Birthright Citizenship Opponents Should Not Rely on 14th Amendment Congressional Debates

Opponents of birthright citizenship often cite fragments of the congressional debate over the Fourteen Amendment’s Citizenship Clause to argue that the amendment’s drafters intended to exclude the children of visiting foreigners.

However, reliance on these fragments is a mistake.

Opponents of birthright citizenship face a number of difficulties that have encouraged them to rely on those fragments. Among them:

* Language in the earlier Civil Rights Bill clearly excluding foreigners was deleted from the amendment. This change was not, as sometimes claimed, necessary to exclude tribal Indians.

* Any interpretation that excluded foreigners would undercut the principal purpose of the Citizenship Clause. That purpose was to grant citizenship to the newly freed slaves and their children. For reasons explained below, most (perhaps all) of those slaves were technically foreigners.

* As I explained recently, in two cases the U.S. Supreme Court has decided that the Citizenship Clause’s term “subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction” means subject to the English common law doctrine of “allegiance.” In general, that doctrine recognizes most children born in a country as natural born citizens, including the children of visiting foreigners. And in the more crucial case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the allegiance rationale was central to the holding, not mere “dicta” as sometimes asserted.

The best way to counter these problems would be to uncover evidence that state legislatures ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment understood “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to exclude foreign visitors and their children. It is the understanding of, or meaning to, the ratifiers -- not the intent of the drafters -- that carries most weight in constitutional questions. Fragments from the congressional debates are not only weak evidence of meaning, but relying on them may be counterproductive.

The two most cited congressional comments are those by Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan and Senator Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, both proponents of the amendment. Howard’s comments have been taken as excluding all resident foreigners from the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction.” Trumbull said that the phrase meant “Not owing allegiance to anyone else.”

But anyone who reads Senator Howard’s comment in context can see that it actually is ambiguous. He said the amendment’s phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” would exclude:

persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of embassadors [sic] or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.

This could mean that the exclusion covers “foreigners and aliens and those who belong to the families of ambassadors.” But also could mean “foreigners [or] aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors.” (Remember that the punctuation was not Howard’s, but the shorthand reporter’s.)

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading.....

USCIS Denies That Modifications to Oath of Allegiance Flout the Law

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has denied that the modifications to military service requirements in the Oath of Allegiance published on July 21 flout the law, despite harsh criticism from immigration experts and members of Congress.

“Candidates for citizenship normally declare that they will ‘bear arms on behalf of the United States’ and ‘perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States’ when required by law,” stated USCIS on July 21. “A candidate may be eligible to exclude these two clauses based on religious training and belief or a conscientious objection.”

The new guidelines, which appear under the heading “Modifications to Oath of Allegiance for Naturalization,” state that a candidate “is not required to belong to a specific church or religion, follow a particular theology or belief, or to have had religious training in order to qualify,” and “may submit, but is not required to provide, an attestation from a religious or other type of organization, as well as other evidence to establish eligibility.”

Immigration experts and some on Capitol Hill say that this represents a substantive change, and a bill has been introduced in Congress to roll back USCIS’s actions.

Christopher Bentley, the chief of media relations at USCIS, denies that the changes are at odds with the law, and says that the July 22 message was meant for internal use by USCIS employees.

“There are no changes, the law has been quite clear since 1952 that modifications are allowed should individuals have religious-based or conscientious objector-based objections to saying those parts of the Oath of Allegiance,” said Bentley. “So that’s always been the case and people have always been allowed to in essence opt out of saying that if they have those firmly held beliefs.”

Bentley said that this new guidance was not meant to be a public announcement, but rather an internal announcement to USCIS officers. Because the agency wants to be transparent as possible, Bentley says they let the public know what was in the policy manual.

“That policy manual was intended for our employees to help make sure that they’re making consistent decisions in immigration cases as opposed to informing the public of something writ large—we weren’t doing that, we were making sure that our employees understood so they could make good decisions.”

Bentley says that immigrants still have to be able to document that the objection is a firmly held belief.

Via: WFB

Continue Reading....

SEN. TOM COTTON: CHANGES TO CITIZENSHIP OATH ‘UNDERMINES WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A CITIZEN’

The Obama administration’s changes to the Oath of Allegiance for new citizens erodes its very meaning, according to 

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR)

60%

.

“The Obama Administration’s announced changes to the Oath of Allegiance undermines what it means to be a citizen of the United States,” Cotton said in statement.

Tuesday, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced it was altering the eligibility requirements for modifications to the Oath of Allegiance. Namely, while immigrants seeking to become citizens are usually required to declare they will “bear arms on behalf of the United States” and “perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States,” the new guidance now allows for not only those with religious objections but also people with a strongly held beliefs to omit those portions.

Specifically the guidance says that citizenship candidates:

-May be eligible for modifications based on religious training and belief, or conscientious objection arising from a deeply held moral or ethical code.

-Is not required to belong to a specific church or religion, follow a particular theology or belief, or to have had religious training in order to qualify.

-May submit, but is not required to provide, an attestation from a religious or other type of organization, as well as other evidence to establish eligibility.

Cotton in his statement this week  highlighted his family and his personal experience with and in the military.

“Growing up in Dardanelle I learned from an early age that freedom isn’t free. I knew my dad and many of his friends had put their lives on hold to serve during the Vietnam War,” he said. “When they returned home they didn’t ask for glory or recognition; in their minds they were simply doing their patriotic duty. Their service is partially what inspired me to join the Army after September 11th and to volunteer for a second deployment to Afghanistan.”

According to Cotton, this sense of service should be universal to all Americans.

“All citizens of the United States—native or naturalized—should have that same of sense of patriotism and duty,” he said.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading...

Union concerned House will join Senate in sweeping immigration reform

A union representing hundreds of federal Citizenship and Immigration Services employees is concerned that House leaders will abandon the Republican-led chamber’s incremental approach toward illegal-immigration reform for the sweeping changes passed in the “extremely dangerous” Senate bill.

“I worry the House may be following a similar path,” Kenneth Palinkas, president of the National Citizenship and Immigration Services Council, said recently.

Palinkas said the union’s major concerns are that House leaders might be trying to “advance proposals to open citizenship benefits to the majority of those here illegally, in combination with proposals to expand visa programs.” 

He said the union also is concerned that House and Senate members will meet -- in what is known on Capitol Hill as “conference” -- to merge or “blend” the House bill “with the extremely dangerous Senate bill.”

Palinkas said the union is basing its concerns in part on media reports about Republican Reps. Paul Ryan, Wis.; Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Va.; Bob Goodlatte, Va., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Illinois Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez.

Goodlatte could not be reached for comment Sunday. However, his stated stance on immigration reform is that the system is “broken” and that the way for Congress to remedy the problem is to “methodically look at each of the various components that need to be fixed and take any final bill through the traditional legislative process.”

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading......