[Vision2020] Sali Seeks to Delay Mexican Consulate

[g. crabtree]

To imply that the idea of putting an end to the abuse of birthright 
citizenship by illegal aliens is so "out there" that nothing like it has 
been initiated in this century is totally without foundation. The UK and 
Australia both abandoned the policy in the 80's. (so much for Anglo-American 
common law) Only a tiny handful of European countries still grant birthright 
citizenship and they are not the ones people are chomping at the bit to move 
to. A solution to the anchor baby problem has been key in most all 
discussion of immigration reform during the last couple decades. To contend 
that solutions to this problem have not been advanced in the last century 
would be very much in error.

g
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>
To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
Cc: "Donovan Arnold" <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 1:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sali Seeks to Delay Mexican Consulate


> On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 1:01 PM, g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
>> What part of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" do you not
>> understand?
>
> Individuals residing within the territorial boundaries of the United
> States, legally or illegally, are subject to the jurisdiction of the
> United States. This is why we can, for instance, try and convict
> visitors to the United States.
>
> Foreign visitors have always been subject to US jurisdiction and thus
> have birthright citizenship (though no Supreme Court case has been
> decided on this issue). Foreign ambassadors are excluded on the
> grounds that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the nation in
> which they reside (cf. "diplomatic immunity."). Native Americans were
> excluded until 1924 on the fiction that Indian reservations were
> sovereign territories not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
>
> And though Chinese-Americans could not become US citizens until the
> repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act, the one Supreme Court case on the
> issue (US v. Wong Kim Ark) decided that even the children of
> noncitizen US residents can become US citizens. The one remaining
> ambiguity is the actual relationship between the immigration status of
> Wong Kim Ark's parents and the status of modern illegal immigrants.
> Wong Kim Ark's parents entered the United States well before the
> complex system of visas and immigration statutes we have today.
>
> As they entered through San Francisco, they likely just showed up on a
> boat -- didn't have to take an immigration test; didn't have to pledge
> allegiance to the United States; didn't have to sign any paperwork or
> carry a green card. Rather, they were just assumed to be US citizens.
> The rationale of the decision is in line with this thinking: the court
> argues that because Wong Kim Ark's parents were not *agents* (such as
> occupying soldiers or diplomats) of a foreign power, and were
> domiciled in the United States (intending to make the United States
> their place of residence), Wong Kim Ark was entitled to birthright
> citizenship.
>
> They also note that this understanding of birthright citizenship has
> persisted in Anglo-American common law since at least the 1500s. Your
> argument is, by contrast, an entirely novel interpretation of the law;
> one that isn't in accord with anything other than right-wing
> conspiracy theories about "anchor babies." This is why nothing like
> your interpretation has been tried *in the past century*.
>
> -- ACS
>