Tancredo Introduces Legislation to Preclude Citizenship for Babies Born to Undocumented

By Jeralyn, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 09:32:43 AM EST
Tags: Tom Tancredo, immigration reform (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Tom Tancredo is in need of an attention fix for his fledgling Presidential campaign that while never getting off the ground still took a nose-dive when immigration reform fell off the table.

His latest is to introduce a bill that he knows will not pass but hopes will push emotional buttons back into overdrive.

Everybody knows that if you are born in this country, you automatically are a U.S. citizen. Under Tancredo's bill, a baby born to undocumented residents would be stripped of citizenship.

Tancredo's legal foundation for this is his unique view of the 14th Amendment. How unique?

Tancredo doesn't have any co-sponsors for his bill. Asked what support he expected, Tancredo, standing alone on a podium, looked to the right and the left and noted the absence of fellow lawmakers.

More...

Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition director Julien Ross condemned Tancredo's bill as a stunt.

"It provides no solution to our broken immigration system," Ross said. "It's a complete slap in the face of hardworking immigrants, and it's out of touch with what the American people want."

Here are the specifics of Tancredo's bill:

Eliminates family-based immigration for extended family members of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

Changes the automatic citizenship granted to U.S.-born children. Those children become citizens only when one parent is a citizen or permanent legal resident.

Prohibits states from granting in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants unless they offer the same tuition level to all U.S. citizens, regardless of state of residence.

Requires the president to build border fences authorized by Congress in 1996 and 2006.

Allows imprisonment of not less than one year of an employer who repeatedly and knowingly hires illegal immigrants.

< The Cost of the Iraq War | Thompsons Admits Lobbying On Behalf of Pro-Choice Groups >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Tancredo Introduces Legislation to Preclude Citizenship for Babies Born to Undocumented | 64 comments (64 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

There's just that one problem . . . (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by txpublicdefender on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 10:27:03 AM EST

You know, the fact that the 14th Amendment says 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.

The last time I looked, the Congress can't overrule the Constitution.

As for all the so-called "support" for this type of thing, that is just ridiculous. The vast majority of Americans support a path to citizenship for those currently here illegally. To be sure, a very vocal minority flooded Congress with calls against the latest proposal, but that hardly represents widespread opposition to the bill.

txpublicdefender (none / 0) (#9)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 11:32:38 AM EST

Uh, the polls showed 80%. Do you always disagree with polls??

No, but the Constitution can be amended.

As I said. This is a good start.


THE POLLS SHOWED 80% WHAT? (5.00 / 0) (#47)
by Sailor on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 09:33:53 PM EST

you previous statements said the polls showed 80% were opposed. That's a lie. 50%, (from your own link), were opposed.

Why did you lie?


THE POLLS DID NOT STATE 80% OPPOSED (5.00 / 0) (#67)
by Sailor on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 10:49:38 PM EST

like you previously stated over and over. Nowhere in those polls is 80% or even 78%.

50% OPPOSED, 52% REPUBLICANS OPPOSED.


Sailor (1.00 / 0) (#72)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 11:27:04 PM EST

Among the public, there is a bi-partisan lack of enthusiasm for the Senate bill. It is supported by 22% of Republicans, 23% of Democrats, and 22% of those not affiliated with either major party. It is opposed by 52% of Republicans, 50% of Democrats, and 48% of unaffiliateds.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 22% of American voters currently favor the legislation.

What does this mean??

Only 22% would vote for the bill.
78% are somewhere else. Parse away, but no support us de facto opposition.

what poll? (none / 0) (#23)
by Sailor on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:36:52 PM EST

PPJ STATED OVER AND OVER ... (5.00 / 0) (#51)
by Sailor on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 09:45:40 PM EST

... as a fact, that 80% of Americans opposed the immigration bill.

That's not true. According to his own referenced poll only 50% of Americans did.

I not only read the poll, I call spell aspirins.

Because (5.00 / 0) (#55)
by squeaky on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 09:52:18 PM EST

Among other things, ppj is the wind up doll, he winds us up. Not so bad thing. Like playing computer chess in the easy mode, vert satisfying to win because he is playing by different rules.

digby hits it with another great post, of course compared to the big guys, ppj is an relentless amateur.

et al (1.00 / 0) (#1)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 10:10:09 AM EST

I don't know. Two months ago I would have said it had zero chance, but after the overloaded telephone system serving Congress got shut down by the call volume of people opposing the so called "reform" bill, it may be that it has more support than previously known.

