. So having an anchor baby won't stop the parents from being deported.

Having said that, it is an open constitutional question whether the 14th Amendment mandates citizenship for children born in this circumstance. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue of citizenship for children of illegal aliens (as opposed to the children of permament residents, the US clearly has jurisdiction over them and the Court has ruled the kids are citizens).

Posted by: beowulf on July 11, 2006 at 8:07 PM | PERMALINK

But those families are here illegally, and of their own volition. The onus of badness shouldn't fall upon the representatives of American citizens for simply following the law, should American citizens have to wear the badge of badness for recognizing that many people try to exploit the law by having anchor babies and thus wanting to protect the sanctity of the law by modifying it to curb such abuse.

If the law is the source of the "badness", than, so long as we have a notionally democratic nation, yes, the "onus of badness" falls upon the American citizens (not merely there representatives).

And, even if we don't have a notionally democratic nation, that onus falls on the lawmakers.

If anchor babies are such an evil that it is better to rip families apart than allow them, well, then those advocating that position ought to advocate it, not shift responsibility for it.

The effects of the law are the responsibility of those creating the law, plain and simple.

Further, the 14th Amendment doesn't mention the rights of families of anchor babies, so the people who want illegals deported yet are recognizing the rights of the anchor baby to be adopted by fellow citizens are well within the limits of proper jurisdiction.

I've never argued its unconstitutional. I've argued that people advocating a policy ought to except responsibility for the consequences of the policy. If they aren't willing to accept that responsibility, they should not advocate the policy.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 11, 2006 at 8:10 PM | PERMALINK

If you need it to affect your own personal ass before you give a damn that is a real prescription for domestic terrorism.

Under a mamby-pamby Democratic administration sure - but as long as we keep electing strong-defense Republicans with no qualms about doing what it takes to deter terrorism (ie. wiretapping, torture, bombing) then that's no threat to us here.

Maybe these illegals can earn citizenship through service in the military - then we can have them take care of our own domestic terrorism problem before it happens.

Posted by: American Fuck on July 11, 2006 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK
Having said that, it is an open constitutional question whether the 14th Amendment mandates citizenship for children born in this circumstance.

Really? Its certainly clear that people born "in this circumstance" are "born in the United States".

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue of citizenship for children of illegal aliens (as opposed to the children of permament residents, the US clearly has jurisdiction over them and the Court has ruled the kids are citizens).

The US clearly has and regularly exercises jurisdiction over illegal immigrants present within the borders of the US, too, so insofar as you seem to be arguing birthright citizenship is based on the US "having jurisdiction" over a person (contrary to the plain language of the 14th Amendment), that doesn't really change the result from applying the plain language.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 11, 2006 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK

Just an aside, the cherry crop in the Pacific Northwest is evidently being devistated. With all the illegal immigration hysteria, it seems the growers can't find enough pickers to handle the crop. . . Posted by: fafner1

Only partially true. As a matter of fact, just a portion of the cherry, peach and pear crops got hammered by "weather events" twice in the last three-weeks. Furthermore, unless they all of a sudden deported thousands of migrant farm laborers in the last couple of months, not, or have successfully sealed the southern borders, not, I think you haven't been reading the papers very carefully. ... posted by Jeff II

Glad to hear Yakima is doing fine. Small growers I know in Hood River, The Dalles, and the Willamette Valley are telling a different story.

Posted by: fafner1 on July 11, 2006 at 8:22 PM | PERMALINK

"If the children of illegal immigrants in the US were also considered illegal immigrants we would immediately have a permenant hereditary legal underclass in the country. People would then be born, live thier whole lives and die in this country never having had the legal rights of citizens."

I'm not sure why they would live the WHOLE lives here. Wouldn't they move to the country where they WERE citizens when they got old enough?

Maybe anchor babies can't get permanent residence for their parents for 18 years, but that's not that long a time. People wait longer than that to immigrate legally.

Why have immigration laws at all? Just let anybody who wants to come in, come in. That seems to be policy you're advocating.

Posted by: Cal Gal on July 11, 2006 at 8:24 PM | PERMALINK

The 14th amendment is the reason why almost all of us are citizens. Someone along the way emigrated here, and his or her children were born American citizens. Good. And "duh".

Posted by: motherlowman on July 11, 2006 at 9:19 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not sure why they would live the WHOLE lives here. Wouldn't they move to the country where they WERE citizens when they got old enough?

So - not being born in Mexico. . . they'd be eligible for citizenship in Mexico, how exactly?

Why have immigration laws at all? Just let anybody who wants to come in, come in. That seems to be policy you're advocating.

I agree. Either we have a border or we don't.

If we do - then it's our responsibility to police it. Including the border at employment.

If we are not going to police our border, then we might as well confederate with Mexico, and make them subject to our labor and environmental protections laws, and beneficiaries to US policies like highway construction, rural electrification, and such like. Then they'd have no reason to migrate north, from their homeland. Problem solved.

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on July 11, 2006 at 9:23 PM | PERMALINK

Over 160 people were killed earlier today in terrorist attacks in India.

Must be time for another pathetic blog posting by Kevin "Mr. Irrelevant" Drum.

Posted by: Down goes Frazier on July 11, 2006 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINK

If it took 14 amendments before it happened, it can hardly be called the *foundation* of our democracy.

Justice Souter who said the fourteenth amendment is "the most significant structural provision adopted since the original Framing" (in McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky) disagrees with you. I am going to assume he is a greater legal mind than you.

It made some sense when slavery was being eradicated and there needed to be a basis for making former slaves "citizens," but you still haven't articulated a reason that someone who walked across the border 9 months pregnant should gain citizenship for their child born here.

Children of people here legally, OK. Children of people who came here illegally, not so much.

A government in which only certain segments of the population may be represented guarantees privileges, not rights. Of course if you break the law, you forfeit certain rights. But the right to citizenship is not be taken lightly, and being born is hardly a crime. You trivialize your own citizenship with such crass notions of legality.

Posted by: A US Citizen on July 11, 2006 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

In my previous comment, the words "Children of people here legally, OK. Children of people who came here illegally, not so much." should be italicized, and they are not mine. Apologies.

Posted by: A US Citizen on July 11, 2006 at 9:38 PM | PERMALINK

Here also is a link to Justice Souter's opinion.

Posted by: A US Citizen on July 11, 2006 at 9:42 PM | PERMALINK

"While it's true that anyone born here is a citizen, why shouldn't the child just stay and become a ward of the state? "

Hey, let's take this one step further. The kids become wards of the state, and then we SELL them on ebay to the highest bidder.

It would be win-win for the Repukes.

Posted by: art on July 11, 2006 at 9:50 PM | PERMALINK

What I want to know is why the Democrats, who control both houses in Colorado,

Can this be true? If so, how is it that Al and Jay and Hawk and Charlie in all of his inane manifestations, are constantly telling us that Democrats are "out of touch" and "can't win elections"?

It couldn't be that these people are talking complete bollocks, could it? Hmmm, I wonder...

Posted by: craigie on July 11, 2006 at 9:51 PM | PERMALINK

"Over 160 people were killed earlier today in terrorist attacks in India.
Must be time for another pathetic blog posting by Kevin "Mr. Irrelevant" Drum."

Must be time for another irrelevant troll post by "down goes Frazier."

Moron.

Posted by: Joel on July 11, 2006 at 10:04 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

Yes birthright citizenship stems from being born here AND being subject to the jurdisdiction
(of the United States).

Is your definition of "jurisdiction" over illegal aliens the same as the Supreme Court's? We don't know, they haven't ruled on this issue yet.

They have ruled that the children of permanent residents are subject to US jurisdiction and get birthright citizenship but American Indians are subject to tribal jurisdiction and so don't get birthright citizenship (Congress later gave them citizenship legislatively). Children of illegals-- hasn't come up yet.

"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."

Posted by: beowulf on July 11, 2006 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINK

What the world thinks of George W. Bush.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on July 11, 2006 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

I am guessing they were anti-semitics from Argentina.

My apologies to TangoMan. Please forgive me for using unfounded accusations of bigotry. I become so angry I foam at the mouth and it translates to my fingertips, where I write things I do not mean.

We are all descendants of immigrants and we should rejoice and welcome everyone who would want to come to our land.

Posted by: Hostile on July 11, 2006 at 10:24 PM | PERMALINK

It is proof of the collapse of American morals and the fallen character of the American people that the American public and its elected representatives in Congress refuse to rein in the Bush regime and hold it responsible for its monstrous crimes.

America has become a land of evil. The rest of the world hates and despises us. And we are going to pay a terrible price for it. Bush's belief that our superpower status makes us immune to the opinion of others goes beyond hubris into insanity.
--Paul Craig Roberts, former Reagan Administration official

Source

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on July 11, 2006 at 10:25 PM | PERMALINK

Comes true lightweight Kevin Drum: That's a shocker, isn't it? A Republican governor caving in to business interests. Who would have seen that coming?

Odd how Kevin Drum continually caves in to those same business interests with his continual support for illegal immigration. I don't think he's on the take; rather, I think he's just a useful idiot.

If Drum were serious about this, he'd at least try to find the context for what Stafford said. Could this be a case of the RMN taking something out of context, and bloggers like Drum simply parroting their lead?

If you want to find out what Drum doesn't know, see my illegal immigration overview. I cover the sides of this issue that Drum is afraid to touch.

Posted by: TLB on July 11, 2006 at 10:25 PM | PERMALINK

--Paul Craig Roberts, former Reagan Administration official

Ha ha ha ha ha! If he couldn't be trusted when he was in the Reagan Administration, why should he be trusted now?

Posted by: GOP on July 11, 2006 at 10:31 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

Really? Its certainly clear that people born "in this circumstance" are "born in the United States".

The 14th Amendment does not state that being "born in the United States" is a sufficient condition for citizenship.

The US clearly has and regularly exercises jurisdiction over illegal immigrants present within the borders of the US, too, so insofar as you seem to be arguing birthright citizenship is based on the US "having jurisdiction" over a person (contrary to the plain language of the 14th Amendment),

Huh? The "plain language" of the 14th Amendment includes the condition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in its description of which persons are citizens.

Posted by: GOP on July 11, 2006 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINK

Question for those advocating changing the 14th amendment, assuming you were born here: How do you justify your own citizenship, if being born here isn't enough? If you rely on who your parents were, the question immediately arises of how you justify their citizenship.

Or to put it another way: let's say we give in to your argument, and admit that the issue is all screwed up. We'll strip everyone's citizenship, and start over again deciding who out of the 300M can stay. What would your criteria be?

Posted by: eeyn524 on July 11, 2006 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely opines: I actually think not taking parents legal status at the time the child was born into account was probably a pretty good idea in the 14th Amendment

Actually, the original author of that part of the 14th amendment specifically intended it to exclude "foreigners".

And, he's back! Yeah, well, if we fixed the legal immigration system so that legal immigrants from many places, including Mexico, didn't often have to wait a decade or more, that wouldn't be much of a problem.

Since forty percent of Mexico's population says they'd move here if they could, and there are five billion people in countries with a lower percapita income than Mexico, we're going to have to do a lot of "fixing".

fafner1 states: Just an aside, the cherry crop in the Pacific Northwest is evidently being devistated.

That's simply grower propaganda. Why, even Drum has covered this, to a certain extent. He just failed to connect the dots due to his support for illegal immigration.

Bonus link! Here's more on the North American Union. Bush supports joining the U.S. with Canada and Mexico into an EUstyle superstate, and useful idiots like Kevin Drum are helping him with his plans.

Posted by: TLB on July 11, 2006 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINK

GOP: Huh? The "plain language" of the 14th Amendment includes the condition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in its description of which persons are citizens.

Do you really believe that children of illegal aliens are not under our jurisdiction? If so, we can't even arrest them, much less deport them.

But in any case, the case United States vs Wong Kim Ark (US Supreme Court 1898) already decided that the clause you refer to could only exclude diplomats, enemies troops invading the US, and people born on reservations - that is, people who really aren't fully subject to the law here.

Posted by: eeyn524 on July 11, 2006 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK

Cal Gal:

"but you still haven't articulated a reason that someone who walked across the border 9 months pregnant should gain citizenship for their child born here."

Despite your screen name, I wonder if you really are a woman. Trust me, a woman who is 9 months pregnant is NOT walking across the border at this time of year. A woman 9 months pregnant has limited mobility and she's already HOT. She isn't going to be in any shape to walk any distance at all in our heat (I live in Tucson) which can be well over 110 degrees and on most days, tops 100 at this time of year.

Also, those of you who are posting about illegals tearing their families apart: have you no compassion? Are you that unable to imagine another person's circumstances?

To Mexicans, family is extremely important, much more so than it is for many of us born and raised in the U.S.

Why would someone CHOOSE to journey 1000 miles or more, after having scrounged pooled resources from the poverty-stricken villages they were born in?

Why would someone CHOOSE to make an arduous trek (no first class air-conditioned planes or even cars with a-c)?

Why would someone CHOOSE to risk crossing the border, with the likelihood of being caught and deported?

Why would someone CHOOSE to risk sunstroke in the summer and hypothermia in the winter?

Why would someone CHOOSE to risk getting having their scrounged funds ripped off by coyotes? (If you don't know what a coyote means in this context, you probably can't have a totally informed opinion about the immigration issue.)

Why would someone CHOOSE to come here to take often backbreaking jobs, for little pay?

Why? Because they are DESPERATE!!! Even the meager pay they get is still far better than they can get at home.

If we were really serious about solving the illegal immigrant problem, we would put pressure on the Mexicans, since most of the illegals are from Mexico, to do something so that their people could make a decent living for themselves and their families. Then they would stay home, where most of them would prefer to stay.

But many in our business community see it as an advantage to be able to exploit the illegals, and as long as there are no particular and enforceable penalties, they will continue to do so.

So if you people are serious about slowing illegal immigration, put pressure on legislatures and Congress to pass laws penalizing people who "hire" (read exploit) illegals, and put pressure on the Executive Branch to do some serious negotiating with Mexico. If you oppose illegals and are not making any efforts in these directions, you are talking out of your ass.

Regardless, let's have some compassion for desperate people working hard and trying to earn a little more for their families, OK???

Posted by: Wolfdaughter on July 11, 2006 at 11:04 PM | PERMALINK

eeyn524:

I think they will try to distinguish Wong Kim Ark as a child born here from LEGAL immigrants.

TLB:

Once the we all vote down the EUstyle constitution, I'm sure you will still be complaining about immigrants.

Posted by: Doug M. on July 11, 2006 at 11:06 PM | PERMALINK

Bonus link! Here's more on the North American Union. Bush supports joining the U.S. with Canada and Mexico into an EUstyle superstate, and useful idiots like Kevin Drum are helping him with his plans.
Posted by: TLB on July 11, 2006 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINK

Great idea!

US and Mexico get Canada's healthcare benefit.
Mexico gets Canada's and US's highway system, environmental and labor protections, public education, etc.
US and Canada gets Mexico's oil.
US gets Canada and Mexico's sensible gun laws.
Mexicans no longer flock north of the border for jobs, because there will be good jobs in Mexico.
The US now has a much smaller southern border to secure.
Sounds like win-win-win to me.

Posted by: osama_been_forgotten on July 11, 2006 at 11:10 PM | PERMALINK

Talking common sense to a liberal is like telling a mule to run in the Kentucky Derby.

What's wrong with expecting the children of illegals to learn the American way directly by fending for themselves?

Posted by: nut on July 11, 2006 at 11:22 PM | PERMALINK

Do you really believe that children of illegal aliens are not under our jurisdiction?

I don't really have an opinion on that question. If being born in the United States necessarily means that you are under the jurisdiction of the United States, what is the purpose of the additional condition for citizenship ("and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") stated in the 14th Amendment? It obviously implies that some people born in the United States may not be under the jurisdiction thereof.

But in any case, the case United States vs Wong Kim Ark (US Supreme Court 1898) already decided that the clause you refer to could only exclude diplomats, enemies troops invading the US, and people born on reservations - that is, people who really aren't fully subject to the law here.

The claim that Wong Kim Ark holds that U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are U.S. citizens is contested, and given the age of that ruling it's foolish to assume that the Supreme Court today would uphold it even if it does.

Posted by: GOP on July 11, 2006 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

We're approaching the point of no return where it will be impossible to impede the invasion of third world crud because of their numbers.

It's easy to predict what the US will be like--just look at where the crud is running away from. That's the future.

Posted by: Myron on July 11, 2006 at 11:30 PM | PERMALINK

GOP: what is the purpose of the additional condition for citizenship ("and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") stated in the 14th Amendment? It obviously implies that some people born in the United States may not be under the jurisdiction thereof.

From the decision in Wong Kim Ark:

The real object of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in qualifying the words 'all persons born in the United States' by the addition 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state,-both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.

Of course, you're right that the Supreme Court has reversed itself before and might do it again. However, this isn't an obscure rule, it's one that's well established and is actually put into practice with actual babies many times per day. The conservative justices have a fair amount of respect for precedent, and the liberal ones are unlikely to be on your side of this anyway, so it's not likely you'll get a reversal anytime soon.

Posted by: eeyn524 on July 11, 2006 at 11:31 PM | PERMALINK

Of course, you're right that the Supreme Court has reversed itself before and might do it again. However, this isn't an obscure rule, it's one that's well established and is actually put into practice with actual babies many times per day. The conservative justices have a fair amount of respect for precedent, and the liberal ones are unlikely to be on your side of this anyway, so it's not likely you'll get a reversal anytime soon.

I didn't say I seek a reversal. I'm saying that whether the constitution guarantees citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants is an open question. Not only because of the possibility of reversal of Wong Kim Ark but because of the possibility that that ruling is being misinterpreted by those who claim it answered the question.

