Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
citizenship is not a birth right

By opendna in Politics
Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 07:06:06 PM EST
Tags: politics, citizenship, 14th Amendment, birth right (all tags)
Politics

While checking out an immigration diary at Red State, rehoboam tipped me off to a very, very interesting article in the Washington Post, authored by George Will and entitled "An argument to be made about immigrant babies and citizenship" (March 28, 2010). George Will's argument is that

To end the practice of "birthright citizenship," all that is required is to correct the misinterpretation of that amendment's first sentence: "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." From these words has flowed the practice of conferring citizenship on children born here to illegal immigrants.
Mr. Will is an intelligent man, and his article draws on the authority of Dr. Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school, so this argument they've put forward deserves scrutiny and consideration. I'm not a constitutional scholar, by any means, but you and I both know how to read so let's investigate this claim.


Both gentlemen start with the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This is interesting history, no doubt, but the relevance to the interpretation of the text of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified two years later, is neither compelling nor convincing. Engage with it if you like, but I consider it a curious but irrelevant digression into textual analysis of repealed legislation (the credibility of their historiography, incidentally, will be thrown into doubt shortly). We're interested in the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and these gentlemen have weightier evidence to present. George Will's article rests on claims made by Dr. Graglia in his recent article entitled "Citizenship for Children of Illegal Aliens" (Texas Review of Law & Politics. vol 14 no 1. Fall 2009). Graglia's article uses a selective reading of Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) to argue that the US federal government has the discretion to grant or deny birth right citizenship. Dr. Graglia writes of Elk v. Wilkins:
The decision seemed to establish that American citizenship is not an ascriptive (depending on place of birth), but is a consensual relation, requiring the consent of the United States as well as the individual. This would clearly settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. There cannot be a more total or forceful denial of consent to a person's citizenship than to make the source of that person's presence in the nation illegal. (p.9)
If we are to accept or reject Dr. Graglia's argument, we should first determine if we agree with his representation of the case. Here is the wikipedia page about the Elk v. Wilkins and an HTML version from Justia. Dr. Graglia uses clear and intelligible language to explain that Elk v. Wilkins establishes that someone born within the borders of the United States is not a citizen by birth. This is literally true, but even a cursory reading of the SCOTUS's ruling reveals that the professor has over-simplified to the point of deception. Take this passage, from the syllabus of the case:
An Indian, born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, which still exists and is recognized as a tribe by the government of the United States, who has voluntarily separated himself from his tribe, and taken up his residence among the white citizens of a state, but who has not been naturalized, or taxed, or recognized as a citizen either by the United States or by the state, is not a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment of the Constitution. (Elk v. Wilkins, Syllabus)
If we assert that the italicized text is irrelevant verbosity on the part of the court, then the bolded text suggests that Dr. Graglia's argument (and Mr. Will's article) are well founded. However, the fact that the Court felt this characteristic (being born to an Indian tribe) was significant enough to not only include in the Syllabus, but lay as a foundational issue in the description of the plaintiff's case, suggests it might have some significance. I can't say that the import of being born to an Indian tribe is immediately clear but the Supreme Court saw fit to explain:
Under the Constitution of the United States as originally established, "Indians not taxed" were excluded from the persons according to whose numbers representatives and direct taxes were apportioned among the several states, and Congress had and exercised the power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes, and the members thereof, whether within or without the boundaries of one of the states of the Union. The Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states, but they were alien nations, distinct political communities, with whom the United States might and habitually did deal as they thought fit, either through treaties made by the President and Senate or through acts of Congress in the ordinary forms of legislation. The members of those tribes owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes, and were not part of the people of the United States. (Page 112 U. S. 99)...General acts of Congress did not apply to Indians unless so expressed as to clearly manifest an intention to include them.(Page 112 U. S. 100)