Either way, progress is being made. Good o for Tom T. Of all the politicians I have met he came across as the most "real."

Mainstream Not (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by squeaky on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 10:56:50 AM EST

He needs you ppj.


squaky (1.00 / 0) (#10)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 11:33:48 AM EST

And he has me. And a bunch of other very vocal, angry, disgusted and ready to change things US Citizens.


Mead Would Be Proud (none / 0) (#13)
by squeaky on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 12:56:01 PM EST

Good luck. Sounds like quite the bunch. Glad that you are a tiny minority. I guess the womenfolk and the keyboard commandos are keeping the issue alive in the heimland, while the militants train over in Iraq.


Squeky (none / 0) (#19)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 02:51:11 PM EST

80% is a tiny number??

Who knew??


hahahhahaha (none / 0) (#21)
by squeaky on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:17:32 PM EST

80% of 10 is 8. That is a very very tiny number compared with a trillion. What is your point? A math lesson??


squeaky (none / 0) (#28)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 05:20:19 PM EST

Nope.... I would never try to teach you anything.

Just remember they shut down the Senate's phone system and stopped a bill that both leaderships wanted passed..

And that all of the Repub candidates were against it.

Does that help you???


: cite the polls saying 80% (none / 0) (#35)
by Sailor on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:41:52 PM EST

or even 78%

cite the polls saying '80%' (none / 0) (#26)
by Sailor on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 05:15:17 PM EST

Sailor (none / 0) (#27)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 05:17:44 PM EST

Ok it was 78%

You got me....


Phantom 78% (none / 0) (#29)
by squeaky on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 05:26:48 PM EST

Looks like operative word from your phantom poll is:was.

But now Tancredo can't even get a co-sponsor for his unconstitutional bill.


squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#41)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 09:08:41 PM EST

Of course not.

Tom T's play is to get attention.

Kinda like Reid saying the war is lost.

But the 78% is a real number. Politicans aren't dumb.

Look forward to a constitutional amendmemt to fix the 14th.


: No, it's not (none / 0) (#85)
by Sailor on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:43:21 PM EST

But the 78% is a real number. Politicans aren't dumb.
78% is an imaginary number. 50% is the real number who were opposed.
Some politicians are dumb, but they can count votes. That's why republicans sank the immigration bill.

CITE THE POLLS ppj (none / 0) (#37)
by Sailor on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:49:30 PM EST

All currently living in a compound (none / 0) (#84)
by jondee on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:22:01 PM EST

in the wilds of Idaho.


It is pointless (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 11:05:44 AM EST

Tancredo should propose and amendment to the Constitution. This is just a joke to satisfy ingorance.


Pointless? That depends (none / 0) (#7)
by Sumner on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 11:11:03 AM EST

It serves to fuel hate. It acts as a distraction.


Sumner (1.00 / 0) (#20)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:02:55 PM EST

Why does it fuel hate?? It seems to me that it is the opposite.

Should illegal aliens be charged the same tutition and fees as in-state residents while a citizen from another state is charged more??

If you are in the country illegally, why should your child be granted citizenship? Should all results from illegal acts --- being in the country illegal is illegal --- be considered "legal?"

What this would do is remove the so-called anchor babies.

What is wrong about requiring the President to follow a law passed last year?? A few months ago BTD was lecturing me that the President is required to do so without a specific bill. Wouldn't a "I meant it!" bill clarify things?

Why should a citizen or permanent resident be allowed to bring in "extended" family??

And what is wrong with locking employers who are hiring illegal aliens, depressing the job market for US citizens??


an American diaspora? (none / 0) (#24)
by Sumner on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:39:09 PM EST

The need for demagogy to make people feel superior to others seems perhaps to be founded in religion.

But perhaps that is itself too broad a generalization.