Given bills such as the one that is the subject of this thread, it wouldn't surprise me if the question came before the high court within a few years, nor would it surprise me if the court ruled that there is no such constitutional guarantee.

Posted by: GOP on July 11, 2006 at 11:42 PM | PERMALINK

I didn't say I seek a reversal. I'm saying that whether the constitution guarantees citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants is an open question.

I just kind of assumed you would want one. Sorry.

It's true that the case didn't explicitly address a case where the parents were here illegally. However, the US Government has been acting as if the rule applied to such cases for about 108 years, on a more-or-less daily basis, and they've acted this way through two World Wars , two Red scares, and periods when animus toward immigrants was at least as strong as it is now. Even if there hadn't been a US v. Wong Kim Ark, that would be an awful lot of tradition to overturn.

Posted by: eeyn524 on July 11, 2006 at 11:52 PM | PERMALINK
Is your definition of "jurisdiction" over illegal aliens the same as the Supreme Court's?

"Jurisdiction" over "illegal aliens" is not, strictly speaking, relevant; jurisdiction over children of illegal aliens is. OTOH, Wong Kim Ark is fairly clear here (yes, its contested; and there is speculation that the Court might rule a different way than it leads—there's been speculation with each change in personnel that the Court might overrule Roe, too): the exceptions are matters where the parents are shielded from US law by treaty (diplomats) or force (enemy aliens in a time and place of hostile military occupation); the "jurisdiction" is territorial, and only absent where the practical jurisdiction of the United States is likewise absent due to military occupation, except in special cases where it ceded personally by treaty. The only way Wong Kim Ark wouldn't apply to include children of illegal aliens in the scope of 14th Amendment birthright citizenship is if they were granted status similar to diplomats.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 12, 2006 at 12:01 AM | PERMALINK
I'm saying that whether the constitution guarantees citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants is an open question. Not only because of the possibility of reversal of Wong Kim Ark but because of the possibility that that ruling is being misinterpreted by those who claim it answered the question.

I don't think its really rationally debatable that Wong Kim Ark speaks directly to the issue (of course, its rule could, in abstract principal, be modified, though, I'd say, given the basis of Wong Kim Ark, its hard to see even the justices most likely to be inclined to do so on policy grounds do so, for reasons of judicial philosophy):

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 6a, 'strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject'; and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, 'If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.' It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides, seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when secretary of state, in his report to the president on Thrasher's case in 1851, and since repeated by this court: 'Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance, or of renouncing any former allegiance,-it is well known that by the public law an alien, or a stranger born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.'
Posted by: cmdicely on July 12, 2006 at 12:14 AM | PERMALINK

It's true that the case didn't explicitly address a case where the parents were here illegally.

Yes. That's one reason to think it may not apply, and thus wouldn't need to be "reversed."

However, the US Government has been acting as if the rule applied to such cases for about 108 years, on a more-or-less daily basis,

I don't think this is accurate. Granting citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants is not at all the same thing as asserting that the Constitution guarantees them citizenship. The tradition is merely one of de facto treatment, not of the assertion constitutional right, and Congress may be as free to prohibit that tradition as it is any other that isn't protected by the Constitution.

Posted by: GOP on July 12, 2006 at 12:19 AM | PERMALINK

Wolfdaughter, like many purported liberals, claims to want to do something about illegal immigration, and also like some liberals, enumerates some of the downsides. However, her comment ends up supporting illegal immigration. In other words, she supports that which she decries.

Doug M. says: Once the we all vote down the EUstyle constitution

See, that's part of the problem. No one has voted for the plans outlined at spp.gov, not even Congress. In fact, there are only three minor bills dealing with this issue. And, the MSM and almost all "liberal" and most "conservative" bloggers are silent on one of the biggest issues of our time. Perhaps they're waiting for DailyKos or Insty to tell them it's important.

Posted by: TLB on July 12, 2006 at 12:20 AM | PERMALINK

OTOH, Wong Kim Ark is fairly clear here ...: the exceptions are matters where the parents are shielded from US law by treaty (diplomats) or force (enemy aliens in a time and place of hostile military occupation); the "jurisdiction" is territorial, and only absent where the practical jurisdiction of the United States is likewise absent due to military occupation, except in special cases where it ceded personally by treaty.

Which treaty states that a person who is a child of a foreign diplomat and who is on United States territory is not under the jurisdiction of the United States?

Posted by: GOP on July 12, 2006 at 12:28 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, LoneWacko, we were breathlessly waiting for your pearls of wisdom to come raining down on us.

Sure seems a little too hot and runny to be wisdom, though....

Posted by: Irony Man on July 12, 2006 at 12:46 AM | PERMALINK

All in all, a very interesting discussion. Save for daCascadian's 6:27 pm post where he call me a fascist. Yawn! Hope you didn't short out your keyboard by the amount of drool that must had dripped off your tongue as you "composed" your well articulated response. lol

With respect to citizenship being bestowed upon birth being fundamental to democracy, I don't know how many other countries that have a similar policy to ours? Is this common throughout the civilized world or is it, as i suspect, another example of American exceptionalism?

On the constitutionality of the grant of automatic citizenship for "anchor babies," the 14th Amendments provides that persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction shall be citizens of the US and the State "wherein they reside." Now under the common law, "residence generally requires something more than temporary or physical presence and requires at least some degree of permanence and intention to remain." Kradjian v. American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 615 N.Y.S.2d 129, 130 (N.Y.A.D. 1994). For example, if a family member from out of state stays at your house for a few weeks, that family member would not be regarded as being a "resident" of the state where you live because the family member has no intention of remaining in the state for any degree of permanence the law required to establish "residency."

In the case of a French woman who gives birth prematurely while on vacation in New York, her child would not be a resident of New York because the child, prior to birth, had no physical presence in the state. The mother's temporary visit to the state would not make her a resident of New York either. The common law would not view the child as being able to express an intention to remain in New York when the mother could not legally become a permanent resident in the country.

To me, the wording of the Amendment presupposes that the parents of the child are residents of a state. In the example above, since the mother is not a resident of a state or a citizen of the US, her child cannot be because they do not "reside" in any state of the union.

Posted by: Chicounsel on July 12, 2006 at 12:50 AM | PERMALINK

Granting citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants is not at all the same thing as asserting that the Constitution guarantees them citizenship....Congress may be as free to prohibit that tradition as it is any other that isn't protected by the Constitution.

This is the critical point. I think the right is clearly protected by the initial clause "All persons born...". As I see it, the only possible wiggle room for opponents of birthright citizenship is the "jurisdiction" clause- but Wong Kim Ark had a clear ruling on what "jurisdiction" meant, and the definition had little to do with the legality of the parent's entry. That's why I think the case is clearly relevant, and why I think the anti-birthright people would need an actual reversal to get their way.

Posted by: eeyn524 on July 12, 2006 at 12:54 AM | PERMALINK
But it would be worth it in the long run. The U.S. is overcrowded already. We don't need the additional 50-150 million people, 90% of whom will be immigrants or the offspring of immigrants, projected to swell the population over the next century.

The US is not overcrowded -- not by a long shot. We "cram" something like 80 persons on average into each square mile -- Britain manages about 700, Japan and Israel nearly a thousand, Singapore (guesstimate) perhaps 20,000. We certainly have some ugly sprawl issues, but those can be dealt with by better land use policies. The "swell" of the population "over the next century" looks to be the smallest "swell" -- even taking immigration into account -- in the nation's history. The first half of the 19th century saw America's population increase roughly four fold, the first half of the 20th century saw a mere doubling; the first half of the 21st century -- again, even with the "explosion" of "mass immigration" we're allegedly experiencing -- will probably not even see a 50% increase in the population of the US.

The fact is, US population growth is steadily and remorselessly slowing down. I'm not saying this trend doesn't bring with it some very welcome side effects, mind you. But as the slowdown is unmistakably occuring, the last thing the country needs is a robust policy to ratchet it down even lower than where it's already headed. A little historical perspective, please, people.

Posted by: 99 on July 12, 2006 at 1:05 AM | PERMALINK

99:

Good points.

Whatever the problems of illegal immigration -- national population density per se is hardly one of them.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on July 12, 2006 at 1:08 AM | PERMALINK

You know how parties are always better the more you mix it up? I say, invite more immigrants! As long as they are of good intentions, they're welcome in my book. Of course you don't let everyone in, but there's no sense in closing the door. Your fear of foreign things won't disappear along with the foreigners. It's like shutting yourself in your house all day -- you'll go crazy! Just look at the Europeans, or anyone else who refuses to look outwards and be open to the change blowing their way. Not a recipe for success...

Posted by: Beast on July 12, 2006 at 1:43 AM | PERMALINK

On the constitutionality of the grant of automatic citizenship for "anchor babies," the 14th Amendments provides that persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction shall be citizens of the US and the State "wherein they reside."....To me, the wording of the Amendment presupposes that the parents of the child are residents of a state. In the example above, since the mother is not a resident of a state or a citizen of the US, her child cannot be because they do not "reside" in any state of the union.

No, flatly wrong. You're completely misreading it by conflating two separate issues. Read it again:

"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."

See that word "and" there? The one that separates the language about citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state? That means that a person born in the US is (i) a citizen of the US, without qualifification and without reference to residency, and (ii) a citizen of the State where they reside.

So the baby born to the French tourist in the example above may not be a citizen of New York State specifically, as not resident in that state, but that does nothing to affect his status as a citizen of the US, as the "reside" language is tied only to state citizenship and not to United States citizenship.

Posted by: Stefan on July 12, 2006 at 10:04 AM | PERMALINK

That's not entirely correct, because the sentence could have also been simply: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Don't make this more complicated than they are already trying to.

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

To me, the wording of the Amendment presupposes that the parents of the child are residents of a state. In the example above, since the mother is not a resident of a state or a citizen of the US, her child cannot be because they do not "reside" in any state of the union.

The SCOTUS determination of ius soli goes back over a century, in cases addressing the denial of citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants. Deal with it.

Which treaty states that a person who is a child of a foreign diplomat and who is on United States territory is not under the jurisdiction of the United States?

The Vienna Conventions on Consular Relations: Article 31 for diplomatic agents, and Article 37 for the families of those agents. Signed, ratified, and thus the supreme law of the land.

Posted by: ahem on July 12, 2006 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINK
Which treaty states that a person who is a child of a foreign diplomat and who is on United States territory is not under the jurisdiction of the United States?

A wide number of them; among those of general applicability (there are bilateral treaties applicable, as well) is the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations specifies that diplomatic agents, their staff, and members of their family forming part of their household are outside of the jurisdiction of the receiving state, except that such protection is limited to official acts of diplomatic agents where the person otherwise eligible for protection is also a national or permanent resident of the receiving state.

Similar provisions are present in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations applying to consular officers, staff, and familes, and, as a general principle, and numerous other treaties.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 12, 2006 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone who has been to an emergency room in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona or California knows that we cannot fund medical care to the whole of latin america - and THAT is what is occuring in these border states.

Desperate people with heart disease, cancer, lymphoma, and assorted childhood diseases [including a dangerous amount of tuberculosis] are flooding these border states and sucking the life out of our hospitals.

THESE ARE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS - funded by our tax dollars and there just isn't enough to cure every child from Mexico to Ushuaia.

That's not xenophobia, but common sense. That the whole of the south is Latino - is an aside. Canadians feel the same way about Ukrainians.

Posted by: pat on July 12, 2006 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

Which is why, Pat, we need to get most of the people crossing the border LEGALIZED and TESTED for TB, etc.

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

Stefen:

But that's was my point about the common law meaning of "reside." The phrase "wherein they reside" presupposes that parents of the child have an established residence somewhere in the US. To the drafters of the Amendment, the idea that someone could be a citizen of the US without first being a citizen or resident of a state was a non-sequitor. Remember that at the time, the just concluded Civil War was known as the War Between the States. Also, that at the time, the US had control over territory that later became states. Perhaps that fact is the reason for the inclusion of the phrase "subject to [the US] jurisdiction. The Amendment wanted to cover persons who were born of American citizens in the territories.


Posted by: Chicounsel on July 12, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

Chicounsel:

I thought that was specifically phrased that way because said drafters did not want to grant citizenship to Indians who were "subject to the jurisdiction" of their TRIBES, not the U.S.? As you may know, that was later corrected to grant U.S. citizenship to Native Americans, so even if you are right about the children born here of Mexican parents, that can be corrected too.

I still don't understand the legal basis for deportation if these parents / children are not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Since you want to deport them all, however, please explain such basis. Also, you conceded that after 18 years of age back in Mexico, those children can come back to claim their citizenship, but you never answered what caliber of productive, English-speaking citizens you were hoping for upon their return?

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINK

The Vienna Conventions on Consular Relations: Article 31 for diplomatic agents, and Article 37 for the families of those agents. Signed, ratified, and thus the supreme law of the land.

Article 37 does not say that a person who is a child of a foreign diplomat and who is on United States territory is not under the jurisdiction of the United States. It says only that family members of a diplomatic agent who form part of his household and who are not nationals of the United States are not under U.S. jurisdiction.

So again, which treaty states that a person who is a child of a foreign diplomat and who is on United States territory is not under the jurisdiction of the United States?

If there is no such treaty, then cmdicely's claim that such jurisdiction has been "ceded personally by treaty" is false (actually, I'm not sure what the "personally" is supposed to mean anyway. Treaties are made between nations, not "persons.") And if jurisdiction does not apply in cases other than the specific exceptions he claimed, then it may not apply to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants either.

Posted by: GOP on July 12, 2006 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINK

Desperate people with heart disease, cancer, lymphoma, and assorted childhood diseases [including a dangerous amount of tuberculosis] are flooding these border states and sucking the life out of our hospitals.

Cite, please: especially if you're going to use the word 'flood'. Oh, and aren't uninsured Americans flooding into emergency rooms too, with no ability to pay?

The Amendment wanted to cover persons who were born of American citizens in the territories.

Please take it up with the departed shade of Justice Horace Gray, who wrote for the court:

These considerations confirm the view, already expressed in this opinion, that the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to allay doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship.

Posted by: ahem on July 12, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

Whatever the problems of illegal immigration -- national population density per se is hardly one of them. Bob Posted by: rmck1

So, Bob, where do you and 99 live, North or South Dakota?

You are correct that in the aggregate the U.S. does not have a high population density. Neither does Japan, even with a land mass about the size of Montana but a population of almost 130 million.

However, in the places worth living, that readily provide the material wherewithal for human habitation and economic sustenance (both coasts, some of the Gulf, and the historically larger cities in fly over land) are all either overcrowded or on the cusp of becoming so. And, again, you aren't going to find millions of Americans or even ever-so-grateful "new Americans" flocking to the Great Plains, the Nevada basin or West Texas to partake of the American Dream and reduce urban-suburban sprawl.

However, if you and 99, and about 25 million of your closest friends wouldn't mind decamping from, primarily, the suburbs and ex-urbs, to "homestead" under the Big Sky, knock yourselves out.

Posted by: JeffII on July 12, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

This is the critical point. I think the right is clearly protected by the initial clause "All persons born...".

I don't know why you think that's "clear." The "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" condition clearly implies that the right does not apply to "All persons born..." So the question hinges on whether U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

As I see it, the only possible wiggle room for opponents of birthright citizenship is the "jurisdiction" clause- but Wong Kim Ark had a clear ruling on what "jurisdiction" meant,

I don't think it is at all clear that that ruling applies to children of illegal immigrants, and, as you concede, even if it were held to, the Supreme Court may reverse it anyway.


Posted by: GOP on July 12, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

JeffII:

I disagree that the U.S. is overcrowded -- even our 1 overcrowded NYC is at 10,316/km -- overall, as 99 pointed out, Britain manages about 700, Japan and Israel nearly a thousand, but Singapore (guesstimate) perhaps 20,000. I agree we have some ugly sprawl issues, but those can be dealt with by better land use policies. Our population is NOT booming, especially considering all the abortions since Roe v. Wade.

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK
But that's was my point about the common law meaning of "reside." The phrase "wherein they reside" presupposes that parents of the child have an established residence somewhere in the US.

It presupposes nothing; it makes the US citizen also, if and when they reside in a US state, also a citizen of the state. Residence of parents has nothing to do with it, and US citizenship requires no "residence" of any kind.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 12, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

So again, which treaty states that a person who is a child of a foreign diplomat and who is on United States territory is not under the jurisdiction of the United States?

As cmdicely said, in addition, there are hundreds of bilateral treaties, usually reciprocal in nature, establishing the basis of diplomatic recognition and accreditation.

Some states have (or had) extend citizenship to the children of foreign diplomats on their soil: before 2005's abandonment of ius soli, Ireland was one. Others do not. But do keep trying to wish away a century of settled law.

And if jurisdiction does not apply in cases other than the specific exceptions he claimed, then it may not apply to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants either.

It may also not apply to the monkeys flying out of your ass, either.

I particularly like the logical knot here: if they're not subject to US jurisdiction as illegal immigrants, how are they subject to US jurisdiction as illegal immigrants? That is, how exactly can one be an 'illegal immigrant' without being subject to US jurisdiction? That's like trying to prosecute a Canadian for smoking a Cuban cigar in Mexico. Not that I'd put that past BushCo.

Posted by: ahem on July 12, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK
To the drafters of the Amendment, the idea that someone could be a citizen of the US without first being a citizen or resident of a state was a non-sequitor.

Actually, that's completely wrong, too. The drafters of the 14th Amendment clearly created it to reverse the earlier priority of citizenship in the US, to create a uniform national citizenship that preceded state citizenship rather than depending on it.

It wasn't a "non-sequitur", it was the precise change intended to be wrought by that provision of the amendment.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 12, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK
The "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" condition clearly implies that the right does not apply to "All persons born..." So the question hinges on whether U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

In what way is there even the slightest indication that children of illegal immigrants are in any way outside of the jurisdiction of the United States?

