Go Back  British Expats > Living & Moving Abroad > USA
Reload this Page >

Excellent article on US citizenship

Excellent article on US citizenship

Old Aug 30th 2002, 7:14 am
  #1  
James Donovan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Excellent article on US citizenship

http://www.vdare.com/sutherland/re-
scue.htm


Rescuing U.S. Citizenship By Howard Sutherland

One strange case that has arisen from the "War on Terrorism" is that of Yaser Esam
Hamdi, a young Saudi man captured in Afghanistan while fighting with the Taliban. He
was taken to Guantanamo Bay. There it was discovered that Hamdi had born in Louisiana
to Saudi parents temporarily in the United States (his father was a chemical engineer
with a Saudi company). The Hamdis had left the U.S. before young Yaser's third
birthday. Until now, he had never returned. But he asserted U.S. citizenship on the
basis of the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause.

The Justice Department appears to have accepted that argument, because Hamdi has been
removed to the brig at the Norfolk Naval Station in Virginia, a courtesy not extended
to non-citizens. Deeming Hamdi a U.S. citizen also means that he benefits from the
full protections of the U.S. Constitution. Prosecuting this enemy combatant has
become a much tougher proposition.[ Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (PDF)]

Fortunately, Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement [FILE], an immigration law reform
group run by Project USA's Craig Nelsen, sees the Hamdi case as an opportunity to get
the question of birthright citizenship before the courts. FILE has moved to intervene
in the Hamdi case, seeking that he be declared a Saudi national and removed from the
U.S. (I.E. to Guantanamo.)

The conventional, and wrong, interpretation of the Citizenship Clause confers U.S.
citizenship on anyone born within the territory of the United States—no matter who
his parents are and no matter how they came to be here. FILE says, correctly, that
that interpretation is far too broad and not at all what the 14th Amendment's authors
had in mind.

Birthright citizenship is of critical importance—and not only to fighting terrorism.
The current interpretation invites and gets no end of abuse. It is well known around
the world that all you have to do is get a baby born in the United States to
manufacture an instant U.S. citizen. Then, because of the "family reunification"
emphasis in current immigration law, that "U.S. citizen" becomes the anchor in
American soil that will allow the immigration of an almost unlimited stream of
relatives (and then their relatives, and then…)

As a result, heavily pregnant Mexican women are smuggled across the border to give
birth here. According to the General Accounting Office, in 1995 there were almost
80,000 Medicaid-funded births to illegal alien women in California alone. That is
probably no more than half of California's births to illegal aliens in that year.
Seven years later, the number is probably much higher.

In South Korea and other Asian countries, travel agents sell package tours to
pregnant women, flying them to Los Angeles so they can give birth in the United
States (in clinics run by immigrants of their own nationalities, naturally).

Whether or not the alien mother and child stay after the birth, they make sure they
get that all-important Social Security number and passport for the little "American,"
so the family can eventually move to America.

The Citizenship Clause was put in the Constitution in 1868 for a very different
purpose: to ensure that freed slaves could not be denied citizenship because they had
not been citizens when they were born. It says

"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 current interpretation ignores the critical phrase "subject to the jurisdiction
thereof." That phrase means that citizenship requires allegiance—which is more than
the accident (even if it is not accidental) of being born on U.S. soil.

Yaser Esam Hamdi's parents were Saudi. They were in the U.S. temporarily with no
intention of staying and pursuing American citizenship. . They were not fully
"subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. Mr. Hamdi could not be drafted into the
U.S. Armed Forces.
Mr. and Mrs. Hamdi could not be guilty of treason to the U.S. – they owed no
allegiance. Neither does their Saudi son, no matter where he was born.

The point of the jurisdiction language in the Citizenship Clause was precisely to
make it clear the United States is not asserting full jurisdiction over everyone born
within U.S. territory. The exception that mattered in 1868 was the American Indian.
Indians dealt with the Federal government through treaties, and were citizens of
their tribes, not the United States. (U.S. citizenship was extended to them later by
statute, which only proves the point.) Nor, as one of the Citizenship Clause's
authors, Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, said in Senate debate, would the
Citizenship Clause extend to persons born in the United States who are foreigners or
aliens—including diplomats' children.

Nevertheless, that is exactly how our Federal government interprets it today.
Periodically, some brave Congressman submits a bill to interpret the Citizenship
Clause the way it is written. But the Democrats' vested interest in an endless stream
of new Democrats, and the Republicans' terror of being called racist, ensure those
bills go nowhere.

FILE is trying to get the issue into the arena where it can readily be resolved: the
Federal courts.

If U.S. District Judge Robert Doumar has any respect for the Constitution, Yaser Esam
Hamdi will be on the next plane back to Gitmo
 
Old Aug 30th 2002, 7:57 am
  #2  
Joachim Feise
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Excellent article on US citizenship

James Donovan wrote:
    > http://www.vdare.com/sutherland/-
    > rescue.htm


IANAL, but a couple of comments anyway. This article is far from excellent, in fact,
it can't be taken serious at all. Although the description of the original reason for
the 14th amendment is described correctly, the assertion that somebody living in the
US is not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US is wrong, and the argument that
such a person could not be drafted is obviously wrong as well. It is the decision of
the US government to not draft visitors, just as it was the decision of the US
government to not draft women. Do female US citizens have a second class citizenship
because of that? Of course not. Arguing with the special status of Native Indians
also fells quite short and doesn't take into account that the tribes could possibly
have laid claim to a large chunk of the territory of the US. The agreements with the
tribes and their special status is an acknowledgement and reparation of earlier
wrongdoing. So, in conclusion, this article is a rather crude try to back a certain
political agenda with some legal mumble-jumble.
 
