Tea-Publican priority: Not jobs, but repeal of 14th Amendment citizenship

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Public opinion poll after poll after poll make clear that what voters are frustrated and "angry" about is jobs, jobs, jobs. Voters want Congress to "fix" the economy and to encourage job creation. Put Americans back to work!

So what is the top priority of the newly elected Tea-Publicans in Congress come January?

"As one of its first acts, the new Congress will consider denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States." 'Birthright citizenship' will be target of House GOP majority:

Those children, who are now automatically granted citizenship at birth, will be one of the first targets of the Republican-led House when it convenes in January.

GOP Rep. Steve King of Iowa, the incoming chairman of the subcommittee that oversees immigration, is expected to push a bill that would deny "birthright citizenship" to such children.

The measure, assailed by critics as unconstitutional, is an indication of how the new majority intends to flex its muscles on the volatile issue of illegal immigration.

The Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment provided a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the decision of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) which held that African Americans were not and could not become citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.

While the 14th Amendment was primarily intended to overrule Dred Scott and make sure that freed slaves and their children were granted U.S. citizenship, it was not limited to freed slaves. Congressional debate of the Citizenship Clause included lengthy debate over Native Americans, Chinese immigrants in California, and Gypsies.

Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, a raging racist who voted against the 14th Amendment, expressed his concerns during debate that the people of California would be "overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race," and "Therefore I think, before we assert broadly that everybody who shall be born in the United States shall be taken to be a citizen of the United States, we ought to exclude others besides Indians not taxed, because I look upon Indians not taxed as being much less dangerous and much less pestiferous to society than I look upon Gypsies."

The Citizenship Clause has been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court to mean that children born on United States soil, with very few exceptions, are U.S. citizens. This type of guarantee — legally termed jus soli, or "right of the territory," as opposed to jus sanguinis, or "right of blood," previously existed under English common law.

The Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that "where birth in the United States was clear, a child of Chinese parents was, in the Court's opinion, definitely a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, even though Chinese aliens were ineligible to naturalize under then-existing law." (Chinese Exclusion Act).

The Court stated that long before the adoption of the 14th Amendment, "all white persons" born in the U.S., including children of "foreigners," were considered native-born citizens (provided that they were not "children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government"), and that "[t]o hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States." The Court further stated:

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.

[…]

It does not appear to have been suggested in either House of Congress that children born in the United States of Chinese parents would not come within the terms and effect of the leading sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Doubtless, the intention of the Congress which framed and of the States which adopted this Amendment of the Constitution must be sought in the words of the Amendment, and the debates in Congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words. But the statements above quoted are valuable as contemporaneous opinions of jurists and statesmen upon the legal meaning of the words themselves, and are, at the least, interesting as showing that the application of the Amendment to the Chinese race was considered, and not overlooked.

Tea-Publicans say the 14th Amendment does not apply. The amendment states that anyone born in the United States and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a citizen. 'Birthright citizenship' will be target of House GOP majority. "King said the amendment would not apply to the children of illegal immigrants because their parents should not be in the country anyway."

Opponents of birthright citizenship misrepresent the words of Sen. Jacob Howard, Republican of Michigan, who proposed the Citizenship Clause and stated on May 30, 1866:

Mr. HOWARD: This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.

Opponents of birthright ciizenship claim Sen. Howard intended two separate classes of persons: foreigners and aliens; and children of ambassadors and foreign ministers. But nothing in the Congressional Record of debate of the Citizenship Clause supports this fictitious claim.

James C. Ho, the solicitor general of Texas who previously clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas, worked in the Bush administration, and served as chief counsel to Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), wrote in 2006 that "no Senator disputed the meaning of the amendment with respect to alien children" and "nothing in text or history suggests that the drafters intended to draw distinctions between different categories of aliens." Ho further wrote:

Repeal proponents contend that history supports their position.

First, they quote Howard's introductory remarks to state that birthright citizenship "will not, of course, include … foreigners." But that reads Howard's reference to "aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers" out of the sentence. It also renders completely meaningless the subsequent dialogue between Senators Cowan and Conness over the wisdom of extending birthright citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants and Gypsies.

See, Fox promotes false claim that 14th Amendment was not meant to apply to children of immigrants | Media Matters for America.

Rep. Steve King and Arizona's shadow governor, state Senator Russell Pearce, are pursuing legal fictions by anti-immigrant organizations that they can simply legislate restrictive language into the broadly defined Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment. Their disingenuous arguments are legally incorrect. The only way to amend the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment is by a constitutional amendment. It would have to be approved by Congress and ratified by 38 state legislatures. This is not even remotely a possibility.

This is simply racially divisive politics practiced by the GOP since passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is a distraction to draw public attention away from the fact that Republicans have no plans to "fix" the economy and to ecourage job creation. So they instead seek to create a scapegoat to blame for their anticipated failure.