Immigration Enforcement

Huckabee retreats on birthright citizenship

By Stephen Dinan
January 9, 2008

Mike Huckabee yesterday contradicted his own top immigration surrogate, announcing he will not support a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to illegal aliens.

It was a stark reversal after The Washington Times reported that James Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project, said Mr. Huckabee promised to pursue an amendment to the Constitution. In an article in yesterday’s editions, Mr. Huckabee’s spokeswoman did not challenge the former Arkansas governor’s statements to Mr. Gilchrist and said the two men shared the same goals on immigration.

But by yesterday afternoon, Mr. Huckabee had backed away from that position.

“I do not support an amendment to the Constitution that would prevent children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens from automatically becoming American citizens. I have no intention of supporting a constitutional amendment to deny birthright citizenship,” Mr. Huckabee said in a statement posted on his campaign Web site.

The Times reported that Mr. Gilchrist, in a half-hour conversation while campaigning with Mr. Huckabee last week in Iowa, pinned down the Republican presidential candidate on various immigration stances, including how he would address what most legal scholars see as the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship to any person born in the United States, except for diplomatic situations.

Mr. Gilchrist said Mr. Huckabee promised to bring a test case to the Supreme Court to challenge the matter, and also would press Congress to pass an amendment to the Constitution.

More…

January 9, 2008 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , , | Leave a comment

What “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof” Really Means

What “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof” Really Means

P.A. Madison

I have been bombarded lately with requests to revisit the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendments “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language. Some desire confirmation whether the language simply implies temporary obedience to laws, while others want to confirm whether it requires something more direct and substantial. I’ll spare the reader a lengthy treatise by making this short and to the point.

Perhaps the first most important thing to understand about national birthright is that there was no national birthright rule until the year 1866. One will look in vain to find any national law on the subject prior to this year, or even any mention of the right to citizenship by birth under the United States Constitution.

One reason for the absence of an early-defined national birthright rule is that States had decided for themselves who were its citizens by virtue of being born within the limits of the State. Prior to the 14th amendment citizens of the United States were strictly defined as citizens of the States.

After the Revolution, States retained only those portions of common law that were applicable to their local circumstances. The practice of England at the time was every person born within the realm of the King was a natural born subject by virtue of birth alone. In the United States, such a rule was not strictly followed as children born to black slaves, transient aliens, or Indians, followed the condition of their father (natural law).  Read more…

December 10, 2007 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , | Leave a comment

Ban on birth certificates for illegal immigrants?

 

Ban on birth certificates for illegal immigrants?

The Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association says it’s troubled by a proposed ballot initiative that would prevent birth certificates from being issued to children of illegal immigrants.

The association says it’s still studying the newly filed proposal but that it appears it would place hospital personnel in a law enforcement role. That might erode the trust between providers and patients.

The “Birthright Citizenship Alignment Act” proposed for the state’s November 2008 ballot would require hospitals to check the citizenship of parents of newborns.

Some critics of illegal immigration contend that the U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment has been misapplied and was never intended to automatically grant citizenship to babies of illegal immigrants.

Link..

December 5, 2007 Posted by | Uncategorized | , , , , | Leave a comment