Old Aug 30th 2002, 5:51 pm
  #3  
Chris Parker
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Excellent article on US citizenship

    > "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 current interpretation ignores the critical phrase "subject to the jurisdiction
    > thereof." That phrase means that citizenship requires allegiance—which is
    > more than the accident (even if it is not accidental) of being born on U.S. soil.

"Subject to the jurisdiction" deals with excluding the US-born children of foreign
diplomats stationed in the US and holding "diplomatic immunity". If U.S. territory
were to come under foreign occupation during wartime, this language would presumably
also exclude children born on occupied soil to nationals of the occupying country.

In an effort to curb illegal immigration to the US, several proposals to amend the
14th Amendment's "citizenship clause" have been introduced in recent Congresses.
These proposals all died in committee. This was the most recent one:

H. J. RES. 10 (106th Congress, introduced January 6, 1999) Proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States to provide that no person born in the United
States will be a United States citizen unless a parent is a United States citizen,
is lawfully in the United States, or has a lawful immigration status at the time
of the birth.

Finally, current U.S. law at Sections 349 and 351 of the Immigration and Nationality
Act also forbids the government from taking your citizenship from you against your
will; it only permits that you may give it up voluntarily, and only under certain
conditions. This has placed the U.S. State Department in the complex position of
determining whether someone who claims to be a U.S. citizen has, in fact, given up
that citizenship by his voluntary statements or actions. Their current policy about
what constitutes relinquishment of citizenship can be read here:
http://travel.state.gov/loss.html .
Obviously, with the events of the past year, this policy and the frequency of its
application could be amended, but so far that does not seem to be the government's
intentions with respect U.S. citizens found involved in terrorist acitivites so far.
INA could also be amended by the Congress to make renunciation of citizenship more
easy to do.

I think your organization is playing with fire here anyway you look at it, and the
best solution (a long shot, at best) is not court interpretation of terrorist
detainees but rather congressional action to amend the constitution as has been
attempted before and/or lobbying efforts on the State Dept. to declare individuals
U.S. citizens like John Walker Linn and Yaser Esam Hamdi as having relinquished their
U.S. citizenship by their allegiance for the Taliban.

Good luck. CP
 
Old Aug 30th 2002, 11:42 pm
  #4  
Rich Wales
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Excellent article on US citizenship

James Donovan wrote (quoting an article by Howard Sutherland):

> Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement [FILE] . . . sees the Hamdi case as an
> opportunity to get the question of birthright citizenship before the courts. .
> . . The current interpretation [of the 14th Amendment's citizen- ship clause]
> ignores the critical phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." That phrase
> means that citizenship requires allegiance . . . .

No, it doesn't. Being subject to US jurisdiction means that one is under the legal
authority and control of the US, and is thus required to obey US law, and is subject
to punishment for breaking US law.

Just about everyone who is physically present in the US -- citizens, non-citizen
permanent residents ("green card" holders), temporary visitors, and even illegal
aliens -- is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US, because any such person can
clearly be imprisoned and/or fined if they break the law.

The only real exception is foreign diplomats and their families, who have so-called
"diplomatic immunity" -- meaning they can =not= be tried, jailed, or fined for
breaking US law. The only thing that can legally be done to a diplomat who is
accused of doing something nasty is to deport him.

So, if we decide to say that US-born children of foreigners aren't US citizens
because of lack of jurisdiction, we must also say that foreign tourists and
illegal aliens (as well as their US-born kids) cannot be punished for breaking the
law. Even if an illegal alien were to become a serial sex murderer, the most we
could do in such a situation would be to send him back to his (or his parents')
country of origin.

Rich Wales [email protected]
http://www.richw.org/dualcit/ *DISCLAIMER:
I am not a lawyer, professional immigration consultant, or consular officer. My
comments are for discussion purposes only and are not intended to be relied upon as
legal or professional advice.
 
Old Aug 31st 2002, 1:08 am
  #5  
Aftonokla
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Excellent article on US citizenship

The Constitution is quite clear on this issue. Tell FILE to quit trying to be like
John Asscroft and trash the Constitution.
 
Old Aug 31st 2002, 1:56 pm
  #6  
James Donovan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Excellent article on US citizenship

[email protected] (AftonOkla) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
    > The Constitution is quite clear on this issue. Tell FILE to quit trying to be like
    > John Asscroft and trash the Constitution.


No, it's the other way around. It's high time that the constitution be amended to
protect our national interests. No more citizenship for everyone born here unless
they have at least one parent who is at least a US permanent resident or in the
process of applying. That would cut down on the anchor babies and give less
incentive for people to jump the border.
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.