Posted by: cmdicely on July 12, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

The countries with the highest population density are in Asia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_population_density_map.PNG

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely:

Here's the primer to that argument: http://federalistblog.us/2005/12/birthright_citizenship_fable.html

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK
I particularly like the logical knot here: if they're not subject to US jurisdiction as illegal immigrants, how are they subject to US jurisdiction as illegal immigrants?

It reminds me, really, of the attempt to avoid the Constitution's limits on US federal government power with respect to Guantanamo detainees by claiming that Guantanamo was, likewise, not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but of Cuba, and therefore the US executive was free to do whatever it wanted to detainees there without intereference by the United States judiciary.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 12, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

You will, at least, grant that Bush/Cheney are NOT the ones pushing this "citizenship" argument.

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

So the question hinges on whether U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Justice Gray, writing for the court, enumerated the two exceptions in English common law and carried over to the American colonies and thence the United States. There is no question to hinge.

I'm still waiting to hear how someone can simultaneously be in violation of a country's immigration law and yet not subject to its jurisdiction.

Are 'anchor babies' like Schroedinger's cat?

Posted by: ahem on July 12, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

You will, at least, grant that Bush/Cheney are NOT the ones pushing this "citizenship" argument.

Oh, granted. This is from nativist ladder-pullers like Tommy Tancredo whose understanding of immigration law is somewhere between nil and fuck-all.

Posted by: ahem on July 12, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

Here are the top 10 from the List of countries/dependencies by population density in inhabitants/km (first 2 figures are population divided by area):

1 Monaco 35,253 1.49 23,660
2 Macau SAR (PRC) 460,162 26 17,699
3 Hong Kong SAR (PRC) 7,040,885 1,099 6,407
4 Singapore 4,325,539 683 6,333
5 Gibraltar 27,921 6 4,654
6 Vatican City 783 0.44 1,780
7 Malta 401,630 316 1,271
8 Bermuda 64,174 53 1,211
9 Maldives 329,198 298 1,105
10 Bahrain 726,617 694 1,047

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

ahem,

As cmdicely said, in addition, there are hundreds of bilateral treaties,

No one has identified any such treaty. The one named treaty mentioned so far does not state that a person who is a child of a foreign diplomat and who is on United States territory is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. It states only that such persons who are members of a diplomat's household and who are not U.S. nationals are not subject to that jurisdiction.

I particularly like the logical knot here: if they're not subject to US jurisdiction as illegal immigrants, how are they subject to US jurisdiction as illegal immigrants?

They're not. And if they're not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, they're not guaranteed citizenship by the 14th Amendment.

That is, how exactly can one be an 'illegal immigrant' without being subject to US jurisdiction?

In the same way that one can be a foreign diplomat or an enemy alien and not be subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Posted by: GOP on July 12, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

but Singapore (guesstimate) perhaps 20,000.

First of all, Singapore is not a country so much as a classic city-state. So it doesn't even figure into a discussion like this as it should be just another city in Malaysia.

Our population is NOT booming, especially considering all the abortions since Roe v. Wade.
Posted by: Doug M.

Someone upthread made the grossly inaccurate comment that current population increases due to immigration are nothing like they were in the past. This is, of course, utter horseshit. We've admitted 30 million more immigrants over the last 30 years (not counting the some 15-30 million of illegals) than we did during the first three decades of the 20th century.

The U.S. was approaching ZPG in the early 1970s. Subsequent liberalization of immigration laws dramatically increased the U.S. population, helping to double it in less than 30 years, this following the Baby Boom.

Current population increases are almost entirely the result of immigration and the level of immigrant fertility. The non-immigrant fertility rate is just below replacement.

http://www.numbersusa.com/overpopulation/decadegraph.html

http://www.numbersusa.com/overpopulation/threecauses.html


Posted by: JeffII on July 12, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

In the same way that one can be a foreign diplomat or an enemy alien and not be subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

So, where's the treaty giving them immunity?

Wow. Do you actually understand what 'jurisdiction' means? Did you read the Supreme Court ruling? Do you have half a fucking clue here?

Posted by: ahem on July 12, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

That table did not come out right -- here are the top 10 U.S. cities, by population density:

1. New York City -- 10,292/km
2. Somerville, MA -- 7,278.4/km
3. San Francisco, CA -- 6,423/km
4. Jersey City, NJ -- 6,196/km
5. Central Falls, RI -- 6,043.3/km
6. Chicago, IL -- 4,923.0/km
7. Boston, MA -- 4,640/km
8. Newark, NJ -- 4,511/km
9. Philadelphia, PA -- 4,239/km
10. Yonkers, NY -- 4,211/km

Want to compare that to Asia, or even Africa and Europe?

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

But that's was my point about the common law meaning of "reside." The phrase "wherein they reside" presupposes that parents of the child have an established residence somewhere in the US. To the drafters of the Amendment, the idea that someone could be a citizen of the US without first being a citizen or resident of a state was a non-sequitor.

No, it doesn't presuppose any such thing. You seem to eiter have a problem with reading comprehension, or you're reading the sentence in the most garbled, legalistic, least common-sense manner possible. Try reading it again:

"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."

The "they" in "wherein they reside" refers to "all persons born" in the United States, not to their parents, who are nowhere mentioned. In addition, the "wherein they reside" modifies "the state", that is, the speficic state such as New York, etc. It does not reference "the United States." In plainer language, it means that any person born in the US is (i) a citizen of the US and (ii) a citizen of whichever state he resides in. His parent's legal status and/or residency is completely irrelevant and nowhere mentioned.

Remember that at the time, the just concluded Civil War was known as the War Between the States.

Only to the losers.

Posted by: Stefan on July 12, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

In what way is there even the slightest indication that children of illegal immigrants are in any way outside of the jurisdiction of the United States?

The issue concerns U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, not all children of illegal immigrants. The fact that other children born in the U.S. under irregular legal circumstances are held to not be subject to U.S. jurisdiction implies that that may also be true for the children of illegal immigrants.

Posted by: GOP on July 12, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, I'll add to this:

The way 'that one can be a foreign diplomat or an enemy alien and not be subject to U.S. jurisdiction' is through centuries of common law, as stated explicitly in Wong Kim Ark.

Are you going to do a Lindsay Graham and add something to the record from the 1600s to accomplish that?

Posted by: ahem on July 12, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK
I'm still waiting to hear how someone can simultaneously be in violation of a country's immigration law and yet not subject to its jurisdiction.

Well, that's easy. A diplomat who speeds on the freeway is in violation of the law, but is free from sanction for that violation because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the local government.

The harder part is how someone can be subject to sanction by the government for violation that government's "jurisdiction".

Posted by: cmdicely on July 12, 2006 at 1:44 PM | PERMALINK

The fact that other children born in the U.S. under irregular legal circumstances are held to not be subject to U.S. jurisdiction implies that that may also be true for the children of illegal immigrants.

It's the month of 'may' for GOP.

Posted by: ahem on July 12, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

JeffII:

Once the U.S. allows more immigrants than the 40+ million we've killed (and continue to kill) via abortion, I'm sure you will let me know. And, here are the MORE crowded world cities than even NYC:

Macau, People's Republic of China 16,521/km
Seoul, South Korea 16,391/km
Tokyo, Japan 13,333/km
Kaohsiung, Taiwan 9,835/km
Taipei, Taiwan 9,626/km

Mal, Maldives 48,007/km
Mumbai, India 29,434/km
Chennai, India 24,231/km
Hyderabad, India 14,192/km
Kolkata, India 11,680/km

Manila, Philippines 41,014/km
Jakarta, Indonesia 13,526/km

Cairo, Egypt 36,618/km
Lagos, Nigeria over 20,000/km
Dakar, Senegal 12,233/km

Levallois-Perret, France 25,934/km
Paris, France 24,672/km
Vincennes, France 24,398/km
Le Pr-Saint-Gervais, France 23,396/km
Saint-Mand, France 21,410/km
Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain 20,230 /km
Montrouge, France 20,145/km
Monaco 16,329/km
Barcelona, Spain 15,764/km
Cadiz, Spain 10.832/km
Moscow, Russia 10,275/km

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_selected_cities_by_population_density

Tell me again how "overcrowded" we are?

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK
The fact that other children born in the U.S. under irregular legal circumstances are held to not be subject to U.S. jurisdiction

That's not a fact; the conditions of the Constitutional exceptions to jurisdictions articulated in Wong Kim Ark are, but for the novel position of the Indian nations as alien nations notwithstanding their subordinate status under the US, exceptions to jurisdiction with the same consequences for citizenship that were long attested and well established in the common law, that meaning and understanding of jursidiction is of long-standing, the circumstances, though are in no way "irregular", nor are the boundaries ill-defined so as to suggest that there are other exceptions.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 12, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

The harder part is how someone can be subject to sanction by the government for violation that [is not subject to that] government's "jurisdiction".

Ah, thank you for adding precision to my point. My brain's still dealing with the attempt to get from 'this baby is not subject to US jurisdiction' to 'this baby is to be deported for violating the INA'.

Posted by: ahem on July 12, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

ahem,

So, where's the treaty giving them immunity?

As far as I'm aware, there is no such treaty. As far as I'm aware, there is also no treaty stating that a person who is a child of a foreign diplomat and who is on United States territory is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I've asked for an example of such a treaty, but no one has provided one.

Wow. Do you actually understand what 'jurisdiction' means?

Yes. Do you?

Do you have half a fucking clue here?

Do you have half a fucking brain cell in your fucking head?

The way 'that one can be a foreign diplomat or an enemy alien and not be subject to U.S. jurisdiction' is through centuries of common law, as stated explicitly in Wong Kim Ark.

What is the "centuries of common law" regarding jurisdiction over the children of illegal immigrants. Provide citations.

Your argument is self-contradictory. You asked "How exactly can one be an 'illegal immigrant' without being subject to US jurisdiction?" Your implication is that the very fact that such immigrants are recognized as having a legal status under U.S. law implies that they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. But "diplomat" and "enemy alien" are also legal statuses, and yet it is also recognized that they are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, so on your argument Wong was wrongly decided anyway.


Posted by: GOP on July 12, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

ahem,

It's the month of 'may' for GOP.

That's right. U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants may not be subject to U.S. jurisdiction and therefore may not be guaranteed citizenship by the 14th Amendment. As I said last night, it's an open question.

Posted by: GOP on July 12, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

What is the "centuries of common law" regarding jurisdiction over the children of illegal immigrants. Provide citations.

Here you are.

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.

Posted by: ahem on July 12, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

As I said last night, it's an open question.

And as has been said to you today, it's not. The exceptions are precisely enumerated; your invented exception is not one of them.

Posted by: ahem on July 12, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

That's not a fact;

Yes it is.

the conditions of the Constitutional exceptions to jurisdictions articulated in Wong Kim Ark are ... exceptions to jurisdiction with the same consequences for citizenship that were long attested and well established in the common law, that meaning and understanding of jursidiction is of long-standing, the circumstances, though are in no way "irregular",

Being born in the U.S. as the child of a diplomat or as the child of an enemy alien is most definitely being born in the U.S. under irregular legal circumstances. So is being born in the U.S. as the child of an illegal immigrant. The vast majority of U.S. births do not fall within any of those legal circumstances.

Posted by: GOP on July 12, 2006 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK
What is the "centuries of common law" regarding jurisdiction over the children of illegal immigrants.

The "centuries of common law" are that children born in the country (the US and, prior to that, England) are subject to its jurisdiction unless they are children of enemy aliens in a time and place of hostile foreign military occupation, or children of diplomats; Wong Kim Ark, 16 U.S. 649 (1898) conveniently lays out the relevant common law (as well as discussion of what today would be labelled "customary international law", which it was argued might have supplanted the rules of the common law as the appropriate interpretive framework for the 14th Amendment) with ample citations, see pp. 655-668, particularly.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 12, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

Here you go, GOP:

U.S. law regarding diplomatic immunity has its roots in England. In 1708, the British Parliament formally recognized diplomatic immunity and banned the arrest of foreign envoys. In 1790, the United States passed similar legislation, which provided absolute immunity for diplomats, their families and servants, as well as for lower ranking diplomatic mission personnel. This 1790 law remained in force until 1978, when the Diplomatic Relations Act (22 U.S.C. 254) was enacted to replace it. The principal purpose of the 1978 Act was to bring U.S. law into line with the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (which, as cmdicely pointed out above, entered into force for the United States in 1972). The 1978 Act imposed a more precise regime and reduced the degree of immunity enjoyed by many persons at diplomatic missions.

Since then, 22 U.S.C. 254 was repealed and now Section 254(a)(2) defines "family" as:

(A) the members of the family of a member of a mission described in paragraph (1)(A) who form part of his or her household if they are not nationals of the United States, and

(B) the members of the family of a member of a mission described in paragraph (1)(B) who form part of his or her household if they are not nationals or permanent residents of the United States

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode22/usc_sec_22_00000254---a000-.html

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

Being born in the U.S. as the child of a diplomat or as the child of an enemy alien is most definitely being born in the U.S. under irregular legal circumstances.

Says you. The guiding Supreme Court judgement disagrees, and has three hundred years of common law to back it up, plus the century since Wong Kim Ark.

Posted by: ahem on July 12, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

ahem,

Here you are.

The text you quote doesn't say anything about common law regarding illegal immigrants or illegal aliens as they are defined in U.S. law, at least not explicitly. It discusses "aliens" as understood in the context of historical English law and the English sovereign. The applicability of that context to American law regarding illegal immigrants is highly dubious, especially given that the "allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign" is meaningless in American law, which rejects the whole notion of the legitimacy of a national sovereign. If the question comes before the Supreme Court, it might well find that illegal aliens fall within the category of "alien enemy" due to their illegal status. Or it might just reject the whole notion that English common law is relevant to the question.

Posted by: GOP on July 12, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

For the record, here in Georgia, our most "crowded" city is Atlanta, at 1,221/km. If that's too "crowded" for you, there are 154,077 km less "crowded" in the State.

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

Try one of the greener areas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Georgia_population_map.png

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

ahem,

Says you. The guiding Supreme Court judgement disagrees, and has three hundred years of common law to back it up, plus the century since Wong Kim Ark.

No it doesn't. Do you even understand the meaning of the word "irregular?" Are you seriously claiming that being an enemy alien is a "regular" legal status?

Posted by: GOP on July 12, 2006 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

The text you quote doesn't say anything about common law regarding illegal immigrants or illegal aliens as they are defined in U.S. law, at least not explicitly.

What part of

"The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established."

do you have a problem with? Is it, perchance, the entire notion that American common law takes its precedents from English common law? Because if you have a problem with that, you really ought to give up right now.

If the question comes before the Supreme Court, it might well find that illegal aliens fall within the category of "alien enemy" due to their illegal status.

It might also re-establish slavery and declare personal gun ownership illegal if those questions come up. And you might win the Powerball this weekend without buying a ticket.

I'm still trying to work out how Nathan Deal's attempt to redefine 'jurisdiction' doesn't confer the equivalent of irrevokable diplomatic immunity upon birth to the children of illegal immigrants.

Posted by: ahem on July 12, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

Doug M,

Here you go, GOP:

Here you go.....what? Is this supposed to be a rebuttal to something I said? An aid to my argument against something ahem or cmdicely said? Or what?

Posted by: GOP on July 12, 2006 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

The countries with the highest population density are in Asia: Posted by: Doug M

Duh.

Look it, dumbass, I've lived in NYC and Tokyo (which actually has a much lower population density than NYC), and visited both Seoul (by one measure the largest city in the world), and Bangkok. My guess, given the almost non-sequitur nature of your rejoinders, is that you've never been to any of these cities or maybe even out of the U.S. (No. Canada doesn't count).

My point, which you unwittingly helped me make, is that unless you want U.S. cities to begin looking like Bangkok or Mumbai or Lagos, throw the borders open. Otherwise, fuck off this thread because you can't even interpret a population chart properly.

Posted by: JeffII on July 12, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

You asked for the law that states that a person who is a child of a foreign diplomat and who is on United States territory is not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

Are you seriously claiming that being an enemy alien is a "regular" legal status?

I have absolutely no idea in what sense you're using the word 'regular' other than perhaps the colloquial sense of 'a regular guy'. It certainly doesn't have any legal weight for me to give a shit about.

Posted by: ahem on July 12, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

As for you, JeffII -- I have never been to Tokyo, but I can still tell that 13,333 per km is HIGHER than New York City at 10,292 per km -- so, no thank you, I don't think I will fuck off this thread just yet.

Posted by: Doug M. on July 12, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

ahem,

What part of .... do you have a problem with?

I have a problem with your claim that Wong clearly addresses the question of whether the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, for the reasons I explained in my post of 2:25pm and earlier posts. I have an additional problem with the claim that the Supreme Court today would accept the reasoning in Wong even if it agreed with your interpretation of that ruling. And I have an additional problem with your argument in that it is self-contradictory, as I explained in my post of 1:50pm.

It might also re-establish slavery and declare personal gun ownership illegal if those questions come up.

If you really think a ruling reestablishing slavery is even remotely as likely or reasonable as a ruling that Wong was wrongly decided or that illegal immigrants fall within the category of enemy aliens for the purposes of deciding jurisdiction, then I would say your whole understanding of constitutional law and the Supreme Court is so utterly wrong that one need not take you seriously at all.

Posted by: GOP on July 12, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK
The text you quote doesn't say anything about common law regarding illegal immigrants or illegal aliens as they are defined in U.S. law, at least not explicitly. It discusses "aliens" as understood in the context of historical English law and the English sovereign. The applicability of that context to American law regarding illegal immigrants is highly dubious, especially given that the "allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign" is meaningless in American law, which rejects the whole notion of the legitimacy of a national sovereign.

