Conservatives are trying to end birthright citizenship for immigrants. Do we really want to change the constitution for this?
The Mercury News: Because of widespread opposition in the House and even more in the Senate, the measure is unlikely to become law, and would face a constitutional challenge in court if it did. But it promises to make the debate over illegal immigration even more divisive and could reverberate in next year's midterm elections.
"To change the way we establish citizenship is such an extreme measure, and it makes you really question what is motivating people to come up with those ideas," said Rep. Charlie Gonzalez, D-Texas, whose grandparents emigrated from Mexico. "It just goes counter to what we are as a people, and I think it does great harm."
According to the Constitution's 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 to give former slaves U.S. citizenship, "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Be sure to read the rest of this story! This is only a small part of it.
1 comment:
GOP officials, Rep. Tom Tancredo and John C. Eastman should reread the Citizenship Clause.
The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," is enclosed within a PAIR OF COMMAS, with the first comma placed before the coordinating conjunction "and."
An element enclosed within a PAIR OF COMMAS is "non-restrictive," meaning the phrase does not modify or qualify the element preceding; a comma-plus-coordinating-conjunction is regarded as a "single punctuation mark."
Another case of being "hanged by a pair of commas"?
Grammatically, the phrase is actually intended to read: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and [all persons] subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and [citizens] of the State wherein they reside."
The Clause thus confers a SECOND, still unrecognized, category of citizens of the United States--"All persons subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Senator James Doolittle mentions this category during the debate (at p. 2897, 1st col., Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866) with the phrase "all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" in quotation marks:
"But, sir, the Senator has drawn me off from the immediate question before the Senate. The immediate question is whether the language he [Senator Jacob Howard, the author] uses, 'all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' includes these Indians..."
Based on the remarks by Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Lyman Trumbull and Senator Howard (the author) during the debate, this SECOND category conveys the meaning:
"All persons owing allegiance within the extent or territory over which the constitutional power of the United States extends"--or birth within the realm and within the allegiance.
At that time in 1866, this SECOND CATEGORY embraced "persons" NOT "in the United States" but within:
--the 12 ceded territories awaiting statehood
--the 11 Confederate States awaiting readmission to the Union
--the District of Columbia.
Post a Comment