I am reminded of the opening paragraphs of Sir Thomas Browne's Religio Medici:

For my Religion, though there be severall circumstances that might perswade the world I have none at all, as the generall scandall of my profession, the naturall course of my studies, the indifferency of my behaviour, and discourse in matters of Religion, neither violently defending one, nor with that common ardour and contention opposing another; yet in despight hereof I dare, without usurpation, assume the honorable stile of a Christian: not that I meerely owe this title to the Font, my education, or Clime wherein I was borne, as being bred up either to confirme those principles my Parents instilled into my unwary understanding; or by a generall consent proceed in the Religion of my Countrey: But having, in my riper yeares, and confirmed judgement, seene and examined all, I finde my selfe obliged by the principles of Grace, and the law of mine owne reason, to embrace no other name but this; neither doth herein my zeale so farre make me forget the generall charitie I owe unto humanity, as rather to hate then pity Turkes, Infidels, and (what is worse) Jewes, rather contenting my selfe to enjoy that happy stile, then maligning those who refuse so glorious a title.
But because the name of a Christian is become too generall to expresse our faith, there being a Geography of Religions as well as Lands, and every Clime distinguished not onely by their lawes and limits, but circumscribed by their doctrines and rules of Faith...

birthright (none / 0) (#25)
by Sumner on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:53:46 PM EST

From the Theosophical Society:

"We are not brought into existence by chance nor thrown up into earth-life like wreckage cast along the shore, but are here for infinitely noble purposes." ~~ Katherine Tingley


: Sumner (1.00 / 0) (#43)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 09:15:16 PM EST

We are not brought into existence by chance
Oh, really??
Tell that to the mother of the third child....

Why I am not surprised... (none / 0) (#8)
by Molly Bloom on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 11:20:34 AM EST

Enough Sniping (1.00 / 0) (#74)
by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 11:49:09 PM EST

Sailor and PPJ, take it to email if you want to engage in your own personal insulting thread.

I've cleaned the repetitive insults. Name calling of other commenters and personal attacks are not allowed. Make your point civilly and move on to the next.

Sorry Jeralyn (5.00 / 0) (#76)
by Sailor on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 01:50:40 AM EST

But it isn't an insult if a commenter repeatedly states 80% of people were against that immigration bill and all another commenter does is ask for a link.

When the link was finally provided it turned out that THAT commenter was wrong. Only 50% in the rasmussen poll were against the bill.

I guess since I'm not a lawyer or a salesman I think facts trump opinion.

As a scientist I'm just funny that way.

Kick me off if you want, I'm happy to depart from a site where rules are selectively enforced.

The world isn't fair, but blogtopia should be.


Sailor (1.00 / 0) (#77)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 10:38:13 AM EST

What I have done is state an opinion. So as to not mislead, I even, at your request, provided a link to the poll, and have never argued that your "50%" is wrong. In fact, I even quoted it.

So let me restate. In my opinion, if 22% do not favor the bill then 78% oppose it.

Rasmussen Reports was the first polling firm to document the broad public opposition to the Senate bill.

Fifty percent (50%) oppose the Senate bill while 28% are not sure.

And yes, I am a retired salesman. And, as a salesman, I learned long ago that if someone is "not sure" about something important to them, they will oppose it if a decision must be made.

The Senate understood this, and decided to stop the bill.


you said polls showed 80% disapproved (none / 0) (#78)
by Sailor on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 11:35:57 AM EST

You didn't say your opinion was that 80% disapproved, you stated it as a fact. When called on it you lied, denied and backtracked.

In my opinion, if 22% do not favor the bill then 78% oppose it

What a perfect example of your reading, comprehension and writing skills.


Sailor (1.00 / 0) (#83)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:18:04 PM EST

Sailor. At 11:27 last night I made the following comments. My position hasn't changed.

Sailor (1.00 / 1) (#72)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 11:27:04 PM EST

Among the public, there is a bi-partisan lack of enthusiasm for the Senate bill. It is supported by 22% of Republicans, 23% of Democrats, and 22% of those not affiliated with either major party. It is opposed by 52% of Republicans, 50% of Democrats, and 48% of unaffiliateds.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 22% of American voters currently favor the legislation.
What does this mean??
1. Only 22% would vote for the bill.
2. 78% are somewhere else. Parse away, but no support us de facto opposition.

Now, read item 2 very carefully. De facto obviously means that I consider that to be true, but not in the legal sense...

You are manufacturing a tempest when there isn't one. The internet is about "opinions."


the internet ... (none / 0) (#86)
by Sailor on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:57:24 PM EST

... just like real life is about facts. Your opinion is contrary to fact. You stated polls showed 80% were opposed. That was the opposite of a fact.

50% of Americans and 52% of republicans were opposed. You can lie all you want about the polls and about the meaning of the term 'de facto', but it doesn't change reality.


Sailor (none / 0) (#87)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:11:33 PM EST

If you want to argue over 2%, be my guest.

I wrote what I wrote and I stand behind it.

I am done with trying to debate you.


what 2%? (1.00 / 0) (#88)
by Sailor on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:35:22 PM EST

You stated as a fact, several times, that 80% were opposed. That was not true. It's not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of fact. You were off, not by 2%, but by 30%.

No one 'debates' with you, they just point out your constant fallacies.


: Sailor (none / 0) (#89)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jul 14, 2007 at 12:37:35 PM EST

cite the polls saying 80% (none / 0) (#35)
by Sailor on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:41:52 PM EST
or even 78%

Sailor (none / 0) (#27)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 05:17:44 PM EST
Ok it was 78%
You got me....

If Tancredo want (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 11:04:57 AM EST

to propose a Constitutional Amendment, that is his right.

This is a joke.

And Let's Not Forget Just Why It Is (none / 0) (#36)
by Peter G on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:48:45 PM EST

... that the Constitution was amended in 1868, following the Civil War, to add those words at the beginning of the Fourteenth Amendment. "All persons born in the United States ... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside ...." ("[A]nd subject to the jurisdiction thereof" simply acknowledges the principle of international law that children of diplomats serving abroad, wherever born, remain citizens of their own countries.) First, this phrase overruled one of the most evil Supreme Court opinions of all time, the Dred Scott decision, which had held that persons born in the United States whose ancestors came from Africa (you know who, in other words) were not and could never be citizens, and therefore did not have and could not have equal rights. And second, equally important and equally having to do with Who Won the Civil War, was the formalization of the very idea of a "citizen of the United States" -- someone who was not merely a "citizen" of a State "wherein they reside," but of the entire Nation. (Before this, the Constitution referred to "the people of the United States" but only to "citizens" of States.) To amend this language would be to vote to overturn the outcome of the Civil War ... literally. If there are passages in our Constitution which are sacred text, and should be considered beyond amendment, this would be one of them.


: Peter G (1.00 / 0) (#46)
by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 09:31:37 PM EST

To amend this language would be to vote to overturn the outcome of the Civil War ...
Huh?? The Civil War has been over for 142 years.
Do you think maybe the last slave is dead??

*ism all-the-way (none / 0) (#5)
by Sumner on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 11:05:00 AM EST

History might advise us to never underestimate the power of a demagogue

yup, agitprop (none / 0) (#12)
by Sumner on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 12:15:27 PM EST

Now, the facts (none / 0) (#14)
by LonewackoDotCom on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 01:39:23 PM EST

First, Julien Ross is quite a piece of work.

Second, the author of the 14th amendment never intended it to apply to the children of foreign citizens.

Interesting link, LW, I never heard this before. (none / 0) (#15)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 01:52:57 PM EST

From google:

Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause, made the most precise statement about the character of the limitation contained in the "jurisdiction" clause:
"[E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
Clearly, the author of the citizenship clause intended to count "foreigners," "aliens," and those born to "ambassadors or foreign ministers" as outside the "jurisdiction of the United States."

Ironically enough, Sen Howard's middle name is "Merritt."


: Watch out for any statement that begins ... (none / 0) (#38)
by Peter G on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:56:54 PM EST

... with "clearly." It's usually a trick. As in "Clearly, the author of the citizenship clause intended to count 'foreigners,' 'aliens,' and those born to 'ambassadors or foreign ministers' as outside the 'jurisdiction of the United States.'" Note that the commentator has inserted the "and" which wasn't in the original statement, thus changing its meaning. What's "clear," to those familiar with the English language, is that the speaker understood the phrase "foreigners, aliens" to exclude babies born in the U.S. to citizens of other countries unless th