American law does not reject the notion of the legitimacy of a national sovereign, it merely recognizes an institutional rather than personal sovereign. The application of the common law understanding of jurisdiction is not at all dubious, either, see Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 478, as quoted in Wong Kim Ark: "There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history."

If the question comes before the Supreme Court, it might well find that illegal aliens fall within the category of "alien enemy" due to their illegal status.

The understanding of an alien enemy is well established; it is an national of a nation with whom this nation is at war. Further, children of enemy aliens in general remain subject to the jurisdiction of the US, it is only children of alien enemies born during and within those enemies' hostile occupation of the US that are outside the jurisdiction of the US; indeed, that rule is articulated, in one of the precedents cited by Wong Kim Ark, thus: "The children of enemies, born in a place within the dominions of another sovereign, then occupied by them by conquest, are still aliens."

So, its clear that, under the Wong Kim Ark rule, even a child of an alien, owing allegiance to (and even acting as an agent of) a power with which the US was at war, would still be subject to US jurisdiction, and a natural born citizen, if the child was born in a place where the jurisdiction of the US was not impaired as a result of invasion.


Or it might just reject the whole notion that English common law is relevant to the question.

The notion that the common law informs the reading of the Constitution in general and the citizenship clause in particular is an even more well-established concept in US law than the result in Wong Kim Ark; next, I suspect, you will say that the Supreme Court might just hold that, contrary to everything else held in the past and the apparent meaning of the text, the guiding rule of US Constitutional law is absolute Congressional soveriegnty, and that if Congress decides something it is, ipso facto, Constitutional.

I mean, as long as you are going to keep suggesting even more improbable "possibilities" as support for the reasonableness of your previous improbable suggestions.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 12, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

ahem,

I have absolutely no idea in what sense you're using the word 'regular' other than perhaps the colloquial sense of 'a regular guy'.

Irregular:

1. Contrary to rule, accepted order, or general practice: irregular hiring practices.
2. Not conforming to legality, moral law, or social convention: an irregular marriage
5. Deviating from a type; atypical.

Posted by: GOP on July 12, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

then I would say your whole understanding of constitutional law and the Supreme Court is so utterly wrong that one need not take you seriously at all.

Well, that's fine, because you've already proved yourself full of shit up to your earlobes. You've already proved an inability to comprehend a Supreme Court judgement that enumerates the valid exceptions; you've finessed your invented exception into a BS conflation of 'illegal immigrant' with 'enemy alien'; you've shown incomprehension of diplomatic treaties; you certainly can't square the jurisdictional circle; and you talk about 'irregular' legal status in a way that has no bearing on anything.

I hope to heck you don't practise law.

Posted by: ahem on July 12, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

Doug M,

You asked for the law that states that a person who is a child of a foreign diplomat and who is on United States territory is not under the jurisdiction of the United States.

Your quote is not an example of such a law. It specifies additional conditions that must be satisfied for jurisdiction to not apply.

Posted by: GOP on July 12, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK
I have a problem with your claim that Wong clearly addresses the question of whether the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States

You can have all the problems you like, the claim is still true. Wong Kim Ark lays out a crystal clear rule as to the parameters of birthright citizenship, particularly, it provides a crystal clear rule as to where "jurisdiction" applies in the applicable provision of the 14th Amendment.

Children born to illegal aliens, do not categorically fit in any of those exceptions.

I have an additional problem with the claim that the Supreme Court today would accept the reasoning in Wong even if it agreed with your interpretation of that ruling.

Again, you can have all the problems you like, but your argument would be bolstered by presenting even the tiniest shred of evidence that the Supreme Court today has any problem with any of the rules, precedents, etc., underlying Wong Kim Ark that would indicate even the slightest inclination to overrule the well-settled law there.

You can, of course, continue to note that it is abstractly possible that the Supreme Court might rule anything, whatever the past case law, text of the Constitution, historical context, and past behavior of the justices would lead anyone to believe to the contrary. But, while true, that's not particularly meaningful.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 12, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

1. Contrary to rule, accepted order, or general practice: irregular hiring practices.

The 'accepted order' is explained in Wong Kim Ark.

2. Not conforming to legality, moral law, or social convention: an irregular marriage

Irrelevant.

5. Deviating from a type; atypical.

Utterly irrelevant.

If anything's 'irregular' here, it's:

1. Your attempt to create a new exception to ius soli out of thin air.
2. Your subsequent attempt to conflate that inveted exception with an old exception, again out of thin air.

Posted by: ahem on July 12, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

The understanding of an alien enemy is well established; it is an national of a nation with whom this nation is at war.

No it isn't. An alien does not need to be a national of a nation that is at war with the U.S., or even of a nation that is in armed conflict of some kind with the U.S., in order to qualify as an enemy alien. As I said, the Supreme Court might well hold that the category includes illegal immigrants in this context.

So, its clear that, under the Wong Kim Ark rule, even a child of an alien, owing allegiance to (and even acting as an agent of) a power with which the US was at war, would still be subject to US jurisdiction, and a natural born citizen, if the child was born in a place where the jurisdiction of the US was not impaired as a result of invasion.

Nonsense. Wong doesn't clearly address the question of whether the children of illegal immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. at all. In Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that a person must be "completely subject" to the jurisdiction of the United States, rather than "merely subject in some respect or degree," and must "owe direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, in order for the jurisdiction clause of the 14th Amendment to apply to him.

"The persons declared [112 U.S. 94, 102] to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

Again, whether the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are both "completely subject to the political jurisdiction" of the United States, rather than subject only in some degree or respect, and also "owing direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States is an open question.

Posted by: GOP on July 12, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

Wolfdaughter,

"Despite your screen name, I wonder if you really are a woman. Trust me, a woman who is 9 months pregnant is NOT walking across the border at this time of year."

OK, so she rides in a car. Besides, if you KNOW the San Diego area, it's not that hot this time of year. Lots of fog. Or maybe she comes in at 7 months and waits two months.

What you obviously do not know, or are choosing to ignore, is that many, many illegal women are having their children in Southern California emergency rooms.

"If we were really serious about solving the illegal immigrant problem, we would put pressure on the Mexicans, since most of the illegals are from Mexico, to do something so that their people could make a decent living for themselves and their families. Then they would stay home, where most of them would prefer to stay."

I absolutely agree.

Still, that doesn't mean we shouldn't enforce our immigration laws.

However, as they have not/are not doing this, does that mean WE have to take their poor?

I am compassionate (and a woman, thank you very much) but I am compassionate about our own poor, and our middle class who are being pushed into poverty as their construction jobs, and their meat packing jobs, are taken by illegal immigrants who cannot object to substandard working conditions and pay.

Myron said "We're approaching the point of no return where it will be impossible to impede the invasion of third world crud because of their numbers."

Now THAT's racism, folks. My experience (and I have a fair amount) with illegal immigrants is that they are hard-working folk. I think probably they are some of the BEST of their country.

Finally, I'm liberal, so the trolls above who try to portray liberals as supporting illegal immigration are just flat wrong. Many of us from the labor faction of the left believe that support for illegal immigrants, wanting to give them work permits, and the whole "guest worker" thing (and "jobs Americans won't do") is just more union-busting capitalist crap. Meat packing used to be a highly-organized, well-paying, done-by-Americans job. Now, not so much. Done by illegal immigrants, low paying, and NOT unionized.

Posted by: Cal Gal on July 12, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK
No it isn't. An alien does not need to be a national of a nation that is at war with the U.S., or even of a nation that is in armed conflict of some kind with the U.S., in order to qualify as an enemy alien.


Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950) says otherwise, citing Cardozo, J. in Techt v. Hughes, 229 N. Y. 222, 229, saying:

In the primary meaning of the words, an alien friend is the subject of a foreign state at peace with the United States; an alien enemy is the subject of a foreign state at war with the United States (1 Kent Comm., p. 55; 2 Halleck Int. L. [Rev. 1908], p. 1; Hall Int. Law [7th ed.], p. 403, 126; Baty & Morgan War: Its Conduct and Legal Results, p. 247; 1 Halsbury Laws of England, p. 310; Sylvester's Case, 7 Mod. 150; The Roumanian, 1915, Prob. Div. 26; affd., 1916, 1 A. C. 124; Griswold v. Waddington, 16 Johns. 437 438., 448; White v. Burnley, 20 How. [U.S.] 235, 249; The Benito Estenger, 176 U.S. 568, 571 ; Kershaw v. Kelsey, 100 Mass. 561; so all the lexicographers, as, e. g., Webster, Murray, Abbott, Black, Bouvier). . . ."

So, what do you think the relevant definition of "alien enemies" is in law, and on what authority do you assert that definition?

Wong doesn't clearly address the question of whether the children of illegal immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. at all.

Your fondness for repeating false assertions is noted, but, again, Wong Kim Ark explicitly and exhaustively lays out the conditions under which a person born in the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore not a citizen by Constitutional birthright.

None of the exceptions includes illegal aliens as such, though of course its possible for particular illegal aliens to fall into any of them.

In Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that a person must be "completely subject" to the jurisdiction of the United States, rather than "merely subject in some respect or degree," and must "owe direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, in order for the jurisdiction clause of the 14th Amendment to apply to him.

Wong Kim Ark explicitly limits the effect of the Elk rule to adding to the two common law exceptions to jurisdiction (that for children born of diplomats, and children of enemy aliens born during those aliens hostile occupations) an additional exception for children born to Indians subject to the various Indian nations, stating of that decision (after considerable discussion of its circumstances):

The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African, or Mongolian descent, not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.

The real object of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in qualifying the words 'all persons born in the United States' by the addition 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state,-both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.

As Elk was expressly limited, thus, by Wong Kim Ark, your attempt to use a different interpretation of the exception to 14th Amendment "jurisdiction" framed in Elk than that expressly given to it in Wong Kim Ark so as to argue that Wong Kim Ark is unclear as to the applicability of its rule to "illegal immigrants" is, at best, misguided, and at worst dishonest.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 12, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

In Elk v. Wilkins--

"The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African, or Mongolian descent, not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country."

Gray, J.; Wong Kim Ark.

So, you're now proposing that illegal aliens be declared members of a Native American tribe?

I'm done here. Please continue to scour more nativist bullshit to insist that a century of settled law is an 'open question', and do support whichever wingnut proposes legislation to be swatted down and denied cert. Ideally, with all the money in your bank account.

Posted by: ahem on July 12, 2006 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK
So, you're now proposing that illegal aliens be declared members of a Native American tribe?

I suppose if the claim that America is now an Empire were taken to have legal effect, and, e.g., Mexico were viewed as a subject state, one could argue that illegal immigrants from Mexico have a status analogous to unnaturalized Indians as citizens of an alien-but-subject state, whose children remain subject, for 14th Amendment purposes, to the "jurisdiction" or "liegance" of the subject nation rather than the U.S., and thus are not citizens even when born within the territory of the U.S.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court actually ruling something like that seems somewhat less likely than, say, posts in this thread being cited as authority in whatever ruling the Court would make on the issue.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 12, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950) says otherwise,

No, it doesn't. You need to read your own citations more carefully. The description of "alien enemy" it gives is clearly qualified by the phrase "in the primary meaning of the words," which obviously suggests that there are secondary meanings other than "the subject of a foreign state at war with the United States."

So, what do you think the relevant definition of "alien enemies" is in law, and on what authority do you assert that definition?

I haven't claimed that there is a clear and exclusive definition in law. You're the one claiming that the term "alien enemy" as used in Wong "clearly" does not apply to illegal aliens, so you have the burden of showing that there is a clear legal definition of that term that supports your claim. You haven't done that.

Your fondness for repeating false assertions is noted,

Your fondness for asserting that your tendentious interpretations of Supreme Court rulings of disputed meaning are "clear" statements of law is noted.

but, again, Wong Kim Ark explicitly and exhaustively lays out the conditions under which a person born in the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore not a citizen by Constitutional birthright.

Again, no it doesn't.

Posted by: GOP on July 12, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

Wong Kim Ark explicitly limits the effect of the Elk rule to adding to the two common law exceptions to jurisdiction (that for children born of diplomats, and children of enemy aliens born during those aliens hostile occupations) an additional exception for children born to Indians subject to the various Indian nations, stating of that decision (after considerable discussion of its circumstances)"

No it doesn't. It states that the decision in Elk "concerned" only members of the Indian tribes within the United States. It doesn't say anything about whether the same analysis applies to illegal immigrants. Given the highly dubious nature of both the claim that U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are "completely subject" to the political jurisdiction of the United States, and the claim that such children "owe direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, the claim that such children necessarily satisfy the conditions for citizenship described in the 14th Amendment is also highly dubious. In addition, U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants may be excluded from birthright citizenship under Wong if illegal immigrants qualify as "alien enemies" for the purposes of 14th Amendment citizenship analysis.

Posted by: GOP on July 12, 2006 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

ahem,

So, you're now proposing that illegal aliens be declared members of a Native American tribe?

No, I didn't propose any such thing. Try reading more carefully.

I'm done here.

Great.

...a century of settled law ...

There is no "settled law" on this question. There's no clear law at all. The Supreme Court has never addressed the specific question of whether U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are guaranteed citizenship by the 14th Amendment.

Posted by: GOP on July 12, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

From the 1898 decision Wong Kim Ark: Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States.

I suppose one could split hairs and claim that illegal aliens are not permitted by the United States to reside here, and, thus, their children are not guaranteed citizenship by being born within the territory of the United States. Indeed, a future Court could rule in such a way; and the 14th Amendment means whatever the Supreme Court decides it means, until it changes its mind. However, as an earlier poster asked, is it really wise to create a permanent, trans-generational underclass by changing what is, at present, the accepted grant of citizenship to the newly born children of illegal aliens? I think it a really, really bad idea to do so.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on July 12, 2006 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK
No it doesn't. It states that the decision in Elk "concerned" only members of the Indian tribes within the United States.

Um, yeah, that's how a decision limits an earlier decision, by saying that decision only "concerns", "relates to", "applies to", &c., the facts specifically at issue in that case.

Wong Kim Ark expressly limited Elk's applicability to the case to Indians subject to Indian nations subordinate to the US government.

It doesn't say anything about whether the same analysis applies to illegal immigrants.

Yes, it does. It says the rule of Elk is specifically limited to Indian nations, it says explicitly that the 14th Amendment "jurisdiction" had only the two common law exceptions regarding diplomats and alien enemies during hostile occupation, plus the one exception regarding Indians that Elk related to.

Anything that is not in one of those three categories is clearly not an exception under the rule articulated in Wong Kim Ark, which clearly is intended to be exhaustive.

There is no question of parental circumstance of birthright citizenship that the rule articulate in Wong Kim Ark does not speak to.

Now, might a later Court alter or limit the ruling? Sure, though I see little reason in the development of Constitutional law in the interim, or in the judicial approach of the present Justices, that suggests that is likely.

In addition, U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants may be excluded from birthright citizenship under Wong if illegal immigrants qualify as "alien enemies" for the purposes of 14th Amendment citizenship analysis.

No, even if they were, under Wong Kim Ark, their children would retain birthright citizenship if the child was born in a place where the jurisdiction of the US was not impaired as a result of invasion. No part of the US is presently under hostile foreign occupation, so the exception Wong Kim Ark describes for alien enemies is presently of only abstract interest, whether illegal aliens were considered "alien enemies" or not.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 12, 2006 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK
No, it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

The description of "alien enemy" it gives is clearly qualified by the phrase "in the primary meaning of the words," which obviously suggests that there are secondary meanings other than "the subject of a foreign state at war with the United States."

You are, of course, free to present the "secondary definition" you feel is relevant here, as well as cite authority for its application, as has been requested of you previously. Otherwise, you have no basis to argue that the primary definition is not the onyl relevant definition.

I haven't claimed that there is a clear and exclusive definition in law.

Unless your claim that the the Supreme Court might find them to be alien enemies is just the completely vacuous claim that all future events resting on some human judgement are unknowable, to be taken seriously it requires some basis more substantial than the empty possibility that they could invent something new ex nihilo.

Such as, e.g., a relevant alternate definition attested to elsewhere in law.

Posted by: cmdicely on July 12, 2006 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

Um, yeah, that's how a decision limits an earlier decision, by saying that decision only "concerns", "relates to", "applies to", &c., the facts specifically at issue in that case.

The specific question in Elk concerned native Americans, but nothing in either Elk or Wong precludes application of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" as interpreted in Elk to illegal immigrants.

Yes, it does.

No, it doesn't.

It says the rule of Elk is specifically limited to Indian nations,

No it doesn't. In fact, Wong explicitly states that aliens are "entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here." That supports the view that the children of illegal aliens do not "owe allegiance" to the United States and are not "completely subject" to the political jurisdiction of the U.S., and thus are constitutionally equivalent to native Americans for the purposes of Elk's 14th Amendment analysis.

Posted by: GOP on July 12, 2006 at 7:27 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

You are, of course, free to present the "secondary definition" you feel is relevant here,

You have completely lost track of your own argument. I don't have to offer any secondary definition because I am not the one claiming the term has been clearly defined in law. That's your claim. I'm still waiting for you to substantiate it. Where is "enemy alien" clearly defined in law to exclude illegal immigrants for the purposes of birthright citizenship analysis?

Posted by: GOP on July 12, 2006 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

cmdicely,

You can, of course, continue to note that it is abstractly possible that the Supreme Court might rule anything,

I'm not noting merely that it is "abstractly possible that the Supreme Court might rule anything." I'm noting that it is highly plausible that the Supreme Court will either reject your interpretation of Elk and Wong, or rule that Wong was wrongly decided, if and when it is confronted with the specific issue of birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.

Posted by: GOP on July 12, 2006 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINK

Chicounsel or JeffII?

Posted by: Doug M. on July 13, 2006 at 9:49 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly