The government alleges that from the 1950s through the 1990s, some midwives and physicians along the Texas-Mexico border provided U.S. birth certificates to babies who were actually born in Mexico. In a series of federal court cases in the 1990s, several birth attendants admitted to providing fraudulent documents.WaPo didn't cry out when this was happening under Obama.
Based on those suspicions, the State Department began during Barack Obama’s administration to deny passports to people who were delivered by midwives in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley.
ADDED: John preserved an earlier version of the WaPo article. The sentence he copied as...
Based on those suspicions, the State Department began during Barack Obama’s administration to deny passports to people who were delivered by midwives in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley....now reads:
Based on those suspicions, the State Department during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations denied passports to people who were delivered by midwives in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley.I wonder what happened there? We could say it shows that WaPo did not assiduously protect Obama but let blame fall squarely on him when it could have been shifted to Bush. I'd like to know more about that, but my hypothesis would be that the Obama administration adopted more of a specific policy but the Bush administration was also doing some denials. I wonder why the Clinton administration did nothing. The Court cases were "in the 1990s." That's Clinton's era.
I'm inclined to give WaPo some neutrality points for letting the blame fall on Obama, but I need to know more about the criticism the earlier draft may have provoked and the basis for roping in Bush.
AND: This is also me at Facebook:
It's interesting to read the comments at WaPo, beginning with the oldest: "If you support Trump at this point, you support a racist. Pure and simple. Stories like this are all the proof a thinking person should need. You may not be a racist yourself, but you support one - and at some point, there ceases to be a meaningful difference." So there's someone who got the vibe of the headline the way I read it. Funny that he accidentally portrayed Obama as a big racist.
Posts
79 comments:
The democrat party and their media are frauds.
Is it only Hispanic residents being denied or are White Hispanics also forced to stay in the US?
I wondered how anchor babies got their BCs and citizenship: midwives!
...but I need to know more about the criticism the earlier draft may have provoked and the basis for roping in Bush
You mean other than they got it?
Jim Brown, the great football player and so-so actor, said the other day that Trump is no racist.
Who wants to argue with Jim Brown?
Midwifery.
I just like saying that word for some reason.
WaPo: "U.S. is denying passports to Americans along the border, throwing their citizenship into question."
OK, denial of passport causes citizenship to be questioned. But why are passports denied?
Well, because their citizenship was questioned.
Our dipshit local paper is the same way. All the headlines are Trump is a poopy head, nobody likes him, the economy isn't great for EVERYONE, brown peoples are suffering!
Those Friday morning newsroom meetings must be getting awfully frustrating.
It's reaching the point where finding unbiased news is like picking out corn kernels from horse manure.
If being born on US soil was constitutional law and automatically made a baby a US citizen, then why did Congress have to pass a statute to make all Native Americans - born on US soil - American citizens?
It's true. Look it up.
Who wants to argue with Jim Brown?
Not his girlfriends.
Clearly Trump is the source of all the badness, all the wrongness of the world in the liberal news media's collective mind. On the surface it appears that there's little awareness of the sheer absurdity of such a thought process on their parts. How can one thing be the source of all evil in the world? Does that not seem the least bit improbable to them?
That "Bush and Obama" change is typical - if it makes a Democrat look bad and they can't get away not mentioning it, they go out of their way to share the blame with a Republican; similar to "well, both parties do it" and "pox on both houses. If they can get away with handing sole blame to a Republican, they go out of their way to make that the narrative - see "first Republican in the chain of command" like the Flint water problem.
Truth Dies in Darkness!
"If you support Trump at this point, you support a racist. Pure and simple. Stories like this are all the proof a thinking person should need. You may not be a racist yourself, but you support one - and at some point, there ceases to be a meaningful difference."
This is where it's all heading. Trump won't be found guilty of anything near an impeachable offense, but must be impeached because we can't have a racist in the White House.
The only question left is how many R Senators this line of thinking and the attendant blowback from Antifa and other groups will sway.
Of course this is all undermined if a significant part of African Americans start supporting Trump, which is why Kanye, Tiger and others have been attacked so harshly.
Who wants to argue with Jim Brown?
You don't mess around with Jim.
The situation along the border used to be a local matter that we were more or less OK with; it did not matter all that much, so why not?
But it is now a national party line thing, which is quite different.
Especially since hardly anyone not longtime residents of the border states have any idea what they are talking about.
Nicely put, Jess.
Racist, racist! Racist, racist! Boo hoo hoo!
Bush and Obama were President at the same time? If not, how is it that this process began with both administrations?
-sw
Are they denying passports to Americans along the border? Or alleged Americans along the border? It's interesting there is zero concern that there seem to have been fake birth certificates handed out.
From the WaPo article:
A 2009 government settlement in a case litigated by the American Civil Liberties Union seemed to have mostly put an end to the passport denials. Attorneys reported that the number of denials declined during the rest of the Obama administration, and the government settled promptly when people filed complaints after being denied passports.
But under President Trump, the passport denials and revocations appear to be surging, becoming part of a broader interrogation into the citizenship of people who have lived, voted and worked in the United States for their entire lives.
“We’re seeing these kind of cases skyrocketing,” said Jennifer Correro, an attorney in Houston who is defending dozens of people who have been denied passports.
So a program that started under Obama is being accelerated under Trump. Seems pretty straightforward.
And make up your minds over whether you want your narrative to be "Obama did it too" or "Obama was an open borders advocate."
The old world solution would be to move the border south.
>>"If you support Trump at this point, you support a racist. Pure and simple. Stories like this are all the proof a thinking person should need. You may not be a racist yourself, but you support one - and at some point, there ceases to be a meaningful difference."
It's a very short jump from there to:
"And therefore anything we do to you terrible people is justified."
>>The old world solution would be to move the border south.
Can we just move the Pacific inland one state width?
:)
That comment from WaPo that Althouse quotes at the end of her post--I have seen that verbatim for at least 2 weeks at various comment boards. It is organized in some fashion or other.
Our Most Gracious Host ponders "I wonder what happened there?"
She is so genteel !
the State Department during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations
this means the period from 2001-2016; 2012 was DEFINITELY during those two admins.
technically, you could say during the hw bush,clinton,w bush, and O'bama admins. 2012 would still be during that time frame. Why would you enlarge a time frame? We'd have to ask Chuck
“We’re seeing these kind of cases skyrocketing,” said Jennifer Correro, an attorney in Houston who is defending dozens of people who have been denied passports.
Might it be that these are plaintiffs rather than defendants?
"I'm inclined to give WaPo some neutrality points for letting the blame fall on Obama, but I need to know more about the criticism the earlier draft may have provoked and the basis for roping in Bush."
Bless your heart. What it means is that the post-Presidency Obama is proving to be something of a disappointment to his loyal followers, and they are showing him the bus, and the spacious quarters available thereunder, for those who are no longer of use to the Party.
On NPR this morning, the NPR host interviewed the WaPo reporter who wrote the article. There was nothing coy about the Trump-bashing during that interview. Only at the end did it slip out that this policy had also been carried out by Obama.
You know what would help?
If the doctors who committed fraud by registering Mexican-born babies as US-born would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law.
Andrew: I find your attempt to present a false dilemma interesting - as if it cannot be reconciled that he'd advocate one thing while still being bound to enforce the law until the law was changed. I admit it IS wildly out of character for President Pen and Phone, but still, you've basically defined the correct function of the Executive as "implement my policy preferences regardless of the law". Obama got away with that a lot, but I don't think even he could abrogate his duty to uphold EVERY law.
Wa-Po has really gone to the shitter.
There is no data in this story. How many false birth certificates were issued as admitted in the case from the 1990s?
How many active passports have been issued to people in the “border region.”?
How many were passports were denied or revoked under W and Obama and Trump?
The state department has this data.
Bezoar must pay shit wages since their reporters don’t get the facts. Talking to “immigration attorneys” and the ACLU, who don’t have the data, is pointless. The reporter can put in their histrionic reactions at the end.
I want data or it’s just more Fake News
Blogger Dave Begley said...
If being born on US soil was constitutional law and automatically made a baby a US citizen, then why did Congress have to pass a statute to make all Native Americans - born on US soil - American citizens?
It is a lot more complex than this but the short answer is 1) Many of them were not born on "American soil" but on reservations belonging not to the US but to the tribe. Reservations were considered sovereign nations.
2) It is not just being born on American soil:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
Indians, who were members of a tribal nation, were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Yes, a lot more complicated than that with lots of twists and turns and loopholes, but that is the essence of why many, not all by any means, indians were not citizens.
John Henry
That last sentence could be interpreted two ways, but I'm hoping the context made it clear which one I meant.
We’re seeing these kind of cases skyrocketing,” said Jennifer Correro, an attorney in Houston who is defending dozens of people who have been denied passports.
So it went from 1 to 2? Skyrocketing.
Dozens. No ma’am skyrocketing is going from 5300 cases of measles 2 years who to 41000.
What would help is you’re a US citizen but if you want to bring someone in, you have to submit 3 years of tax returns and agree to no filing or accepting of government aid for 5 years like we had to.
Other than claim as a dependent on your tax return.
Another immigration weeper from WaPoo.
Fraud is fraud, but the prison guard at issue seems to be a victim rather than a perp. But there were perps—his parents, perhaps. I would think that this person wasn’t picked out randomly from births in the region. There had to be some markers that led to his selection. It seems that the story must be much more complicated than the stripped-down, souped-up version offered by WaPoo.
I find it interesting the more we find out about our immigration policies the more people want to tighten it up and get rid of archaic "anchor babies" and all the other obsolete policies related to a country hungry for immigrants circa 1788.
John Henry:
Very good.
So how is it that the Asian babies born in the tourist birthing centers in CA subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Same deal with many other anchor babies.
I know there needs to be a bright line rule here, but the Left always speaks as if any baby born on US soil is automatically a US citizen. Congress could pass a statute to clear it up.
The government alleges that from the 1950s through the 1990s, some midwives and physicians along the Texas-Mexico border provided U.S. birth certificates to babies who were actually born in Mexico. In a series of federal court cases in the 1990s, several birth attendants admitted to providing fraudulent documents.
It's an "allegation" despite having been admitted openly in court?
I think at this point we can not call it an "allegation", but an admitted fact - is anyone at all denying that it happened?
(We can question how widespread it was. We can absolutely question the reasonability of the response.
But we have no grounds to question that it happened at all.)
WaPo: "U.S. is denying passports to Americans along the border, throwing their citizenship into question."
Me: Were their parent American citizens? If so, their citizenship is easy to prove
If not? They're not Americans, and getting someone to claim that they are, just because the geographical location of their birth was one mile this way, rather than one mile that way, is BS.
"Stories like this are all the proof a thinking person should need."
Not. The. Onion.
As you can see, Althouse, the problem isn't the policy itself. I'm fine with the policy. I like it. The problem is that Trump has opened himself up to all of the attacks of "racism" because of all of the idiotic, maniacal stuff he does away from some of the discrete policy issues.
Note well, readers. The fact that it is essentially true that one can equally blame the Bush43 and Obama Administrations for this policy carries with it not only the notion that Trump should not be blamed for a racist policy... It also means that Trump should not get credit for a policy that was already in effect.
All that Trump adds to the argument is his own personal brand of incendiary stupidity.
Adios, amigos.
LLR Chuck, going to bat for his lefty allies.
Who could have guessed he would do that?....besides everyone I mean...
Noted Racist Commenter Chuck: "The problem is that Trump has opened himself up to all of the attacks of "racism" because of all of the idiotic, maniacal stuff he does away from some of the discrete policy
issues."
LOL
Chuckie providing cover to his leftist allies in their smearing every single republican candidate with fake racism charges for 70 years.
The dems have always been able to count on Chuckie..
Blogger Dave Begley said...
So how is it that the Asian babies born in the tourist birthing centers in CA subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Same deal with many other anchor babies.
I assume we are not talking of mothers who have diplomatic immunity. Just regular Chinese citizens, right?
So how are these babies, and the mothers too for that matter, not subject to the jurisdiction of the US (and state and local)? They are required to pay taxes, obey laws, get permits and follow regulations just like anyone else here in the US. Legal or illegal, citizen or alien, temporary or permanent.
The 14th Amendment does not say "sole jurisdiction". It only says jurisdiction.
China can claim that, via the mother, they also have jurisdiction. As long as that baby is in the US, that claim has no meaning whatever. They have no way of enforcing jurisdiction.
The problem is not the anchor babies themselves who are under settled constitutional law natural born US citizens. Just like you. Just like me.
The problem is statutory. The problem is laws that let the Chinese (or other) mother claim rights for themselves and others because of the baby's citizenship. Most people wouldn't even have a big problem with that if it were just the mother.
The problem is that the chain keeps extending out and out to include siblings, grandparents, cousins and so on. In one case a chain of more than 60 relative in the US because of a single anchor baby. THAT is what really needs to change. That can easily be done by Congress.
The mother of that tourism baby should be required to leave the US. With or without the baby. The baby is a citizen and can't be made to leave. If it leaves, it can come back at any time in the future.
I know there needs to be a bright line rule here, but the Left always speaks as if any baby born on US soil is automatically a US citizen. Congress could pass a statute to clear it up.
Some of us not on the left say the same thing. It's been settled law for 130 years or so. I think it is a good thing to have this shiny, bright, immutable, line that defines when one is a citizen. I find the case of Germany and other countries horrifying where one can be 3-4 generations born and living in Germany and still not be a citizen.
Nope. I feel VERY strongly that anyone born in the US is and should be a citizen. No questions, no conditions, end of story. Just like the 14th Amendment says.
You say you think there should be a bright line but don't seem to think this is it. Could you suggest an alternative bright line?
BTW: Indians born in the US have always been citizens. The problem was that reservations were not considered part of the US, as sovereign nations. An indian born on a reservation was born outside of the US. I don't see how you get a connection between this and the Chinese birth tourism baby.
John Henry
Bonus trivia question:
The 14th Amendment covers people born in the United States.
How many here know the definition of "The United States" for 14th Amendment purposes?
John Henry
This is from the AP report linked by the Post about the fraudulent birth certificates. It was written in 1996:
" An undercover sting operation found midwives were being paid anywhere from $300 to $5,000 to falsify birth records for Mexican children. At least 900 fake documents have been identified.
Children of Mexican parents who are born in the United States can collect benefits such as food stamps, welfare, Medicare and Social Security, even while living in Mexico, Trevino said.
When the children turn 21, they may petition to bring their families to the United States and will receive preferential consideration because of their classification as U.S. citizens, Trevino said.
The investigation targeted 15 midwives. So far, 10 have been indicted. Nine pleaded guilty and one fled to Mexico.
Meanwhile, filings of birth records in Cameron County have decreased. They’re down 50 percent in Brownsville."
I posted that for the facts included and because it makes it clear as to how much the AP has "evolved" in the ensuing years.
WaPo earned credibility through association with the second "black" president. It's a diversity thing for leverage and profits.
The issues are disenfranchisement of native people (citizens), immigration reform (e.g. refugee crises) in lieu of emigration reform, selective-child and Planned Parenthood, and implicit tariffs arising from labor and environment arbitrage. Mexico needs to reform their own house, and stop passing through people from south of their border.
johnhenry wrote:
The problem is not the anchor babies themselves who are under settled constitutional law natural born US citizens. Just like you. Just like me.
No. I'm a US Citizen because both my parents were US citizens when I was born. Where I was born doesn't matter.
How to deal with anchor babies:
1: Having a child born in America does not give you a right to stay in America.
2: If you leave, and take your child with you, the child is not a US citizen
3: You may not legally leave your child in America when you leave, unless 1: Your child has been legally adopted by someone else who's capable of providing for your child without any gov't assistance, and 2: You lose all parental rights
Guiding principle: We The People of the United States of America own America. We have an absolute right to decide who gets to come in, and who doesn't.
We exercise that right via elections, and laws. Not by dictates from black-robed thugs
john henry:
It isn't *settled* law. It is only settled because the Left says it is settled. Just like the fact that we are all going to burn up or drown in 20 years due to the settled science. Just like it was settled that Hillary was going to win.
The case has never been squarely presented to SCOTUS. I read a law review article on it.
And Congress thought it was necessary to pass a statute to make Indians citizens. Thurston County, Nebraska is part of the United States and also home to an Indian reservation.
The Chinese birth centers are tourist things. A prego mom flys into CA at 7-8 months, gives birth and then jets back to China. She's a tourist. She's not under the jurisdiction of the United States.
"If you support Trump at this point, you support a racist.
Fine. I'm a racist.
Next.
Blogger Greg P said...
Guiding principle: We The People of the United States of America own America. We have an absolute right to decide who gets to come in, and who doesn't.
Amen, amen and amen.
We exercise that right via elections, and laws. Not by dictates from black-robed thugs
Elections and laws, sure. But first and foremost by the Constitution. If you do not like the idea of birthright citizenship, change the constitution. I do not see how it could be any clearer than this:
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.
What is it about this that you do not understand?
Why do think it is a problem?
It sounds like you want to be one of the ones wearing the black robes dictating it your way and contrary to the Constitution.
I think we are in agreement about the problem of the citizen baby bringing in non-citizen relatives. That can be changed tomorrow by statute. Perhaps even by executive order.
Blogger Dave Begley said...
john henry:
It isn't *settled* law. It is only settled because the Left says it is settled.
Sheesh, Dave. Are you calling me a leftist?
I've been called a lot of things here. Even had a death threat. I don't think anyone has called me a leftist before.
I think that you will find that the reservation in Thurston county is NOT part of the US. I think you will find that it is sovereign and NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US. That has been eroding over the past 50-100 years and is not as absolute as it once was. I think you will still find that Thurston County and Nebraska and the US have little jurisdiction over the reservation.
As for the Chinese tourist, So what? What difference does her status make? Are you saying that somehow she is not subject to every single law and regulation just as you and I would be? If she steals a car, we just say "Oh, a tourist, huh? It's OK then."
Tell me one way in which she is NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
John Henry
Blogger Dave Begley said...
The case has never been squarely presented to SCOTUS. I read a law review article on it.
Wow! A law review article on it. I've read dozens over the past 30 years if that makes a difference.
More importantly, I've read United States v. Wong Kim Ark where the Supreme Court decided that because he had been born in the US, Wong Kim Ark was a US citizen.
You could look it up but I'll save you the trouble. Here's the text of the decision:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
John Henry
@John Henry:Tell me one way in which she is NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
All depends on what you mean by "jurisdiction". Common law denied all kinds of rights and privileges to aliens because they owe allegiance to a foreign power.
A tourist on a visa has a much narrower set of rights, privileges, and obligations than a permanent resident or a citizen because of that.
If "jursidiction" means "they have to obey US law while they are here" then the phrase "subject to the jursidiction thereof" is completely redundant. Even diplomats have to obey US law. It's not legal for them to murder and they can be arrested--so aren't they "subject to jurisdiction" according to the argument you are making? If they are, then who isn't if they are actually physically present in US territory?
"On 14 May 2011, Strauss-Kahn was arrested and charged with the sexual assault and attempted rape of 32-year-old Nafissatou Diallo, a housekeeper at the Sofitel New York Hotel in the Manhattan borough earlier that day. After calling the hotel and asking them to bring his missing cell phone to the airport, he was met by police and taken from his Paris-bound flight at New York City's John F. Kennedy International Airport minutes before takeoff and was later charged on several counts of sexual assault plus unlawful imprisonment. Strauss-Kahn was accused of four felony charges—two of criminal sexual acts (forcing the housekeeper to perform oral sex on him), one of attempted rape and one of sexual abuse—plus three misdemeanor offences, including unlawful imprisonment.[12][13]
The U.S. State Department determined that Strauss Kahn's diplomatic immunity did not apply to the case."
>>We exercise that right via elections, and laws. Not by dictates from black-robed thugs
The black robed thugs disagree, and dictate accordingly.
Hawaii once recognized "certificate of life birth" in lieu of birth certificates. There is more than one way to indulge corruption of the system and disenfranchise a nation's population.
The Constitution addresses two parties: "We the People" and "our Posterity" (i.e. fetuses, offspring, babies, and human life at a later evolutionary stage). It establishes a legal jurisdiction where people are native by virtue of reproduction (i.e. mother and father are citizens) and naturalization. Non-citizens are subject to statutory laws and regulations that are subordinate to the Constitution, and do not confer equal or greater civil rights to alien people.
John Henry:
I wasn't calling you a Leftist, but the Left wants open borders and everything.
I'm familiar with Wong Kim Ark and I don't think it is as clear as you think. I'm not reading it today.
As to Thurston County, the county seat is Pender. For years and years, everyone thought Pender was not on the reservation. Then 2-3 years ago, SCOTUS (J. Thomas) wrote that Pender was on the reservation but there would have to be a trial to determine if the Tribe had exercised jurisdiction in Pender.
I think the law is that all of the residents of Thurston County - regardless of race - are citizens of the United States and have been since Congress passed the statute. The Tribe has jurisdiction - as a sovereign - over its enrolled members and anyone else on its real estate (except the state and county roads). The former county attorney told me this.
The assistant AG that argued the SCOTUS case wrote in his brief that the Tribe only allows Indians to vote in its elections. White and black people can't vote even the though the Tribe wants to tax businesses in Pender. A racial test for voting!
I spent a lot of time in Pender so that's why I know this stuff.
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.
Children of diplomats are not granted citizenship. Because they are subject to the jurisdiction of their country of origin. Since there is no specific cutout for diplomat children, they follow the same laws as all other children born of foreign parents.
I don't see what is so hard to understand about this.
"If you support Trump at this point, you support a racist. Pure and simple. Stories like this are all the proof a thinking person should need. You may not be a racist yourself, but you support one - and at some point, there ceases to be a meaningful difference."
Twenty years ago someone calling me a racist would have gotten my back up, and I would have angrily responded that I participated in Civil Rights demonstrations and what have they done for equality. These days I just shrug. You want to call me a racist? FUCK YOU. Morgan Freeman wants to call me a racist because I opposed Barack Obama? I don't have to watch his movies, do I?
Blogger Gabriel said...
All depends on what you mean by "jurisdiction". Common law denied all kinds of rights and privileges to aliens because they owe allegiance to a foreign power.
No idea why you are bringing up rights and privileges, as they seem mostly unrelated to "jurisdiction". Could we agree on this as a definition?
The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law, or to award the remedies provided by law, upon a state of facts, proved or admitted, referred to the tribunal for decision, and authorized by law to be the subject of investigation or action by that tribunal, and in favor of or against persons (or a res) who present themselves, or who are brought, before the court in some manner sanctioned by law as proper and sufficient. 1 Black, Judgm.
https://thelawdictionary.org/jurisdiction/
So I think we would agree that the Chinese woman, and especially the baby born here, would be under US jurisdiction.
As for Strauss-Kahn, he is an odd example for you to bring up:
1) He was not a diplomat but an employee of the IMF. He had only limited, work related, immunity from US law
2) He waived even this limited immunity for the criminal charges.
3) He tried to invoke immunity for the civil charges but by the time the suit was filed, he was no longer an IMF employee and had lost even his limited immunity.
As for diplomatic immunity, the State Dept publishes a 52 page guide for US police on diplomatic immunity. "Diplomatic and Consular Immunity:Guidance for Law Enforcement
and Judicial Authorities"
They define it thusly:
Diplomatic immunity is a principle of international law by which certain foreign government officials are not subject to the jurisdiction of local courts and other authorities for both their official and, to a large extent, their personal activities.
It can be pretty absolute:
Diplomatic agents enjoy the highest degree of privileges and immunities. They enjoy
complete personal inviolability, which means that they may not be handcuffed (except
in extraordinary circumstances), arrested, or detained; and neither their property (including vehicles) nor residences may be entered or searched. Diplomatic agents also
enjoy complete immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the host country’s courts and thus cannot be prosecuted no matter how serious the offense unless their immunity waived by the sending state
....
(Emphasis added)
Same section, a couple paragraphs on:
Family members forming part of the household of diplomatic agents enjoy precisely the same privileges and immunities as do the sponsoring diplomatic agents.
This would be the baby born to the wife of the immune diplomat. The baby would not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US and thus not a citizen.
https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/150546.pdf
My guess is that if Strauss Kahn's wife had a baby while in the US, it would have been "subject to the jurisdiction..." and a natural born citizen since his immunities did not seem to extend to his wife or bairn.
John Henry
In any event, Gabriel, David and anyone else, why is birthright citizenship a problem?
It is just not that big a problem.
Do away with the ability to chain immigration around that baby and it seems like it would largely go away. We might have 20-30,000 babies born to illegals but surely in a country our size we can deal with that.
Doing away with chain migration is easy. Congress can pass a law tomorrow. Why does nobody ever talk about it except in the context of doing away with birthright citizenship?
Why do you not talk about ending chain migration?
The baby being a citizen should not give the mother any special considerations for citizenship.
I'll believe you are serious about thinking it's a problem when you start acting like you think it's a problem. As a wise man said in another context.
John Henry
Blogger Dave Begley said...
I wasn't calling you a Leftist, but the Left wants open borders and everything.
I know, I was complaining tongue in cheek. But I really don't see it as a left/right issue. There are plenty on the right that want open borders. Liberals (libertarians) want open borders.
I think the law is that all of the residents of Thurston County - regardless of race - are citizens of the United States and have been since Congress passed the statute. The Tribe has jurisdiction - as a sovereign - over its enrolled members and anyone else on its real estate (except the state and county roads). The former county attorney told me this.
That is how I would understand it generally, though there were different treaties with different tribes and some reservations are different from others. But, generally, sovereign and not subject to the laws of the US. (A very general statement with lots of twists and turns in actual practice)
A racial test for voting!
Again, on the reservation, the laws of the US and Nebraska don't generally apply.
We could go down an interesting rabbithole on Indian ethnicity but probably should not. It is based on tribal membership, not blood and the tribe gets to decide who is and is not a member. So it may not be a "racial" test.
(Caveat regarding broad generalization etc)
John Henry
I spent a lot of time in Pender so that's why I know this stuff.
Blogger becauseIdbefired said...
Children of diplomats are not granted citizenship. Because they are subject to the jurisdiction of their country of origin.
You have it bassackward. They are not granted citizenship not because they are subject to foreign jurisdication.
They are not granted citizenship because they are NOT subject to US jurisdiction, having diplomatic immunity via the parent(s)
I don't see what is so hard to understand about this.
Me either.
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.
And your objection to birthright citizenship is?
John Henry
Blogger Big Mike said...
Morgan Freeman wants to call me a racist because I opposed Barack Obama?
GOD calls you a racist and you don't pay attention?
Heathen.
John Henry
Interesting thing about Strauss Khan who helped him smooth over the events in new,york, well three former?? Intelligence operatives, one of whom had been burned by the Argentine govt and later was a major player in the drone program
They are not granted citizenship not because they are subject to foreign jurisdication. They are not granted citizenship because they are NOT subject to US jurisdiction, having diplomatic immunity via the parent(s)
Show me where in the constitution is says something about "diplomatic immunity."
Diplomatic "immunity" is a matter of US law outside the constitution.
That means the constitution does not grant citizenship rights just because you happened to be born on our territory, and whether or not you are is a matter of US law.
Blogger johnhenry100 said...
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.
What is it about this that you do not understand?
Why do think it is a problem?
1: If their parents are here as tourists, then they do not reside in a State. If they do not reside in a State, that "and" becomes interesting.
2: What about my proposal was unconstitutional? If their parents leave, and take them with them, and we rule as a matter of law that doing so forfeits the US Citizenship of their minor child, how is that unconstitutional?
3: The story this is all about is about Mexicans who claim they managed to sneak in to get their child born in the US, then they took their child back to Mexico, but expected the US & Texas to provide them with welfare, etc.
A: Fuck them
B: They're not in any real sense Americans. They live in Mexico, their parents are Mexicans, their first language is Mexican accented Spanish.
In general, the US is far better off without them
My feeble recollection is that while the underlying rule is pre-Trump, the execution has been ramped up. Before: It was something that could happen, the rejection of the passport or whatever. Now it's being done with a presumption that the citizens aren't citizens. The execution's new (and disgusting); the rule is not. If the WaPo covered it as a new rule, not a change in execution or implementation, they're wrong. If the opposite, they're right.
Note, too, that the WaPo is essentially a clickbait operation now And, you know, with the fire hosing of posts or news stories or whatever, sloppiness and mistakes are assured. And what's funny about that is that the generation presumably turned on by that fire hosing isn't. This crap is a short term solution. The entire mainstream media's audience for news is dying off.
Post a Comment