This case was brought by plaintiff John Elk, who was born to such an alien nation, left his tribe, severed ties, moved to live among the white man and sought to claim citizenship under the 14th Amendment and was denied the right to vote. The court denied his claim because:
Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations. (Page 112 U. S. 102)
Ok. That's pretty clear. Indians are recognized as a sovereign (if not foreign) nation who's members have not more claim to US citizenship than subjects born in a foreign domain. Like, you know, France. How is this in any way equivalent to the child of a sovereign domain born in the United States? It's not. Dr. Graglia approvingly quotes from the third to last paragraph (bottom of page 177) where SCOTUS approvingly quotes Judge Deady from another case:
"But an Indian cannot make himself a citizen of the United States without the consent and co-operation of the Government. The fact that he has abandoned his nomadic life or tribal relations, and adopted the habits and manners of civilized people, may be a good reason why he should be made a citizen of the United States, but does not of itself make him one. To be a citizen of the United States is a political privilege which no one, not born to, can assume without its consent in some form."
In a creative use of grammar, Dr. Graglia reads this passage as "To be a citizen of the United States is a political privilege which no one can assume without its consent in some form," conveniently omitting the cravat "not born to." The whole sentence, again, so that our local Grammar Nazis can revel in the power of ignoring two commas:
To be a citizen of the United States is a political privilege which no one, not born to, can assume without its consent in some form.
Does SCOTUS have anything else to say on the matter? Is it possible that Dr. Graglia and Mr. Will are correct that the question of foreigners giving birth in the United States was a question un-contemplated when the 14th Amendment was ratified? Well, no. Dr. Graglia helpfully provides United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the syllabus of which reads:
A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution
Dr. Graglia dismisses this case as an illegitimate aberration of American jurisprudence which relies on alien common law without domestic tradition. The reader is welcome is welcome to review United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), a veritable bibliography of support for birth right citizenship. Among the "alien" common law decisions used by the court to decide this case:
Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor, 28 U. S. 99 (1830) In negotiation the question of the disposition of an estate of a man born in New York in 1776, the Court resolves complicated questions of how citizenship was derived during the War of Independence. The court finds (38 years before the 14th Amendment) that jus soli is so consistent in American law as to automatically grant American citizenship to children born in New York City between July 4 1976 and September 15, 1776, but not to children born in that city during the British occupation which followed September 15th of that year.
"Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.." Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor, 28 U. S. 99 (1830)
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U. S. 162 (1874) In deciding the claim of a woman denied the right to vote in Missouri, the Court recognized that within common law "there have been doubts" as to whether to "include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents". The court found that women were unquestionably citizens, whether by birth or naturalization, and that
"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." Minor v. Happersett, 88 U. S. 162 (1874) (Italics in the original.)
Writing six years after the 14th Amendment, the Court ruled that "the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone, and that the constitutions and laws of the several states which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void". The astute historian might note that as of 1870 the 15th Amendment had been ratified, and section one read that "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." That the court may have erred in writing that the Constitution "does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone" is self evident, but the question of denying the right to vote on the basis of sex was not resolved until the 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920.
There are, of course, many, many more cases, which the reader is welcome to review at their leisure. At 2100 words, my time is up.

In conclusion, there is more evidence in US Supreme Court rulings, before and after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, to support birth right citizenship than to support the right of citizens to vote, or the right of transnationationals to own private property. Claims seeking to redefine the 14th Amendment, made by Dr. Graglia, of the University of Texas, and propagated by George Will, of the Washington Post, rely on misrepresentations of a SCOTUS ruling which does not, in fact, support their position. Whether these misrepresentations were the result of malice or incompetence I cannot divine. However, I would respectfully suggest that, by leveraging their social position to propagate these errors, they have undermined the US Constitution in the minds of the citizenry, to the detriment of the Republic and our political culture.

It is a rare power to be able to de-educate one's audience, and a true scandal to see it exercised by a nationally recognized journalist and a university professor. But there you go: that's how the grown-ups roll these days.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o rehoboam tipped me off
o An argument to be made about immigrant babies and citizenship
o Texas Review of Law & Politics
o wikipedia page
o HTML version
o Page 112 U. S. 99
o Page 112 U. S. 100
o Page 112 U. S. 102
o United States v. Wong Kim Ark
o Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor, 28 U. S. 99 (1830)
o jus soli
o Minor v. Happersett, 88 U. S. 162 (1874)
o 15th Amendment
o 19th Amendment
o Also by opendna


Display: Sort:
citizenship is not a birth right | 81 comments (62 topical, 19 editorial, 0 hidden)
Are you a C-section baby? (2.00 / 6) (#2)
by sye on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 10:53:32 AM EST

If you are, your dream of becoming US president is vanished according to US constitution requirement of 'a natural born'. Also, McCain was born abroad. So his natural right is in question as well. To be on the safe side, Obama did a second swear-in after Chief Justice Roberts messed up the first one, misplacing 'faithfully' out of its place. just FYI. btw, your nick 'opendna' is quite dumb. Is it a Christian name now?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
commentary - For a better sye@K5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ripple me ~~> ~allthingsgo: gateway to Garden of Perfect Brightess in CNY/BTC/LTC/DRK
rubbing u ~~> ~procrasti: getaway to HE'LL
Hey! at least he was in a stable relationship. - procrasti
enter K5 via Blastar.in

Yer a treasure, ain't ya? (3.00 / 2) (#43)
by opendna on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 05:35:17 PM EST

I'm happy to see the MacBeth interpretation of the 'natural born' clause still making the rounds. I'm sure I didn't invent it, but I did my part to spread it around a few years ago. Why the hell would I choose a "Christian name" for a handle?

[ Parent ]
my understanding is that France tried (2.33 / 3) (#4)
by Morally Inflexible on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 02:29:54 PM EST

keeping some of it's immigrants citizenship-less, and it seems to be ending in tears (and burning cars) for all involved.

Having multiple generations of people on our soil who are barred from legal employment seems like a really bad idea, just because if it's impossible for a person to work legally, that person will often choose to work illegally.  


citizenship is MORE than a working permit (none / 0) (#8)
by sye on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 06:01:58 PM EST

Legal residents / permanent residents can all obtain working permits without applying to be a citizen.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
commentary - For a better sye@K5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ripple me ~~> ~allthingsgo: gateway to Garden of Perfect Brightess in CNY/BTC/LTC/DRK
rubbing u ~~> ~procrasti: getaway to HE'LL
Hey! at least he was in a stable relationship. - procrasti
enter K5 via Blastar.in
[ Parent ]

can they? (none / 0) (#10)
by Morally Inflexible on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 06:27:33 PM EST

If so, then yeah, that could solve the primary problem, assuming that getting a work permit wasn't too difficult.  but will a country that won't grant citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants grant them work permits?  

Work permits as they stand now, also, are inferior to citizenship.  If an H1B gets fired, he's got what, two weeks to find a new job or leave the country?  that seems pretty messed up to me.  

[ Parent ]

AN H1B isn't the be all and end of all of work (none / 0) (#11)
by sholden on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 06:38:13 PM EST

permits.

My work permit does not expire based on me having a job or not, for example.

The only practical inferiority for me over citizenship is that I don't get to vote and I suspect some government jobs would be off limits. On the plus side, I'm not allowed to vote and I'm not allowed to do jury duty.

--
The world's dullest web page


[ Parent ]
this is somewhat relevant to my interests. (none / 1) (#16)
by Morally Inflexible on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 08:04:09 PM EST

(right now, I'm mining the south;   there are plenty of cheap Americans to be had.)  

What type of visa are you on?   I've got a buddy in India that I worked with at yahoo I wouldn't mind importing, if I could do so cheaply.  

[ Parent ]

a green card (none / 0) (#28)
by sholden on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 02:34:40 AM EST

neither cheap nor easy, but it's also overkill for just a work visa.

--
The world's dullest web page


[ Parent ]
My indian professor once told me (none / 0) (#15)
by sye on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 08:02:08 PM EST

'You are NOT eligible for DOE grants because you are from a communist country.' In the end, I went to the Dean of Engineering school and discovered that I don't HAVE to write thesis under this Indian ;Lord'ship in order to obtain my M.E degree from the University of Old Dominion.  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
commentary - For a better sye@K5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ripple me ~~> ~allthingsgo: gateway to Garden of Perfect Brightess in CNY/BTC/LTC/DRK
rubbing u ~~> ~procrasti: getaway to HE'LL
Hey! at least he was in a stable relationship. - procrasti
enter K5 via Blastar.in
[ Parent ]

lol what! (none / 0) (#17)
by lostincali on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 08:06:45 PM EST

you went to ODU??

"The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
[ Parent ]

I'm told by friends (none / 1) (#19)
by Morally Inflexible on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 08:24:42 PM EST

that many local defence contractors are full of Chinese accents.  

[ Parent ]
not for anything requiring a clearance (none / 0) (#25)
by lostincali on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 12:20:44 AM EST

and not anywhere near ITAR-restricted software, either.

"The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
[ Parent ]

eh, this is just what I hear (none / 1) (#34)
by Morally Inflexible on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 09:46:12 AM EST

It's not like they'll let me in those places.  I, too, was born of communists.  

[ Parent ]
you're not a US citizen? (none / 0) (#38)
by lostincali on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 12:51:20 PM EST


"The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
[ Parent ]

I am a citizen. (none / 0) (#39)
by Morally Inflexible on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 01:18:43 PM EST

For that matter, even if only direct decendents of people who were US residents when the USA was created, I'd still be in;  I can trace one branch of my family back to George Mason, a man less famous than he would have been otherwise, as he refused to sign the constitution because when it was created, it did not include the bill of rights.  

I was born in Missouri, on some hippie commune  - now I kindof doubt that would stop me from getting a clearance, but I still joke about it.  

[ Parent ]

wow. I was just posting about George Mason (none / 0) (#40)
by sye on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 02:51:44 PM EST

two delegates from Virginia and one from MA did NOT sign and refuse to 'witness' the completed US Constitution in 1787 convention. Hardcore anti-federalism and anti-communism, for sure...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
commentary - For a better sye@K5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ripple me ~~> ~allthingsgo: gateway to Garden of Perfect Brightess in CNY/BTC/LTC/DRK
rubbing u ~~> ~procrasti: getaway to HE'LL
Hey! at least he was in a stable relationship. - procrasti
enter K5 via Blastar.in
[ Parent ]

uhh right (none / 0) (#45)
by lostincali on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 06:43:45 PM EST

it's sort of difficult to be anti-communist before communism as a philosophy existed.

"The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
[ Parent ]

aren't Germans all mother-fuckers? // (none / 1) (#46)
by sye on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 07:27:06 PM EST


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
commentary - For a better sye@K5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ripple me ~~> ~allthingsgo: gateway to Garden of Perfect Brightess in CNY/BTC/LTC/DRK
rubbing u ~~> ~procrasti: getaway to HE'LL
Hey! at least he was in a stable relationship. - procrasti
enter K5 via Blastar.in
[ Parent ]

you've exceeded my non sequitor limit (3.00 / 2) (#47)
by lostincali on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 07:33:58 PM EST

thread terminated

"The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
[ Parent ]

are you sure those Chinese accents (none / 0) (#32)
by sye on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 09:09:46 AM EST

aren't speaking Jewish Chinese?

'Jewcentricity' is a funny history book. Highly recommended by sye.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
commentary - For a better sye@K5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ripple me ~~> ~allthingsgo: gateway to Garden of Perfect Brightess in CNY/BTC/LTC/DRK
rubbing u ~~> ~procrasti: getaway to HE'LL
Hey! at least he was in a stable relationship. - procrasti
enter K5 via Blastar.in
[ Parent ]

Aiya oy vey (none / 0) (#55)
by Scrymarch on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 10:33:26 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Citizenship /= work permit (none / 0) (#23)
by opendna on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 10:51:49 PM EST

Immigrants (those with Green Cards) and Nationals (but not citizens) are automatically allowed to live and work in the US.

[ Parent ]
I thought that green cards were issued (none / 0) (#24)
by Morally Inflexible on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 11:07:02 PM EST

randomly, and that so few were issued that you are likely to wait years to get one?  

[ Parent ]
That's only one kind. (none / 0) (#44)
by opendna on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 05:44:00 PM EST

Green cards are issued for family relations, business needs, investors, exceptional sportsmen or academics, national security needs....

You're thinking of the Diversity Visas, which are a lottery. Yes, they're random but they also bias towards countries which have the fewest number of immigrants to the US. If you're (for example) Swiss, you have a better chance than someone from China. (Actually, I think China and India have been removed from the pools because those countries are so over-represented in the immigrant population.)

Usually, the multi-year wait is because of the enormous backlog. The bureaucracy is more or less overwhelmed depending on how well funded it is. The wait usually decreases during Democratic administrations and increases during Republican administrations, in direct relation to the funding priority.

[ Parent ]
non-citizen has the right to be apolitical (none / 0) (#9)
by sye on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 06:24:39 PM EST

Non-citizen also enjoy no jury duties. It is a win-win for many people who love peace more than justice.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
commentary - For a better sye@K5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ripple me ~~> ~allthingsgo: gateway to Garden of Perfect Brightess in CNY/BTC/LTC/DRK
rubbing u ~~> ~procrasti: getaway to HE'LL
Hey! at least he was in a stable relationship. - procrasti
enter K5 via Blastar.in
[ Parent ]

Huh. I am not fully aware of all the (none / 1) (#12)
by Morally Inflexible on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 07:20:55 PM EST

work visas available to non-citizens.   The H1B, the one I am familiar with, is pretty shitty.  

[ Parent ]
plenty of US business persons hire alien workers (none / 0) (#13)
by sye on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 07:49:36 PM EST

They like the fact that alien workers have no mobility as far as the employment contract goes. US laws are quite liberal as far as P2P small business goes if one is willing to do paperwork himself or hire a helper or just pay money under the table. 'If there is a will, there is a way' - street wise.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
commentary - For a better sye@K5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ripple me ~~> ~allthingsgo: gateway to Garden of Perfect Brightess in CNY/BTC/LTC/DRK
rubbing u ~~> ~procrasti: getaway to HE'LL
Hey! at least he was in a stable relationship. - procrasti
enter K5 via Blastar.in
[ Parent ]

I can hire people who are not in the us, sure. (none / 0) (#14)
by Morally Inflexible on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 08:01:23 PM EST

but my understanding is that hiring aliens who live in the us without the proper (and expensive) paperwork would net me some pretty hefty penalties.  

[ Parent ]
if you do Int. trade and regularly travel to China (none / 0) (#18)
by sye on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 08:08:15 PM EST

It is NOT that hard to hire someone and obtain H1B visa for him. But he has to be quite important to your business at a much personal level. It requires you to prove that you can't find someone like him in the US. The cost? pay newspaper ads for certain period of time. But of couse, IRS' quota system put a time-limit on how soon you may get him from another country.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
commentary - For a better sye@K5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ripple me ~~> ~allthingsgo: gateway to Garden of Perfect Brightess in CNY/BTC/LTC/DRK
rubbing u ~~> ~procrasti: getaway to HE'LL
Hey! at least he was in a stable relationship. - procrasti
enter K5 via Blastar.in
[ Parent ]

Simplicity in itself (none / 1) (#49)
by Ruston Rustov on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 09:44:06 PM EST

GET THEM THE FUCK OFF OUR SOIL

I had had incurable open sores all over my feet for sixteen years. The doctors were powerless to do anything about it. I told my psychiatrist that they were psychosomatic Stigmata - the Stigmata are the wounds Jesus suffered when he was nailed to the cross. Three days later all my sores were gone. -- Michael Crawford
Maybe tomorrow. -- Michael Crawford
As soon as she has her first period, fuck your daughter. -- localroger

[ Parent ]
The Americans? (none / 0) (#51)
by opendna on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 09:58:38 PM EST

Are you giving me the "Who're you calling an illegal immigrant, Pilgrim" pitch?

[ Parent ]
Are you retarded or just Jewishly obtuse? (none / 0) (#52)
by Ruston Rustov on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 10:07:26 PM EST


I had had incurable open sores all over my feet for sixteen years. The doctors were powerless to do anything about it. I told my psychiatrist that they were psychosomatic Stigmata - the Stigmata are the wounds Jesus suffered when he was nailed to the cross. Three days later all my sores were gone. -- Michael Crawford
Maybe tomorrow. -- Michael Crawford
As soon as she has her first period, fuck your daughter. -- localroger

[ Parent ]
I'm literate. (none / 0) (#58)
by opendna on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 11:30:50 PM EST

You seem to be having some problems with this "reading" concept. Scroll up the page and try to wrap your mind around the fact that this article is about the American citizens and the US Constitution.

Tell me Ruston Rustov, why do you hate the Constitution?

Nice name, by the way. Let me guess: your family was on the Mayflower from Russia.

[ Parent ]
I'm guessing you just showed up out of the blue (none / 0) (#63)
by Ruston Rustov on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 12:51:44 AM EST

to post some shit you've already strewn across a dozen forums, all with equal impertinence and disregard for community standards.

I had had incurable open sores all over my feet for sixteen years. The doctors were powerless to do anything about it. I told my psychiatrist that they were psychosomatic Stigmata - the Stigmata are the wounds Jesus suffered when he was nailed to the cross. Three days later all my sores were gone. -- Michael Crawford
Maybe tomorrow. -- Michael Crawford
As soon as she has her first period, fuck your daughter. -- localroger

[ Parent ]
Nah, only two places. (none / 0) (#65)
by opendna on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 06:57:34 AM EST

The second Scoop site I joined, and the first. I still think removing the editing pool was a bad idea, but I guess it doesn't work with high volume sites.

The smaller audience at k5 is kinda nice, and you guys are certainly better editors. Fat chance getting sloppy political rants through here. At least, that used to be the case. I'd forgotten about the clock on the editing pool though. For some reason I remember turds sitting there until they got voted up or down.

[ Parent ]
eh, without stealing the best and the (none / 0) (#53)
by Morally Inflexible on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 10:08:18 PM EST

brightest from the rest of the world, how are we going to maintain our technical and economic hegemony?  

[ Parent ]
Go fuck yourself, Jew (none / 0) (#57)
by Ruston Rustov on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 10:59:41 PM EST

With nukes. When the nukes run out, with bombs. When bombs run out, with guns. When guns run out, with spears. When spears run out, with our bare fists and with hate in our hearts.

But you go on masturbating with computers while your brethren fight on your behalf. Go right ahead.

I had had incurable open sores all over my feet for sixteen years. The doctors were powerless to do anything about it. I told my psychiatrist that they were psychosomatic Stigmata - the Stigmata are the wounds Jesus suffered when he was nailed to the cross. Three days later all my sores were gone. -- Michael Crawford
Maybe tomorrow. -- Michael Crawford
As soon as she has her first period, fuck your daughter. -- localroger

[ Parent ]
Gosh. I'm glad you showed up. (none / 0) (#61)
by opendna on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 12:25:11 AM EST

It just wouldn't be a discussion about birthright citizenship without a militarist anti-Semite to remind us of the glorious history of restricting rights according to bloodline.

[ Parent ]
on my behalf? really? (1.50 / 2) (#69)
by Morally Inflexible on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 10:42:15 AM EST

I've personally benefited from working with foreigners, so driving them away is not helping me.

More to the point, if we stop stealing the best and brightest from the rest of the world, it's possible that the technological centre of the world could move.   Hell, we're still coasting off the bounty of world war two, and really all we've got left are good universities, and we seem to be trying to throw away the benefits those bring, too.  

The problem with that, for me,  is that as someone who looks and talks like a native-born American, Racism works in my favour, as long as the USA is the economic and technological center of the world.   If I've gotta move to Europe or Asia, suddenly I'll be the funny talking foreigner.  So yeah, I'd prefer that my country remain the best place in the world for doing technology work.  

[ Parent ]

citizenship is only an accidental priviledge (none / 1) (#6)
by sye on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 05:51:57 PM EST

anyone can live without it, should he believes in the eternal life sitting next to his Heavenly Father.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
commentary - For a better sye@K5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ripple me ~~> ~allthingsgo: gateway to Garden of Perfect Brightess in CNY/BTC/LTC/DRK
rubbing u ~~> ~procrasti: getaway to HE'LL
Hey! at least he was in a stable relationship. - procrasti
enter K5 via Blastar.in

religion by adoption or conversion (none / 0) (#7)
by sye on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 06:00:13 PM EST

Religion by adoption or conversion is a far more serious matter. The Original intent of US Constitution on the separation of State and Religion was, as I read, only meant to be an restriction for the new Confederated/Continental Government. It does NOT prohibit State as a Sovereign State in itself to denounce or adopt its internal governing body to obey in 'full faith' laws under ONE God.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
commentary - For a better sye@K5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ripple me ~~> ~allthingsgo: gateway to Garden of Perfect Brightess in CNY/BTC/LTC/DRK
rubbing u ~~> ~procrasti: getaway to HE'LL
Hey! at least he was in a stable relationship. - procrasti
enter K5 via Blastar.in
[ Parent ]

probably right, but... (none / 0) (#26)
by adiffer on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 01:23:26 AM EST

A later amendment binds the States to the same requirement.  A later Court precedent altered the interpretation of the wall from a requirement that avoidance of active support was enough to a requirement that even passive support was unacceptable.  The last change came when a Court faced the fact that the previous precedent had left us with a de facto Christian nation and they considered that enough evidence the previous approach was a failure.
-Dream Big. --Grow Up.
[ Parent ]
That second interpretation is under siege (none / 0) (#35)
by sye on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 09:56:19 AM EST

especially after 9/11.

For better or worse, read Michael Davies' book "The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
commentary - For a better sye@K5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ripple me ~~> ~allthingsgo: gateway to Garden of Perfect Brightess in CNY/BTC/LTC/DRK
rubbing u ~~> ~procrasti: getaway to HE'LL
Hey! at least he was in a stable relationship. - procrasti
enter K5 via Blastar.in
[ Parent ]

did you mean (none / 1) (#30)
by cattleprod of peace on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 04:28:14 AM EST

privy ledge?

this joke won't survive translation

[ Parent ]

lol. you reminds me that freak (none / 0) (#36)
by sye on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 10:00:39 AM EST

in 'Angels in America'

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
commentary - For a better sye@K5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ripple me ~~> ~allthingsgo: gateway to Garden of Perfect Brightess in CNY/BTC/LTC/DRK
rubbing u ~~> ~procrasti: getaway to HE'LL
Hey! at least he was in a stable relationship. - procrasti
enter K5 via Blastar.in
[ Parent ]

the real problem is dual citizenship (none / 1) (#48)
by nostalgiphile on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 08:41:04 PM EST

not birthright citizenship. I don't give a damn if a gazillion Mexicans get citizenship by being born here, as long as they act like responsible, loyal citizens. Those with dual citizenship (Jews and Chinese, esp.), however, have a fundamental conflict of interest which is threatening to the Republic.

"Depending on your perspective you are an optimist or a pessimist[,] and a hopeless one too." --trhurler
Now that you mention it (none / 0) (#50)
by opendna on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 09:57:13 PM EST

I'm kinda surprised that this hasn't been a bigger issue in the US.

Dual citizenship has come up many times in Canada, where several high level politicians have held dual citizenship, but it doesn't seem to come up much in the States. I suppose most of us just accept that the US doesn't recognize dual citizenship. It is known to exist, but you can't exercise it here.

We don't get into questions of which countries are compatible with our values and which aren't (like, say, Canada does). You're either American, or you're not. If you are, you can get drafted, if you're not, you can get deported. And if you're in another country and get into trouble with their laws while holding their passport, well, good luck, Jack. You're on your own. (See jailed in Iran or China, drafted in Israel, etc)

I can see why you'd feel this was insufficient, but I, personally, rather like the set-up. It keeps immigration questions simpler than they might otherwise be.

[ Parent ]
Rupert Murdoch has dual citizenship (3.00 / 3) (#56)
by Scrymarch on Mon Apr 12, 2010 at 10:51:10 PM EST

I guess that not many people stay awake at night worrying about Australian fifth columnists.

[ Parent ]
No he isn't (none / 1) (#66)
by sholden on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 08:42:53 AM EST

he swore an oath that began:

"""
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
"""

so he broke the very first thing he swore if he kept his Australian citizenship.

There's also that pesky little point that in 1985 Australia did not allow you to keep your Australian citizenship if you took on another citizenship. So not only did he promise he renounced his Australian citizenship, Australian law said he automatically lost it too.

--
The world's dullest web page


[ Parent ]
And yet (none / 0) (#74)
by Scrymarch on Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 01:01:56 AM EST

Both nations recognize him as a citizen, so presumably there is some matter of the law as used in practice here.

[ Parent ]
no they don't (none / 1) (#75)
by sholden on Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 04:40:47 AM EST

Australia does not recognize him as an citizen  because he isn't one, as much as you seem to want to pretend they do.

--
The world's dullest web page


[ Parent ]
but they might recognize his money (none / 0) (#76)
by sye on Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 09:29:24 AM EST

to compensate his mother's sin. US dollars are devils that can move any thing who's trying to be on the Right side of the struggle.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
commentary - For a better sye@K5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ripple me ~~> ~allthingsgo: gateway to Garden of Perfect Brightess in CNY/BTC/LTC/DRK
rubbing u ~~> ~procrasti: getaway to HE'LL
Hey! at least he was in a stable relationship. - procrasti
enter K5 via Blastar.in
[ Parent ]

It seems you are right (none / 0) (#77)
by Scrymarch on Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 11:16:24 AM EST

Murdoch is no longer an AU citizen, and I probably should have checked more carefully. Though that there are indeed dual Australian American citizens, so your broader assertion is still flawed. Not just Australians either, seems Arnold Schwarzanegger is still an Austrian citizen.

[ Parent ]
What broader assertion? (none / 0) (#78)
by sholden on Wed Apr 14, 2010 at 11:29:23 AM EST

My wife is a both an American citizen and an Australian citizen, I never claimed it was an impossible state to be in.

All I asserted was that Murdoch wasn't.

--
The world's dullest web page


[ Parent ]
Your wife swore a different oath? (none / 0) (#79)
by Scrymarch on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 05:30:01 AM EST



[ Parent ]
My wife was born in America, so no (none / 0) (#80)
by sholden on Thu Apr 15, 2010 at 08:24:20 AM EST

Anyone who is an American citizen by naturalization swore they renounced any prior citizenship. That of course doesn't mean they actually did, since people are lying fucks. I certainly wouldn't expect Murdoch to honor any oath he swore.

But Murdoch was Australian, and at that time Australia automatically canceled the citizenship of anyone taking on another citizenship, which is the reason he isn't a dual national.

--
The world's dullest web page


[ Parent ]
voting a jury duty are the citizen/national items (none / 0) (#68)
by sholden on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 09:03:31 AM EST

Being drafted is a privilege afforded to non-citizens as well.

Citizens/nationals also get to live anywhere (outside the US for example) and (in theory) can't be deported if they fuck up.

--
The world's dullest web page


[ Parent ]
I'm sad that this might replace Ogg Frog #6 on the (none / 0) (#60)
by modus on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 12:17:52 AM EST

FP.

I thought there was a rule against (none / 1) (#62)
by opendna on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 12:38:27 AM EST

politics on the front page.

I dunno. I've been away a while.

[ Parent ]
nope, looks like it's in section (none / 0) (#71)
by lostincali on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 07:35:51 PM EST

mostly due to lack of votes. apparently k5 doesn't even have enough users for something good to clear the 30 vote bar.

"The least busy day [at McDonalds] is Monday, and then sales increase throughout the week, I guess as enthusiasm for life dwindles."
[ Parent ]

As expected. (none / 0) (#73)
by opendna on Tue Apr 13, 2010 at 11:47:43 PM EST

If a political piece hit the FP, I'd have thought ya'll lost yer game.

[ Parent ]
Man (none / 0) (#81)
by tthomas48 on Fri Jun 11, 2010 at 12:32:48 PM EST

I was hoping this was going to be an article about how people born in the United States could have their citizenship taken away. For not voting, being a tea partier, general lack of understanding of anything at all, etc.

citizenship is not a birth right | 81 comments (62 topical, 19 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!