Anchor Babies and The 14th Amendment

I have to say I agree with you. They also need to rewrite that and make it easier to understand and not be twisted to benefit illegals.

William, I commend you for taking on such a contentious issue. Any prospective change which would withhold "birthright citizenship" from children of those here illegally may be up to the courts, not Congress, to interpret the constitution. If Congress does not like the courts' interpretation it will have to amend the Constitution.

Fact: Adults will fight all day long - about adult issues

Enter the Children

Adults will fight to protect the rights of children - all children - anywhere, anytime.

It's human nature, William and not just preserved for females.

This is the EXACT issue that will prompt an "amnesty." Not because "anchor babies" exist but because those who oppose provoke the empathy of a nation.

California and Debbie. Congress passed a law in 2001. It is within the powers of congress to pass laws that are in the confines of the constitution. The 14th amendment did not take away the powers of congress it enhanced them.

In the United States of America, naturalization is mentioned in the Constitution.
Congress is given the power to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, which was administered by state courts. There was some confusion about which courts could naturalize; the final ruling was that it could be done by any "court of record having common-law jurisdiction and a clerk (prothonotary) and seal."

The current law made by congress that deals directly with this topic is.
The Act is known as Public Law 106-395, and is codified at 8 U.S.C. §§ 1431-33. There is no need to mess with the 14th amendment. We just need to enforce the laws we have.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization

Jackie the last amnesty had the opposite effect that was expected. For ever one who got amnesty last time there are 4 more now. There must be a limit.

A limit to what, exactly, David? Are you complaining about population?

At what rate are we dying and what is the approximate rate of death for the HIV Positive U.S. citizens in the U.S?

The world will always be fraught with plagues. The world will always find a way to evolve, for better or worse....

When you look at the land mass of other country's as opposed to the number of people living there, you get a really good sense of where we are and how far we have left to go before space becomes an issue.

Thank you debbie you hit the nail on the head.

I realize what the current process is. I am simply stating what the 14th Amendment states and what the writers intended. I also have researched case law and prior Supreme Couts decisions regardign such, such as the Elk case, in which a Native American was deemed NOT a U.S. citizen because he did not have complete allegance to the United States. Now, how many illegal immigrants have children who are NOT citizens of their native countries? Very few, if any. As such, they cannot have 100% allegance to the U.S. As such, by law, they are not LEGALLY citizens. Period. Just because our government has turned a blind eye to this does not make it correct.

Jackie, I think your argument is really a reach. I'm sure there are plenty of groups out there who would be offended that you woudl like to replace all HIV positive Americans with illegal immigrants. In addition, how many of those aliens use up much needed health care funds those U.S. citizens desperately need?


Debbie, Juan:

Allegedly...but look at the LAW. Are they citizens? I think not.

Statements from our own judges and politicians reaffirming the 14th Amendment is NOT intended for aliens:


United States v. Wong Kim Ark case in 1898: "The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance. … The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual, and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because they were not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king." Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation 'children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.' In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be 'not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.'

In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an embassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

William you are coming dangerously close to making way too much sense.

William: I sincerely believe you are the only person capable of being even remotely offended or reading malice into that statement.

Let's use cancer, then or heart attacks or obesity or drug addiction....the fact remains - we aren't replenishing/producing at the necessary rate to sustain our economy - like many other countries who are well-educated and prosperous and who have cultural taboos about rearing large families.

Sheesh, William - this is a ridiculous argument. First of all - there is a legal term to describe what has happened to the 14th Amendment - regardless of its original meaning. Many, many laws started out as one thing and ended up being interpreted as something else.

The term is "unenforcement."

There is a default clause, assumed and understood by all courts....and the rule of the land or "unenforcement" of a particular law such as the 14th amendment in its original form will simply not stand up in court.

Let me give you an example that is really weird but actually works on the same principal.

There was, not too long ago, another law that went through the same process of "unenforcement." It was the homosexuality law or sodomy law.
As we evolved and our personal freedoms were less closeted, certain acts, deemed illegal - were suddenly "unenforced." Basically ignored as homosexuals came out of the closet. When an attempt was made to enforce the law with its original intent, courts found that the antiquity of the belief no longer held for the culture of today.

That's what you will find with the 14th amendment as well. Regardless of WHY it was created or on what basis it was formed - United States culture has changed and these children, many now young adults of voting age, have received benefits, social security numbers and the right to work as citizens of this country.

Just as homosexuals are kissing in public, sharing housing and adopting children.

we're gonna end up legalizing illegal aliens. we don't have the personnel to chase them down. we can deport them but they're back the next day. and the north american union will make the situation moot anyway.

am impressed by the legal reasoning on this article.

i don't think this is a 14th amendment situation either. a country does have the right to make rules about who is a citizen and who is not. current interpretation is that the kid and the illegal alien parent go back to their country of origin because economics is not a sufficient argument to keep the child in the united states. if the parent wants the child to live in foster homes, i guess the child can stay but i think there's very few parents who would make that choice.

this is why the lady in the church sends her child to bush with a note saying please don't deport my mother.

rated 10. if you have any questions about my criteria, see the article on the front page about ratings.

Jackie,

Always so defensive. Where did I state I was offended? I actually find it kind of ironic that you pick out all of these other groups, you know, HIV positive people, people with cancer, obese people, whatever. You know, throw everyone under the bus to justify your cause.

Debbie,

Here's the dissent on U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark:

U.S. SUPREME COURT

U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

169 U.S. 649

UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK. No. 132.

March 28, 1898

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, with whom concurred Mr. Justice HARLAN, dissenting.

I cannot concur in the opinion and judgment of the court in this case.

The proposition is that a child born in this country of parents who were not citizens of the United States, and under the laws of their own country and of the United States could not become such,-as was the fact from the beginning of the government in respect of the class of aliens to which the parents in this instance belonged,-is, from the moment of his birth, a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment, any act of congress to the contrary notwithstanding.

The argument is that although the constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words 'citizens of the United States' and 'natural-born citizen,' as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common-law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that rule 'was in force in all [169 U.S. 649, 706] the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established'; and 'that, before the enactment of the civil rights act of 1866 and the adoption of the constitutional amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.'

Thus, the fourteenth amendment is held to be merely declaratory, except that it brings all persons, irrespective of color, within the scope of the alleged rule, and puts that rule beyond the control of the legislative power.

If the conclusion of the majority opinion is correct, then the children of citizens of the United States, who have been born abroad since July 28, 1868, when the amendment was declared ratified, were and are aliens, unless they have or shall, on attaining majority, become citizens by naturalization in the United States; and no statutory provision to the contrary is of any force or effect. And children who are aliens by descent, but born on our soil, are exempted from the exercise of the power to exclude or to expel aliens, or any class of aliens, so often maintained by this court,-an exemption apparently disregarded by the acts in respect of the exclusion of persons of Chinese descent.

The English common-law rule, which it is insisted was in force after the Declaration of Independence, was that 'every person born within the dominions of the crown, no matter whether of English or of o reign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning in the country, was an English subject; save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England.' Cockb. Nat. 7.

The tie which bound the child to the crown was indissoluble. [169 U.S. 649, 707] The nationality of his parents had no bearing on his nationality. Though born during a temporary stay of a few days, the child was irretrievably a British subject. Hall, Foreign Jur. 15.

The rule was the outcome of the connection in feudalism between the individual and the soil on which he lived, and the allegiance due was that of liege men to their liege lord. It was not local and temporary, as was the obedience to the laws owed by aliens within the dominions of the crown, but permanent and indissoluble, and not to be canceled by any change of time or place or circumstances.

And it is this rule, pure and simple, which it is asserted determined citizenship of the United States during the entire period prior to the passage of the act of April 9, 1866, and the ratification of the fourteenth amendment, and governed the meaning of the words, 'citizen of the United States' and 'natural-born citizen,' used in the constitution as originally framed and adopted. I submit that no such rule obtained during the period referred to, and that those words bore no such construction; that the act of April 9, 1866, expressed the contrary rule; that the fourteenth amendment prescribed the same rule as the act; and that, if that amendment bears the construction now put upon it, it imposed the English common-law rule on this country for the first time, and made it 'absolute and unbending,' just as Great Britain was being relieved from its inconveniences.

Obviously, where the constitution deals with common-law rights and uses common-law phraseology, its language should be read in the light of the common law; but when the question arises as to what constitutes citizenship of the nation, involving, as it does, international relations, and political as contradistinguished from civil status, international principles must be considered; and, unless the municipal law of England appears to have been affirmatively accepted, it cannot be allowed to control in the matter of construction.

Nationality is essentially a political idea, and belongs to the sphere of public law. Hence Mr. Justice Story, in Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. 248, said that the incapacities of femes [169 U.S. 649, 708] covert, at common law, 'do not reach their political rights, nor prevent their acquiring or losing a national character. Those political rights do not stand upon the mere doctrines of municipal law, applicable to ordinary transactions, but stand upon the more general principles of the law of nations.'

Twiss, in his work on the Law of Nations, says that 'natural allegiance, or the obligation of perpetual obedience to the government of a country, wherein a man may happen to have been born, which he cannot forfeit or cancel or vary by any change of time or place or circumstance, is the creature of civil law, and finds no countenance in the law of nations, as it is in direct conflict with the incontestable rule of that law.' Volume 1, p. 231.

Before the Revolution, the views of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel: 'The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is h erefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.' Vatt. Law Nat. bk. 1, c. 19, 212. 'The true bond which connects the child with the body politic is not the matter of an inanimate piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage. ... The place of birth produces no change in the rule that children follow the condition of their fathers, for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction.'

And to the same effect are the modern writers, as, for instance, [169 U.S. 649, 709] Bar, who says: 'To what nation a person belongs is by the laws of all nations closely dependent on descent. It is almost a universal rule that the citizenship of the parents determines it,-that of the father where children are lawful, and, where they are bastards, that of their mother, without regard to the place of their birth; and that must necessarily be recognized as the correct canon, since nationality is in its essence dependent on descent.' Int. Law, 31.

The framers of the constitution were familiar with the distinctions between the Roman law and the feudal law, between obligations based on territoriality and those based on the personal and invisible character of origin; and there is nothing to show that in the matter of nationality they intended to adhere to principles derived from regal government, which they had just assisted in overthrowing.

Manifestly, when the sovereignty of the crown was thrown off, and an independent government established, every rule of the common law, and every statute of England obtaining in the colonies, in derogation of the principles on which the new government was founded, was abrogated.

The states, for all national purposes embraced in the constitution, became one, united under the same sovereign authority, and governed by the same laws; but they retained their jurisdiction over all persons and things within their territorial limits, except where surrendered to the general government or restrained by the constitution, and protection to life, liberty, and property rested primarily with them. So far as the jus commune, or 'folk right,' relating to the rights of persons, was concerned, the colonies regarded it as their birthright, and adopted such parts of it as they found applicable to their condition. Van Ness v. Pacard, 2 Pet. 137.

They became sovereign and independent states, and, when the republic was created, each of the 13 states had its own local usages, customs, and common law, while in respect of the national government there necessarily was no general, independent, and separate common law of the United States, nor has there ever been. Wheaton v. Peters, 8 Pet. 591, 658. [169 U.S. 649, 710] As to the jura coronae, including therein the obligation of allegiance, the extent to which these ever were applicable in this country depended on circumstances; and it would seem quite clear that the rule making locality of birth the criterion of citizenship, because creating a permanent tie of allegiance, no more survived the American Revolution than the same rule survived the French Revolution.

Doubtless, before the latter event, in the progress of monarchical power, the rule which involved the principle of liege homage may have become the rule of Europe; but that idea never had any basis in the United States.

As Chief Justice Taney observed in Fleming v. Page, 9 How. 618, though in a different connection: 'It is true that most of the states have adopted the principles of English jurisprudence, so far as it concerns private and individual rights. And, when such rights are in question, we habitually refer to the Englishd ecisions, not only with respect, but in many cases as authoritative. But, in the distribution of political power between the great departments of government, there is such a wide difference between the power conferred on the president of the United States and the authority and sovereignty which belong to the English crown, that it would be altogether unsafe to reason from any supposed resemblance between them, either as regards conquest in war or any other subject where the rights and powers of the executive arm of the government are brought into question. Our own constitution and form of government must be our only guide.'

And Mr. Lawrence, in his edition of Wheaton (Lawr. Wheat. Int. Law, p. 920), makes this comment: 'There is, it is believed, as great a difference between the territorial allegiance claimed by an hereditary sovereign on feudal principles and the personal right of citizenship participated in by all the members of a political community, according to American institutions, as there is between the authority and sovereignty of the queen of England and the power of the American president; and the inapplicability of English precedents is as clear in the one case as in the other. The same view, with particular application to naturalization, was early taken by [169 U.S. 649, 711] the American commentator on Blackstone. 1 Tuck. Bl. Comm. pt. 2, p. 96, Append.'

Blackstone distinguished allegiance into two sorts,-the one, natural and perpetual; the other, local and temporary. 'Natural allegiance,' so called, was allegiance resulting from birth in subjection to the crown, and indelibility was an essential, vital, and necessary characteristic.

The royal commission to inquire into the laws of naturalization and allegiance was created May 21, 1868; and, in their report, the commissioners, among other things, say: 'The allegiance of a natural-born British subject is regarded by the common law as indelible. We are of opinion that this doctrine of the common law is neither reasonable nor convenient. It is at variance with those principles on which the rights and duties of a subject should be deemed to rest; it conflicts with that freedom of action which is now recognized as most conducive to the general good, as well as to individual happiness and prosperity; and it is especially inconsistent with the practice of a state which allows to its subjects absolute freedom of emigration.'

However, the commission, by a majority, declined to recommend the abandonment of the rule altogether, though 'clearly of opinion that it ought not to be, as it now is, absolute and unbending,' but recommended certain modifications which were carried out in subsequent legislation.

But from the Declaration of Independence to this day, the United States have rejected the doctrine of indissoluble allegiance, and maintained the general right of expatriation, to be exercised in subordination to the public interests, and subject to regulation.

As early as the act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414, c. 20), applicants for naturalization were required to take, not simply an oath to support the constitution of the United States, but of absolute renunciation and abjuration of all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince or state, and particularly to the prince or state of which they were before the citizens or subjects.

St. 3 Jac. I. c. 4, provided that promising obedience [169 U.S. 649, 712] to any other prince, state, or potentate subjected the person so doing to be adjudged a traitor, and to suffer the penalty of high treason; and in respect of the act of 1795 Lord Grenville wrote to our minister, Rufus King: 'No British subject can, by such a form of renunciation as that which is prescribed in the American law of naturalization, devest himself of his allegiance to his sovereign. Such a declaration of renunciation made by any of the king's subjects would, instead of operating as a protection to them, be considered an act highly criminal on their part.' 2 Am. St. Papers, 149. And see Fitch v. Wee r, 6 Hare, 51.

Nevertheless, congress has persisted from 1795 in rejecting the English rule, and in requiring the alien, who would become a citizen of the United States, in taking on himself the ties binding him to our government, to affirmatively sever the ties that bound him to any other.

The subject was examined at length in 1856, in an opinion given the secretary of state by Atty. Gen. Cushing (8 Ops. Attys. Gen. 139), where the views of the writers on international law and those expressed in cases in the federal and state courts are largely set forth, and the attorney general says: 'The doctrine of absolute and perpetual allegiance, the root of the denial of the right of any emigration, is inadmissible in the United States. It was a matter involved in, and settled for us by, the Revolution, which founded the American Union.

'Moreover, the right of expatriation, under fixed circumstances of time and of manner, being expressly asserted in the legislatures of several of our states, and affirmed by decisions of their courts, must be considered as thus made a part of the fundamental law of the United States.'

Expatriation included not simply the leaving of one's native country, but the becoming naturalizen in the country adopted as a future residence. The emigration which the United States encouraged was that of those who could become incorporate with its people, make its flag their own, and aid in the accomplishment of a common destiny; and it was obstruction to such emigration that made one of the charges against the crown in the Declaration. [169 U.S. 649, 713] Ainslie v. Martin (1813) 9 Mass. 454, 460; Murray v. McCarty (1811) 2 Munf. 393; Alsberry v. Hawkins (1839) 9 Dana, 177,-are among the cases cited. In Ainslie v. Martin the indelibility of allegiance, according to the common-law rule, was maintained; while in Murray v. McCarty and Alsberry v. Hawkins the right of expatriation was recognized as a practical and fundamental doctrine of America. There was no uniform rule so far as the states were severally concerned, and none such assumed in respect of the United States.

In 1859, Atty. Gen. Black thus advised the president (9 Ops. Attys. Gen. 356): 'The natural right of every free person, who owes no debts and is not guilty of any crime, to leave the country of his birth in good faith and for an honest purpose, the privilege of throwing off his natural allegiance, and substituting another allegiance in its place,-the general right, in one word, of expatriation,-is incontestable. I know that the common law of England denies it; that the judicial decisions of that country are opposed to it; and that some of our own courts, misled by British authority, have expressed, though not very decisively, the same opinion. But all this is very far from settling the question. The municipal code of England is not one of the sources from which we derive our knowledge of international law. We take it from natural reason and justice, from writers of known wisdom, and from the practice of civilized nations. All these are opposed to the doctrine of perpetual allegiance.'

In the opinion of the attorney general, the United States, in recognizing the right of expatriation, declined, from the beginning, to accept the view that rested the obligation of the citizen on feudal principles, and proceeded on the law of nations, which was in direct conflict therewith.

And the correctness of this conclusion was specifically affirmed not many years after, when the right, as the natural and inherent right of all people and fundamental in this country, was declared by congress in the act of July 27, 1868 (15 Stat. 223, c. 249), carried forward into sections 1999 and 2000 of the Revised Statutes, in 1874. [169 U.S. 649, 714] It is beyond dispute that the most vital constituent of the English common-law rule has always been rejected in respect of citizenship of the United States.

Whether it was also the rule at common law that the children of British subjects born abroad were themselves British subjects-nationalit being attributed to parentage instead of locality-has been variously determined. If this were so, of course the statute of Edw. III. was declaratory, as was the subsequent legislation. But if not, then such children were aliens, and the statute of 7 Anne and subsequent statutes must be regarded as in some sort acts of naturalization. On the other hand, it seems to me that the rule, 'Partus sequitur patrem,' has always applied to children of our citizens born abroad, and that the acts of congress on this subject are clearly declaratory, passed out of abundant caution, to obviate misunderstandings which might arise from the prevalence of the contrary rule elsewhere.

Section 1993 of the Revised Statutes provides that children so born 'are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.' Thus a limitation is prescribed on the passage of citizenship by descent beyond the second generation if then surrendered by permanent nonresidence, and this limitation was contained in all the acts from 1790 down. Section 2172 provides that such children shall 'be considered as citizens thereof.'

The language of the statute of 7 Anne is quite different in providing that 'the children of all natural-born subjects born out of the ligeance of her majesty, her heirs and successors, shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be natural-born subjects of this kingdom, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever.'

In my judgment, the children of our citizens born abroad were always natural-born citizens from the standpoint of this government. If not, and if the correct view is that they were aliens, but collectively naturalized under the acts of congress which recognized them as natural born, then those born since the fourteenth imendment are not citizens at all [169 U.S. 649, 715] unless they have become such by individual compliance with the general laws for the naturalization of aliens, because they are not naturalized 'in the United States.'

By the fifth clause of the first section of article 2 of the constitution it is provided that 'no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of the constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.'

In the convention it was, says Mr. Bancroft, 'objected that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for that place; but as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, on the 7th of September it was unanimously settled that foreign-born residents of fourteen years who should be citizens at the time of the formation of the constitution are eligible to the office of president.' 2 Bancroft, Hist. U. S. Const. 192.

Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that 'naturalborn citizen' applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances; and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay, or other race, were eligible to the presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.

By the second clause of the second section of article 1 it is provided that 'no person shall be a representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state of which he shall be chosen'; and by the third clause of section 3, that 'no person shall be a senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine yer a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.' [169 U.S. 649, 716] At that time the theory largely obtained, as stated by Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution (section 1693), 'that every citizen of a state is ipso facto a citizen of the United States.'

Mr. Justice Curtis, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 577, expressed the opinion that under the constitution of the United States 'every free person born on the soil of a state, who is a citizen of that state by force of its constitution or laws, is also a citizen of the United States.' And he said: 'Among the powers unquestionably possessed by the several states was that of determining what persons should and what persons should not be citizens. It was practicable to confer on the government of the Union this entire power. It embraced what may, well enough for the purpose now in view, be divided into three parts: First, the power to remove the disabilities of alienage, either by special acts in reference to each individual case, or by establishing a rule of naturalization to be administered and applied by the courts; second, determining what persons should enjoy the privileges of citizenship, in respect to the internal affairs of the several states; third, what native-born persons should be citizens of the United States.

'The first-named power, that of establishing a uniform rule of naturalization, was granted; and here the grant, according to its terms, stopped. Construing a constitution containing only limited and defined powers of government, the argument derived from this definite and re stricted power to establish a rule of naturalization must be admitted to be exceedingly strong. I do not say it is necessarily decisive. It might be controlled by other parts of the constitution. But when this particular subject of citizenship was under consideration, and, in the clause specially intended to define the extent of power concerning it, we find a particular part of this entire power separated from the residue, and conferred on the general government, there arises a strong presumption that this is all which is granted, and that the residue is left to the states and to the people. And this presumption is, in my opinion, converted into a certainty, by an examination of all such other clauses of the constitution as touch this subject.' [169 U.S. 649, 717] But in that case Mr. Chief Justice Taney said: 'The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people and a constituent member of this sovereignty. ... In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a state may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of a citizen of a state, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other state; for, previous to the adoption of the constitution of the United States, every state had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen and to endow him with all its rights. But this character, of course, was confined to the boundaries of the state, and gave him no rights or privileges in other states beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of states. Nor have the several states surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the constitution of the United States. Each state may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper,o r upon any class or deseription of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other states. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the state which gave them. The constitution has conferred on congress the right to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no state, since the adoption of the constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a state under the federal [169 U.S. 649, 718] government, although, so far as the state alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the constitution and laws of the state attached to that character.'

Plainly, the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a state, thus pointed out, involved then, as now, the complete rights of the citizen internationally as contradistinguished from those of persons not citizens of the United States.

The English common-law rule recognized no exception in the instance of birth during the mere temporary or accidental sojourn of the parents. As allegiance sprang from the place of birth regardless of parentage, and supervened at the moment of birth, the inquiry whether the parents were permanently or only temporarily within the realm was wholly immaterial. And it is settled in England that the question of domicile is entirely distinct from that of allegiance. The one relates to the civil, and the other to the political, status. Udny v. Udny, L. R. 1 H. L. Sc. 457.

But a different view as to the effect of permanent abode on nationality has been expressed in this country.

In his work on Conflict of Laws (section 48), Mr. Justice Story, treating the subject as one of public law, said: 'Persons who are born in a country are generally deemed to be citizens of that country. A reasonable qualification of the rule would seem to be that it should not apply to the children of parents who were in itinere in the country, or who were abiding there for temporary purposes, as for health or curiosity or occasional business. It would be difficult, however, to assert that, in the present state of public law, such a qualification is universally established.'

Undoubtedly, all persons born in a country are presumptively citizens thereof, but the presumption is not irrebuttable.

In his Lectures on Constitutional Law (page 279), Mr. Justice Miller remarked: 'If a stranger or traveler passing through or temporarily residing in this country, who has not himself been naturalized, and who claims to owe no allegiance to our government, has a child born here, which goes out of the country [169 U.S. 649, 719] with its father, such child is not a citizen of the United States, because it was not subject to its jurisdiction.'

And to the same effect are the rulings of Mr. Secretary Frelinghuysen in the matter of Hausding, and Mr. Secretary Bayard in the matter of Greisser.

Hausding was born in the United States, went to Europe, and, desiring to return, applied to the minister of the United States for a passport, which was refused, on the ground that the applicant was born of Saxon subjects temporarily in the United States. Mr. Secretary Frelinghuysen wrote to Mr. Kasson, our minister: 'You ask, 'Can one born a foreign subject, but within the United States, make the option after his majority, and while still living abroad, to adopt the citizenship of his birthplace?' It seems not, and that he must change his allegiance by emigration and legal process of naturalization.' Sections 1992 and 1993 of the Revised Statutes clearly show the extent of existing legislation; that the fact of birth, under circumstances implying alien subjection, establishes of itself no right of citizenship and that thec itizenship of a person so born is to be acquired in some legitimate manner through the operation of statute. No statute contemplates the acquisition of the declared character of an American citizen by a person not at the time within the jurisdiction of the tribunal of record which confers that character.'

Greisser was born in the state of Ohio in 1867, his father being a German subject, and domiciled in Germany, to which country the child returned. After quoting the act of 1866 and the fourteenth amendment, Mr. Secretary Bayard said: 'Richard Greisser was, no doubt, born in the United States, but he was on his birth 'subject to a foreign power,' and 'not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.' He was not, therefore, under the statute and the constitution, a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship.' 2 Whart. Int. Dig. 399.

The civil rights act became a law April 9, 1866 (14 Stat. 27, c. 31), and provided 'that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians [169 U.S. 649, 720] not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.' And this was re-enacted June 22, 1874, in the Revised Statutes (section 1992).

The words 'not subject to any foreign power' do not in themselves refer to mere territorial jurisdiction, for the persons referred to are persons born in the United States. All such persons are undoubtedly subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and yet the act concedes that, nevertheless, they may be subject to the political jurisdiction of a foreign government. In other words, by the terms of the act, all persons born in the United States, and not owing allegiance to any foreign power, are citizens.

The allegiance of children so born is not the local allegiance arising from their parents merely being domiciled in the country; and it is single, and not double, allegiance. Indeed, double allegiance, in the sense of double nationality, has no place in our law, and the existence of a man without a country is not recognized.

But it is argued that the words 'and not subject to any foreign power' should be construed as excepting from the operation of the statute only the children of public ministers and of aliens born during hostile occupation.

Was there any necessity of excepting them? And, if there were others described by the words, why should the language be construed to exclude them?

Whether the immunity of foreign ministers from local allegiance rests on the fiction of extraterritoriality or on the waiver of territorial jurisdiction, by receiving them as representatives of other sovereignties, the result is the same.

They do not owe allegiance otherwise than to their own governments, and their children cannot be regarded as born within any other.

And this is true as to the children of aliens within territory in hostile occupation, who necessarily are not under the protection of, nor bound to render obedience to, the sovereign whose domains are invaded; but it is not pretended that the children of citizens of a government so situated would not become its citizens at their birth, as the permanent allegiance [169 U.S. 649, 721] of their parents would not be severed by the mere fact of the enemy's possession.

If the act of 1866 had not contained the words 'and not subject to any foreign power,' the children neither of public ministers nor of aliens in territory in hostile occupation would have been included within its terms on any proper construction, for their birth would not have subjected them to ties of allegiance, whether local and temporary, or general and permanent.

There was no necessity as to them for the insertion of the words, although they were embraced by them.

But there were others in respect of whom the exception was needed, namely, the children of aliens, whose parents owed local and temporary allegiance merely, remaining subject to a foreign power by virtue of the tie of permanenta llegiance, which they had not severed by formal abjuration or equivalent conduct, and some of whom were not permitted to do so if they would.

And it was to prevent the acquisition of citizenship by the children of such aliens merely by birth within the geographical limits of the United States that the words were inserted.

Two months after the statute was enacted, on June 16, 1866, the fourteenth amendment was proposed, and declared ratified July 28, 1868. The first clause of the first section reads: '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 act was passed and the amendment proposed by the same congress, and it is not open to reasonable doubt that the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the amendment, were used as synonymous with the words 'and not subject to any foreign power,' of the act.

The jurists and statesmen referred to in the majority opinion, notably Senators Trumbull and Reverdy Johnson, concurred in that view, Senator Trumbull saying: 'What do we mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybodyelse; that is what it means.' And Senator Johnson: 'Now, all that this amendment provides [169 U.S. 649, 722] is that all persons born within the United States, and not subject to some foreign power (for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us), shall be considered as citizens of the United States.' Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Cong. 2893 et seq.

This was distinctly so ruled in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 101 , 5 Sup. Ct. 41; and no reason is perceived why the words were used if they apply only to that obedience which all persons not possessing immunity therefrom must pay the laws of the country in which they happen to be.

Dr. Wharton says that the words 'subject to the jurisdiction' must be construed in the sense which international law attributes to them, but that the children of our citizens born abroad, and of foreigners born in the United States, have the right, on arriving at full age, to elect one allegiance, and repudiate the other. Whart. Confl. Laws, 10-12.

The constitution and statutes do not contemplate double allegiance, and how can such election be determined? By section 1993 of the Revised Statutes, the citizenship of the children of our citizens born abroad may be terminated in that generation by their persistent abandonment of their country; while, by sections 2167 and 2168, special provision is made for the naturalization of alien minor residents on attaining majority by dispensing with the previous declaration of intention, and allowing three years of minority on the five-years residence required, and also for the naturalization of children of aliens whose parents have died after making declaration of intention. By section 2172, children of naturalized citizens are to be considered citizens.

While, then, the naturalization of the father carries with it that of his minor children, and his declaration of intention relieves them from the preliminary steps for naturalization, and minors are allowed to count part of the pesidence of their minority on the whole term required, and are relieved from the declaration of intention, the statutes make no provision for formal declaration of election by children born in this country of alien parents on attaining majority.

The point, however, before us, is whether permanent allegiance [169 U.S. 649, 723] is imposed at birth without regard to circumstances,-permanent until thrown off and another allegiance acquired by formal acts; not local and determined by a mere change of domicile.

The fourteenth amendment came before the court in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73, at December term, 1872,-the cases having been brought up by writ of error in May, 1870 (10 Wall. 273); and it was held that the first clause was intended to define citizenship of the United States and citizenshipo f a state, which definitions recognized the distinction between the one and the other; that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the states embrace generally those fundamental civil rights for the security of which organized society was instituted, and which remain, with certain exceptions mentioned in the federal constitution, under the care of the state governments; while the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States are those which arise out of the nature and essential character of the national government, the provisions of its constitution, or its laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof; and that it is the latter which are placed under the protection of congress by the second clause.

And Mr. Justice Miller, delivering the oponion of the court, in analyzing the first clause, observed that 'the phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states, born within the United States.'

That eminent judge did not have in mind the distinction between persons charged with diplomatic functions and those who were not, but was well aware that consuls are usually the citizens or subjects of the foreign states from which they come, and that, indeed, the appointment of natives of the places where the consular service is required, though permissible, has been pronounced objectionable in principle.

His view was that the children of 'citizens or subjects of foreign states' owing permanent allegiance elsewhere, and only local obedience here, are not otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the United States than are their parents. [169 U.S. 649, 724] Mr. Justice Field dissented from the judg ment of the court, and subsequently, in the case of Look Tin Sing, 10 Sawy. 353, 21 Fed. 905, in the circuit court for the district of California, held children born of Chinese parents in the United States to be citizens, and the cases subsequently decided in the Ninth circuit following that ruling; hence the conclusion in this case, which the able opinion of the district judge shows might well have been otherwise.

I do not insist that, although what was said was deemed essential to the argument and a necessary part of it, the point was definitively disposed of in the Slaughter-House Cases, particularly as Chief Justice Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 167, remarked that there were doubts, which, for the purposes of the case then in hand, it was not necessary to solve. But that solution is furnished in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 101 , 5 Sup. Ct. 41, where the subject received great consideration, and it was said:

'By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution, slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393); and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States, and of the state in which they reside (Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303 , 306).

'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do [169 U.S. 649, 725] to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the timeo f birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.'

To be 'completely subject' to the political jurisdiction of the United States is to be in no respect or degree subject to the political jurisdiction of any other government.

Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country, but are forbidden by its system of government, as well as by its positive laws, from doing so, and are not permitted to acquire another citizenship by the laws of the country into which they come, must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country.

Generally speaking, I understand the subjects of the emperor of China- that ancient empire, with its history of thousands of years, and its unbroken continuity in belief, traditions, and government, in spite of revolutions and changes of dynasty-to be bound to him by every conception of duty and by every principle of their religion, of which filial piety is the first and greatest commandment; and formerly, perhaps still, their penal laws denounced the severest penalties on those who renounced their country and allegiance, and their abettors, and, in effect, held the relatives at home of Chinese in foreign lands as hostages for their loyalty. 1 And, [169 U.S. 649, 726] whatever concession may have been made by treaty in the direction of admitting the right of expatriation in some sense, they seem in the United States to have remained pigrims and sojourners as all their fathers were. 149 U.S. 717 , 13 Sup. Ct. 1016. At all events, they have never been allowed by our laws to acquire our nationality, and, except in sporadic instances, do not appear ever to have desired to do so.

The fourteenth amendment was not designed to accord citizenship to persons so situated, and to cut off the legislative power from dealing with the subject.

The right of a nation to expel or deport foreigners who have not been naturalized or taken any steps towards becoming citizens of a country is as absolute and unqualified as the right to prohibit and prevent their entrance into the county. 149 U.S. 707 , 13 Sup. Ct. 1016.

But can the persos expelled be subjected to 'cruel and unusual punishments' in the process of expulsion, as would be the case if children born to them in this country were separated from them on their departure, because citizens of the United States? Was it intended by this amendment to tear up parental relations by the roots?

The fifteenth amendment provides 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.' Was it intended thereby that children of aliens should, by virtue of being born in the [169 U.S. 649, 727] United States, be entitled, on attaining majority, to vote, irrespective of the treaties and laws of the United States in regard to such aliens?

In providing that persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens, the fourteenth amendment undoubtedly had particular reference to securing citizenship to the members of the colored race, whose servile status had been obliterated by the thirteenth amendment, and who had been born in the United States, but were not, and never had been, subject to any foreign power. They were not aliens (and, even if they could be so regarded, this operated as a collective naturalization), and their political status could not be affected by any change of the laws for the naturalization of individuals.

Nobody can deny that the question of citizenship in a nation is of the most vital importance. It is a precious heritage, as well as an inestimable acquisition; and I cannot think that any safeguard surrounding it was intended to be thrown down by the amendment.

In suggesting some of the privileges and immunities of national citizenship in the Slaughter-House Cases, Mr. Justice Miller said: 'Another privilege of a citizen of the United States is to demand the care and protection of the federal government over his life, liberty, and property when on the high seas or within the jurisdiction of a foreign government. Of this there can be no doubt, nor that the right depends upon his character as a citizen of the United States.'

Mr. Hall says, in his work on Foreign Jurisdiction (sections 2, 5), the principle is that 'the legal relations by which a person is encompassed in his country of birth and residence cannot be wholly put aside when he goes abroad for a time. Many of the acts which he may do outside his native state have inevitable consequences within it. He may, for many purposes, be temporarily under the control of another sovereign than his own, and he may be bound to yield to a foreign government a large measure of obedience; but his own state possesses a right to his allegiance; he is still an integral part of the national community. A state, therefore, can enact laws [169 U.S. 649, 728] enjoining or forbidding acts, and defining legal relations, which apply to its subjects abroad in common with those within its dominions. It can declare under what conditions it will regard as valid acts done in foreign countries, which profess to have legal effect; it can visit others with penalties; it can estimate circumstances and facts as it chooses.' On the other hand, the 'duty of protection is correlative to the rights of a sovereign over his subjects. The maintenance of a bond between a state and its subjects while they are abroad implies that the former must watch over and protect them within the due limit of the rights of other states. ... It enables governments to exact reparation for oppression from which their subjects have suffered, or for injuries done to them otherwise than by process of law; and it gives the means of guarding them against the effect of unreasonable laws, of laws totally out of harmony with the nature or degree of civilization by which a foreign power affects to be characterized, and finally of an administration of the laws bad beyond a certain point. When, in these directions, a state grossly fails in its duties; when it is either incapable of rui ng, or rules with patent injustice,-the right of protection emerges in the form of diplomatic remonstrance, and in extreme cases of ulterior measures. It provides a material sanction for rights; it does not offer a theoretic foundation. It does not act within a foreign territory with the consent of the sovereign; it acts against him contentiously from without.'

The privileges or immunities which, by the second clause of the amendment, the states are forbidden to abridge, are the privileges or immunities pertaining to citizenship of the United States, but that clause also places an inhibition on the states from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, and from denying 'to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws'; that is, of its own laws,- the laws to which its own citizens are subjected.

The jurisdiction of the state is necessarily local, and the limitation relates to rights primarily secured by the states, and not by the United States. Jurisdiction, as applied to the general government, embraces international relations; as applied [169 U.S. 649, 729] to the state, it refers simply to its power over persons and things within its particular limits.

These considerations lead to the conclusion that the rule in respect of citizenship of the United States prior to the fourteenth amendment differed from the English common-law rule in vital particulars, and, among others, in that it did not recognize allegiance as indelible, and in that it did recognize an essential difference between birth during temporary and birth during permanent residence. If children born in the United States were deemed presumptively and generally citizens, this was not so when they were born of aliens whose residence was merely temporary, either in fact or in point of law.

Did the fourteenth amendment impose the original English common-law rule as a rigid rule on this country?

Did the amendment operate to abridge the treary-making power, or the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization?

I insist that it cannot be maintained that this government is unable, through the action of the president, concurred in by the senate, to make a treaty with a foreign government providing that the subjects of that government, although allowed to enter the United States, shall not be made citizens thereof, and that their children shall not become such citizens by reason of being born therein.

A treaty couched in those precise terms would not be incompatible with the fourteenth amendment, unless it be held that that amendment has abridged the treaty-making power.

Nor would a naturalization law exceping persons of a certain race and their children be invalid, unless the amendment has abridged the power of naturalization. This cannot apply to our colored fellow citizens, who never were aliens, were never beyond the jurisdiction of the United States.

'Born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' and 'naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' mean born or naturalized under such circumstances as to be completely subject to that jurisdiction,-that is, as completely as citizens of the United States [169 U.S. 649, 730] who are, of course, not subject to any foreign power, and can of right claim the exercise of the power of the United States on their behalf wherever they may be. When, then, children are born the United States to the subjects of a foreign power, with which it is agreed by treaty that they shall not be naturalized thereby, and as to whom our own law forbids them to be naturalized, such children are not born so subject to the jurisdiction as to become citizens, and entitled on that ground to the interposition of our government, if they happen to be found in the country of their parents' origin and allegiance, or any other.

Turning to the treaty between the United States and China, concluded July 28, 1868, the ratifications of which were exchanged November 23, 1869, and the proclamation made February 5, 8 70, we find that by its sixth article it was provided: 'Citizens of the United States visiting or residing in China shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities, or exemptions in respect of travel or residence as may there be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation. And, reciprocally Chinese subjects residing in the United States, shall enjoy the same privileges, immunities, and exemptions in respect to travel or residence as may there be enjoyed by the citizens or subjects of the most favored nation. But nothing herein contained shall be held to confer naturalization on the citizens of the United States in China, nor upon the subjects of China in the United States.'

It is true that in the fifth article the inherent right of man to change his home or allegiance was recognized, as well as 'the mutual advantage of the free migration and emigration of their citizens and subjects, respectively, from the one country to the other, for the purposes of curiosity, of traffic, or as permanent residents.'

All this, however, had reference to an entirely voluntary emigration for these purposes, and did not involve an admission of change of allegiance unless both countries assented, but the contrary, according to the sixth article.

By the convention of March 17, 1894, it was agreed 'that Chinese laborers or Chinese of any other class, either permanently [169 U.S. 649, 731] or temporarily residing within the United States, shall have for the protection of their persons and property all rights that are given by the laws of the United States to citizens of the most favored nation, excepting the right to become naturalized citizens.'

These treaties show that neither government desired such change, nor assented thereto. Indeed, if the naturalization laws of the United States had provided for the naturalization of Chinese persons. China manifestly would not have been obliged to recognize that her subjects had changed their allegiance thereby. But our laws do not so provide, and, on the contrary, are in entire harmony with the treaties.

I think it follows that the children of Chinese born in this country do not, ipso facto, become citizens of the United States unless the fourteenth amendment overrides both treaty and statute. Does it bear that construction; or, rather, is it not the proper construction that all persons born in the United States of parents permanently residing here, and susceptible of becoming citizens, and not prevented therefrom by treaty or statute, are citizens, and not otherwise?

But the Chinese, under their form of government, the treaties and statutes, cannot become citizens nor acquire a permanent home here, no matter what the length of their stay may be. Whart. Confl. Laws, 12.

In Fong Yue Ting v. U. S., 149 U.S. 698, 717 , 13 S. Sup. Ct. 1023, it was said, in respect of the treaty of 1868: 'After some years' experience under that treaty, the government of the United States was brought to the opinion that the presence within our territory of large numbers of Chinese laborers, of a distinct race and religion, remaining strangers in the land, residing apart by themselves, tenaciously adhering to the customs and usages of their own country, unfamiliar with our institutions, and apparently incapable of assimilating with our people, might endanger good order, and be injurious to the public interests; and therefore requested and obtained form China a modification of the treaty.'

It is not to be admitted that the children of persons so situated become citizens by the accident of birth. On the contrary, [169 U.S. 649, 732] I am of opinion that the president and senate by treaty, and the congress by legislation, have the power, notwithstanding the fourteenth amendment, to prescribe that all persons of a particular race, or their children, cannot become citizens, and that it results that the consent to allow such persons to come into and reside within our geographical limits does not carry with it the imposition of citizenship upon children born to them while in this countr under such consent, in spite of treaty and statute.

In other words, the fourteenth amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens; nor, on the other hand, does it arbitrarily make citizens of children born in the United States of parents who, according to the will of their native government and of this government, are and must remain aliens.

Tested by this rule, Wong Kim Ark never became and is not a citizen of the United States, and the order of the district court should be reversed.

I am authorized to say that Mr. Justice HARLAN concurs in this dissent.



[ Footnote 1 ] The fundamental laws of China have remained practically unchanged since the second century before Christ. The statutes have from time to time undergone modifications, but there does not seem to be any English or French translation of the Chinese Penal Code later than that by Staunton, published in 1810. That Code provided: 'All persons renouncing their country and allegiance, or devising the means thereof, shall be beheaded; and in the punishment of this offense, no distinction shall be made between principals and accessories. The property of all such criminals shall be confiscated, and their wives and children distributed as slaves to the great officers of state. ... The parents, grandparents, brothers, and grand-children of such criminals, whether habitually living with them under the same roof or not, shall be perpetually banished to the distance of 2,000 lee.

'All those who purposely conceal and connive at the perpetration of this crime, shall be strangled. Those who inform against, and bring to justice criminals of this description, shall be rewarded with the whole of their property.

'Those who are privy to the perpetration of this crime, and yet omit to give any notice or information thereof to the magistrate, shall be punished with 100 blows and banished perpetually to the distance of 3,000 lee.

'If the crime is contrived, but not executed, the principal shall be strangled, and all the accessories shall, each of them, be punished with 100 blows, and perpetual banishment to the distance of 3,000 lee. ...' Staunton's Pen. Code China, 272, 255.

And whay of the Elk Vs. Wilkins case? Doens't that case count? You can't just pick and choose your decisions/opinins. There are valid arguments on both sides of this issue. But what is most glaring to me is that the actual writer STATED in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS that this amendment was NOT INTENDED FOR ALIENS!!!! How can this be largely ignored?

Now, how can I be so bold as to say, "Hey, these individuals were wrongly granted citizenship. Let's revoke it and send them home." Easily. Just as Jackie does so often, let's apply this to a different scenario. The IRS misinterprets a statute or misreads a number somewhere on your tax return, then in hindsight discovers the error. Do they say, "Oh, well, our mistake, you may have already spent that money and we understand it might be a hardship for you to pay it back, so just forget about it..." No, they don't. They make you pay, sometimes with interest.

So, excuse me, everyone, for pointing out the obvious. But ignorance of the issues over time does not make it go away. It simply makes it worse. My point here is that we, as a nation, haver to take a stand. I am in no way "anti-immigrant". There are a million and one ways that a foreign national can come here to live and work LEGALLY. And don't give me that cost prohibitive crap with regards to visa applications, especially since I know first hand how much some illegals pay to come here illegally. All I'm saying is we need to do things right. And if that means we have to backtrack in order to right the ship, so be it.

To what extent shall we grant largesse to the world's poor? Shall we de-commision our naval fleet and convert them into rescue vessels? There are many nations in this world much worse off than our neighbor to the south. How can we possbly ignore the poverty in Africa? Shall we bring them all here so they may live better? I think perhaps it might be a better plan to restrict citezenship to those born to citizens. It might be a better plan to keep our standard of living high enough we have surplus that can be diverted to aid those in need, WHERE THEY ARE. In most cases where there is extreme poverty there is poor government as well. We can not play police man to the world, nor can we host the world's poor without having a negative impact on our own society.

Election day is almost here, and I know that a lot of people are extremely fed up and pi$$ed off at some of the people currently in office and are looking for change. However, be extremely careful when you vote, and be sure that you are not voting for a candidate that supports amnesty/citizenship for the millions of illegal invaders in our country.

If a candidate mentions comprehensive immigration reform and/or support for a guest worker program--it will mean amnesty/citizenship. Please investigate your candidates' opinions/goals on illegal immigration before you vote!! Don't vote strictly by party lines, vote on the candidate's plans/goals/opinions regarding illegal immigration.

If all of those illegal immigrants are given amnesty/citizenship--and they then are able to bring over immediate family members--the USA as we know and love it, will be changed forever. We will be turned into a third world country-- the economy and wages will be depressed forever, and our resources/social services/schools/healthcare systems will become over-extended failures. US citizens will face increased problems in trying to obtain decent jobs. In addition, your taxes will increase--as the illegals will be eligible for MORE social benefits (welfare, food stamps, WIC, low-income housing, etc.)--once they receive citizenship!!!

Please go to this Lou Dobbs site, on the right side of the screen you will see the headings below. Please look up to see how senators voted on illegal immigration issues. Please also send a message to congress stating--No amnesty/citizenship, revise the 14th Amendment (no more anchor babies), and enforce our current immigration laws. Also, make sure that you always watch Lou Dobbs on CNN--as he is the only person in media that goes out of his way to make sure that the LEGAL US citizens are aware of everything that is going on in our country.

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/

Look for the following:

YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS

How senators voted on key issues

Send a message: Tell Congress what you think

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight


Here are some videos/sites that I definitely recommend to state on top of all of the immigration news.

Aztlan/Reconquista video----The belief by groups such as La Raza ("the race"), Mecha, Maldef, Brown Berets, etc.--that they are going to take back US territory that formerly belonged to Mexico.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STGYN3vyEj8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=JCCVUot-hBo

www.americanpatrol.com

www.lawatchdog.com

http://anti-illegalimmigrationevents.com

www.numbersusa.com

www.minutemanproject.com

http://www.mexica-movement.org/ENTERHERETEXTONLY.htm

http://www.aztlan.net

Illegal mothers have no rights in our country--they are not "legal" citizens and they are criminals.

The anchor children of the illegal mothers have the right to leave with their illegal mothers or to stay with LEGAL family members or friends.

The 14th Amendment was NEVER meant to provide citizenship to the children of illegal invaders--it was meant to provide citizenship to the children of newly freed slaves.

There is no sense in arguing/debating with Jackie or Debbie. They have the right to their opinions/support. However, just as long as our government is aware of their addresses (as well as of those that think like them), so that their paychecks can be tapped for the taxes to support the illegal invaders.

The MAJORITY of legal US citizens do not want amnesty/citizenship for anyone (including the illegal mothers), want our 14th Amendment revised and applied properly, and our borders secured/closed.

It will not take deportation to eliminate the illegals from our country. Cities such as Hazleton, Escondido, and Riverside have come up with the perfect solution. Hazleton has not even applied their laws yet, and the mayor said that over half of his illegal invader population has already left his city. Their laws----landlords caught renting to illegals will be fined per illegal, employers caught hiring illegals will be fined and their business licencses revoked, proof of citizenship is required for any social benefits. If they have no place to live and no source of income/benefits, they will begin to self deport. Cities throughout the country are getting ready to pass similar laws--as they do not want the illegals to begin moving into their towns.

For more information, read up on Hazleton, PA.

Duane:

I agree with all of your views. Isn't it funny how none of the illegal invaders or their supporters are worried about any other groups of people throughout the world--including Darfur/Sudan? I think that these people are a lot worse off than the illegal invaders and deserve our help more than they do. Why aren't we providing a ferry to assist the people trying to escape from Cuba?

Build the wall and deport them all!!! They should not be rewarded in any way for their criminal behavior. The proper way to come into our country is through the proper, legal process.

Brenda,

Thanks for the info. Here in Northern Virginia, several localities are also taking their cities back. In Herndon , VA, a recent local election saw every single town board incumbant ousted. That was the repercussions of board members voting to use tax dollars to erect a "day laborer center". In addition, Herndon PD and Loudon County Sherriffs are exploring the 287(g) program with DHS and ICE, hoping to assist in the identification and apprehension of illegal aliens in their jurisdictions. Hopefully, many others will follow suit. Looks like we, as cities and localities, may have to micro-manage this one. If we leave it up to the federal government, nothing will gat accomplished.

William:

"If we leave it up to the federal government, nothing will gat accomplished."

I agree, and it may also reach the point of no return if US citizens and cities do not do something now!!! I wish that this was a presidential election year--as we could put in Tom Tancredo to clean up house in regard to the illegal immigration issues. I am not sure if you know a lot about him, but I definitely recommend his book "In Mortal Danger" and also "The Minutemen" by Jim Gilchrist and Jerome Corsi.

I heard about the steps that the citizens of Virginia had taken in regard to fighting the day labor centers--hooray for them!!! In Arizona, they want citizens to pay for water stations located throughout the desert for the illegals making their illegal journeys from Mexico to Arizona.

Definitely check out those links that I posted--they are eye-opening and shocking!! There are those that believe our country is headed for civil war/revolution. At first, I thought that they were extremists that drank too much caffeine. However, if you visit those sites and are made aware of all of the facts regarding these issues, it is definitely not just the utterings of extremists. Our country is in for some very troubling times in the near future.

Another group of people that definitely deserves a lot of credit (besides the Minutemen), are the www.saveourborders.com groups in California. Those people are protesting every week--even when they have been verbally/physically threatened. Many times, the protests have come very close to riots. Actually, I believe, the civil war/revolution will begin somewhere in Southern California. It seems that the more things that the illegals and their supporters get away with, the further they push.

William & Brenda: Every state, every municipality, every city ordinance and county declaration that is passing laws is in direct violation of federal law.

So much for calling the kettle black - wouldn't you say?

And here I thought WE were SO much BETTER, much more LAW ABIDING!!!!!

hmmmmmm......guess we're just as bad as they are only we just hide behind our righteous indignation.....

What a freaking joke!!! LOL.....and I guess you think this will work forever?

Jackie:

The city of Hazleton used immigration attorneys to revise the drafts of their laws in order to make them "ACLU proof". Guess what, the ACLU has not refiled their suit since the redraft/rewrite took place. Uh-oh....it doesn't look good for the illegals.

They should definitely start packing and making their moving plans.

Yep, if our government will not do its job in order to stop this illegal invasion, US citizens and cities will take the task upon themselves.

I posted the following link above....www.saveourstate.com

It SHOULD be www.saveourstate.org
Go to "forums", "What's on Tap" or "General Discussions"

Anyone from California.......

If you are in California....Please go to www.saveourstate.org

Go to forums---

Then either "What's on Tap" or "General Discussions"

They need your help (and the help of friends and family) for their upcoming protest in Maywood the beginning of November.

The mayor of Maywood, just like the mayor of National City, is trying to turn the town into a sanctuary city for illegal invaders. The Save our State group and Minutemen need your help in defending this US city from this takeover/invasion.

If you cannot make it for any other protest/march--please go out of your way to make the one in Maywood!!! During the first protest in Maywood, the illegals went over to the US post office---took down the American flag and stomped on it---then hung a Mexican flag. When the police went to take down the Mexican flag, they were pelted with rocks and water bottles by the illegal invaders.

Due to the actions of the mayor in Maywood, the illegal invaders actually think that they won this city for Mexico. The illegal invaders carried Mexican flags, along with signs/posters stating---"Illegal European immigrants go home", "Aztlan", "Get off of our land/continent", "This land has always been ours", etc.

Guess that proves they are as fanatic as you are.....

And like you, will feel extremely unfulfilled in the end.

Brenda, Seems like the immigration attorneys in Hazelton should post and send the revised draft to every city and web site interested. I like PA.

Jackie,

Please enlighten us...how are those states in violation of federal law? I can't wait to hear this one.

Tom:

The ACLU was claiming racism in regard to fining landlords who rent to illegals. They were saying that all Hispanics would be questioned/targeted when trying to determine if they were illegal. Now, Hazleton is requiring that an application be completed by all potential renters in order to eliminate the possibility of "racism". In other words, it cannot be racism/prejudice if "all" applicants are required to fill out an application for the city before being able to rent.

The other cities throughout the country need to set up their laws similar to those of Hazleton, as they had immigration attorneys providing information/advice. However, I am sure that eventually they will all follow suit and learn how to put their laws in place so that they are foolproof against the ACLU.

I definitely recommend this site to stay on top of all illegal immigration issues---including anchor babies, Hazleton, etc. www.americanpatrol.com

Look, another city just joined Hazleton.....

Bill would prohibit renting to illegal immigrants

By Bill Harless, bharless@nashvillecitypaper.com

October 11, 2006

http://www.nashvillecitypaper.com/index.cfm?section_id=9&screen=news&news_id=52635


There is also this........

Nevada town considering banning banking by illegal immigrants

ASSOCIATED PRESS

9:39 a.m. October 11, 2006

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20061011-0939-nv-immigrantbanking.html

I noticed references to the common law in some of the above postings. Common law comes from common sense. If children of illegal aliens are born in this country and raised here, then they're citizens. What would they know of their parents' home land?


They would be living within our system. Educated in our system. And subject to the laws of our system. And when fully grown would power the economy of our system.


They become contributors to this country and add to its splendor. Being educated about the culture from which they come, and fighting for the rights of others from that same culture is normal.


This country has a history of "illegal" aliens building and adding great things to the overall American culture. Don't think for an instant that every Chinese, Irish, Scottish, German.... etc that ever came to this country during its early years, signed papers or swore an oath of allegiance to the constitution.


They knew this was ( and still is,) a land of opportunity. And just because of that alone, they worked hard and earned their way. And like the immigrants of today, they were hated by those who came before them. This is the same old thing all over again.

And no matter how eloquent the arguments of those opposing "illegal" immigrants, it all boils down to "we don't like them because they're outsiders trying to change how we live." or "who do they think they are coming to OUR land and taking OUR JOBS"


There is nothing abnormal or wrong with immigrants wanting to come here for a better life. If anything, it speaks to the greatness of this country. How good could it be over here if no one wanted to come here?


Let them into our system and use their understanding of their respective cultures to foster greater relationships with their parents' countries of origin, thus expanding the influence of our country and allowing us to more easily propagate our way of life throughout the world.


The one great thing about our country that is unique in the world as that ANYONE from ANY PART OF THE WORLD, can come here and become an American. No other country has this. You can become a Chinese citizen, but you'll never truly be Chines. You could become an English citizen or subject, but you'll never truly be British or English. We should USE this quality, not bury it.

Hi Benny:

There are a few people that think like you, and that is fine. However, just so that the money to support them is tapped from all of your paychecks only!!

The majority of US citizens do not want amnesty/citizenship, want the 14th Amendment revised and applied properly, and our borders closed/secured.

The people that do not want the same as the majority can be held respsonsible for supporting them with their paychecks/tax dollars.

Our taxes already help give incentives to corporations that outsource jobs to folks that don't even live in this country. At least with amnetsy you'll see a real return on investment because you're helping to build the talent pool in THIS coutry and not some place like India or China. In the end it's about the people not the money.

Oh... and Brenda...

Do you KNOW that the majority of people feel like you do because you did the reasearch yourself. Or is it because some politician on TV said so....

You have to watch this video, it will make you want to vomit. This is from one of the recent protests in California.

Notice the US citizens (Minutemen and Save our State members) have to be escorted by police for their own protection against this mob of illegal goons.

Notice the number of riot police as well. California is very much aware of what is going to happen over all of this illegal invader BS.

This is unbelievable. This is the US, those are legal US citizens having to be protected from illegal invaders from another country--and our government is not doing anything!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmprjzXNpnU

You people talking about immigration I have one thing to say ITS WRONG UNLESS ITS LEGALLLLLL!!!!!

Benny:

"Do you KNOW that the majority of people feel like you do because you did the reasearch yourself. Or is it because some politician on TV said so.... "

Actually, poll after poll has indicated so. Also, notice all of the cities like Hazleton, Escondido, Riverside, Nashville, etc., passing laws---landlords caught renting to illegals are fined, employers caught hiring them are fined and their business licenses revoked, no social benefits without proof of citizenship. The people in the towns voted for these laws. Each day, a new city joins the list of passing similar laws. Hazleton was the first. The mayor said that the laws have not even been put into force yet, and over half of the illegals have left his town just knowing that they passed. Other cities throughout the US do not want them moving to their towns next. I think that this makes it pretty clear how the majority in the US feel.

Tell me, the 300,000 - 500,000 illegal mothers that sneak into our country annually just to have their anchor children, what exactly are they contributing to the talent pool?

If you and others like you want to live in Mexico, why don't you move to Mexico? This is the US, for legal US citizens. We will defend to the end the right to keep our country the way that we want it---with benefits/rights going to LEGAL US citizens only.

You, and people that think like you, are a disgrace and embarrassment to this country. To think that the thousands of our men and women in our military died for people like you. People that will freely and easily turn over their country to illegal invaders who want to invade and take over. You make me want to vomit.

Benny,

Was it legal? I thougth there was an investigsation into the matter that was never really resolved. So that comparison is a stretch. Also:

" In the end it's about the people not the money. "

Are you insane? Why do we outsource jobs to India, China, and Mexico? CHEAP LABOR. Why do we have an illegal immigrant population that is thriving here? CHEAP LABOR. Why do we want cheap labor? SO THE CORPORATIONS AND THEIR EXECUTIVES CAN MAKE MORE MONEY! THEY DON"T WANT TO PAY THE MINIMUM WAGE OR HAVE A UNIONIZED SHOP...So in the end, I guess it is still about money isn't it?

Oh Nuck..... silly guy :-)

Don't equate legall with right. They are not mutually exlusive. A really example of this would be big increase in gas prices. It was perfectly legal for the big oil companies to raise the price of gas while still increasing their own profits at the expence of the American consumer.....

But was it the right thing to do? People on tight budgets would certainly say not. :-)

Brenda....

Hmm.... you did a good job pointing out some city names there. Let's take a look at a couple of them ok?


Escondido California: A city composed of about 77% white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Middle class families. That sounds right. Check out the demographics for yourselves at:
http://www.ci.escondido.ca.us/glance/demographics/demographics.pdf


Hazelton:

Seems to be a very small town. No demographic data available on their site. But from the looks of their oh so pretty flash presentation one gets the feeling that their "minority" population is negligible at best. You can find their site here:
http://www.hazletoncity.org/home_frameset.htm


Riverside:
Seems also to be a mostly white middle class community. Their demographic data shows a rather diverse list of "minorities" until you do the math and see that the combined total of minorities equates to just over 20% of the population of that city. Which is only 255,166. That comes to just over 51k people. Jumping to 40% only if you factor in the "some other race" category. How do you categorize "some other race"? Got me on that one. You can find the data here:
http://riversideca.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm


It would seem then, that the majority you speak of is in fact composed mostly of middle class white Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

The sad part about this, is that it's the middle class that's always getting shafted into making a raw deal for themselves by the upper class. And the poor are often used as justification for these deals.

How many white middle class Americans are clamoring for for all those fruit picking, roofing laborer, and fast food jobs we all seem to value so much? I for my part haven't seen very many.


Blaming the immigrant is the wrong thing to do. Get mad at the big business that are exploiting these folks because they can get away with paying substandard wages within our borders.


Immigrants come here to WORK. And big business knows this. Even with the substandard wages these people make, it's still more than what they'd make in their countries of origin. And who are these big American business owned by for the most part? Why.... AMERICANS of course.

We value money more than we value each other. If companies were forced to pay competitive wages to these people then they would naturally steer away from them and be more apt to hire an American citizen instead. Because if costs are the same across the board then there's no advantage to hire illegals. Is there?


It's just funny that you and your kind blame immigrants for stealing your jobs and yet, you extol the virtues of the American industries that hire them. "Made in America and Proud of it" :-) Holy crap that's so dumb you can't help but laugh sometimes.


Who do you think sews all those cool designer jeans, or assembles those cool sneakers? Who do think picks all fruit for that "Fresh squeezed Florida Orange Juice"? Jesus Christ..... people can be so stupid sometimes.

Debbie,

On point with your comment. I would agree whole-heartedly. And that's what makes this country great, in spite of all our problems.

Thanks for that.

wcd

Benny,

Another excelent point. And until the corporations are forced to abide by the laws, it will be virtually impossible to stop the exploitation. If corporations were forced to apply for unskilled worker visas, then maybe illegals would opt to pay the $100 visa application fee to come work, as opposed to paying thousands to be smuggeld in. this is a multifaceted issue, and the cause does not rest onthe shoulders of one group alone.

Willam Duda,

Dude.... The reason it never got resolved is because the government was doing lip service to the issue. Who's going to hold anyone in high positions in those companies accountable when they contribute so much to the economy?

As I said before. In reality it's not about the money. In practice unfortunetly it IS all about the money. And that's why sh*t is so f****d up right now. Value people first and we wouldn't have these problems. :-)

William,

Da man!!! It's nice to know that there are others out there that can see more than just what's put in front of them. We need more level headed thinkers out there. Thanks for demonstrating yourself to be one of them.

I am against amnesty, illegal immigration, and uncontrolled jus solis. But I hesitate to point the finger at the immigrants alone. I'm not exculpating them, but they are not entirely to blame. Our government, our corporations, the Mexican and other world governments and multinational corporations are just as much to blame for this mess.

Benny,

Sure, I understand what you're getting at...but that doesn't make it "legal". That's why I question the comparison.

And your final statement is kinda contradictory...in THEORY it should be about the people, you know, government by the people, for the people, and all that happy horse s**t. But in reality, money talks, and B.S. walks.

This is why so many communities are fighting back locally. Sure, many of these communities are predominately middle class. But why are they fighting back? Is it becuase they "hate" immigrants? I should hope not, but I can't speak for all. It is a result of what is happening to their communities. The facts are that when there is an influx of illegal immgirants ina community, problems result. Taxes go up to support social services, including education and medical care. Crime goes up, not just violent crime, but other infractions, such as DUI, vagrancy and such. Results of these less violent crimes include more road fatalities (see my article entitled Immigration Enforcement Being Accepted By More State and Local Agencies), graffitti, litter, etc. Why do yu think ranchers inthe Southwest get so ticked with illegals? Because they don't just walk across their land. They leave behind trash, they urinate and deficate on their property, and sometimes damage and destroy property. People have had enough excuses. It is illegal to cross the border without inspection by an immigration officer. Period. There are plenty of legal avenues to come here and work. So why don't we simply enforce the laws that exist, and not hold only the immigrants responsible, but those who unlawfully provide opportunities for them responsible as well?

BTW,

Intersting news for Jackie regardign polulation growth:

Just posted today on Yahoo News:

The one sure thing about US population as it moves past 300 million - expected to happen in the next few days - is that there will be more Americans. A lot more.

Everything else is informed speculation. Still, much will turn on how big the United States becomes and how fast it grows - from its use of natural resources to its settlement patterns to shifts in political clout.

There will be 400 million Americans in 2043, climbing to 420 million by midcentury, the US Census Bureau estimates. The added numbers will change the nature of the populace, reflecting trends already begun.

Between the last official census in 2000 and the one of 2050, non-Hispanic whites will have dwindled from 69 percent to a bare majority of 50.1 percent. The share who are Hispanic will have doubled to 24 percent. Asians also will have doubled to 8 percent of the population. African-Americans will have edged up to 14 percent. In other words, the US will be on the verge of becoming a "majority of minorities."

Wars, natural disasters, shifts in the economy, unforeseen social and political developments - any or all of these could affect the numbers, perhaps dramatically. For one thing, America could, as many voters and their elected officials now demand, clamp down on immigration. The country's unusually high teen pregnancy rate could drop. Scientific advances could extend longevity.

In any case, Americans are expected to continue to gravitate west and south. Today, the Top 10 fastest growing states, cities, and metropolitan areas are all in those regions, mostly in the West. In general, the West and South have been growing two to three times as fast as the Northeast and Midwest.

The great American midsection, meanwhile, will continue to empty out.

When historian Frederick Jackson Turner declared the American frontier "closed" in 1893, he was using the Census Bureau definition of "frontier" as areas having no more than six people per square mile. By that same density definition, the number of such counties actually has been increasing: from 388 in 1980 to 397 in 1990 to 402 in 2000. Kansas has more "frontier" land now than it did in 1890.

If these regional shifts continue as expected, the political impact will be felt. For one thing, membership in the US House of Representatives, fixed at 435 seats, would change, producing winners and losers just as it has with recent censuses. It may shift the current alignment of "red" states and "blue" states - but other factors besides population growth in the South and West may influence that political balance.

For example, wealthy, relatively liberal Californians and others with money to spend have been buying up ranch land in politically conservative Rocky Mountain states such as Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. Many of them are more inclined to want to protect the environment from energy exploration and other development.

An increasing Hispanic population - which could see 188 percent growth between 2000 and 2050, according to the Census Bureau - could affect the political balance as well.

At the same time, the population will become relatively older. A person born in 1967, when the population turned 200 million, could be expected to live 70.5 years. Life expectancy for those born today is 77.8 years.

p>The impact of the aging baby-boom generation, whose oldest members turn 60 this year, will be felt on Social Security and Medicare. "We really are doing very well in terms of extending life, and that is going to increase the rate of population growth," says Samuel Preston, a University of Pennsylvania demographer. It could also have political impact.

As the US moves toward 400 million people, Americans can be expected to marry later in life, and more of them will live alone. Between 1970 and 2005, the median age of first marriage moved from 23 to 27 for men and from 21 to 26 for women. Over the same period, the percentage of single-person households grew from 17 percent to 26 percent. Those trends are likely to continue.

Experts generally believe that expansion to meet the housing and other community needs of a growing population is likely to remain concentrated in suburbs and exurbs.

"Most projections show that the continued increase in the US population and the projected 50 percent increase in space devoted to the built environment by 2030 will largely take place in the sprawling cities of the South and West, areas dominated by low-density, automobile-dependent development of residential, commercial, and industrial space," writes demographic trend-watcher Joel Kotkin in a recent issue of the magazine The Next American City.

Concerns about use of resourcesThis kind of continuing development tied to US population growth worries many environmentalists, as well as those concerned about the loss of farmland.

Annual US population growth of nearly 3 million contributes to the water shortages that are a serious concern in the West and many areas in the East, says Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute. Water tables are now falling throughout most of the Great Plains and in the Southwest, he warns. Some lakes are disappearing and rivers are running dry.

"As water supplies tighten, the competition between farmers and cities intensifies," says Mr. Brown. "Scarcely a day goes by in the western United States without another farmer or an entire irrigation district selling their water rights to cities like Denver, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Los Angeles, or San Diego."

Concern about a growing populace and decreasing resources is likely to push governments toward conservation and more sustainable development, experts say.

This may be especially true of energy. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia now have renewable portfolio standards that require electric utilities to use more wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, and other renewable sources.

"The global context will really drive what happens in the United States," says futurist Hazel Henderson.

Last month, for example, the Chinese government released its first "green" gross domestic product (GDP) report. It measures economic growth while also factoring in the environmental consequences of that growth. Other governments and financial intuitions now are being pushed in the same direction. US portfolio managers in charge of $30 trillion in assets now demand carbon disclosures of all the companies in their portfolios, says Ms. Henderson.

"The tipping point has been reached there," says Henderson. "I feel very hopeful that the evolution to the solar age could happen much quicker than we might have expected because it's being driven by so many stress points, from global warming to water shortages to desertification."

By mid-century, she predicts: "Cars will be getting 100 m.p.g. if they're still using gasoline instead of fuel cells. That's definitely a no-brainer. Cities and towns will get more and more compact as these sprawling suburbs end up being too costly and inefficient."

That vision for the future contrasts sharply with Mr. Kotkin's. But given current political, economic, environmental, and social trends - especially the unknowns about world energy supplies - it is likely to be just as valid.

Meanwhile, the US population clock keeps ticking: Every 13 seconds somebody dies. Every 31 seconds there's another immigrant - legal or illegal. It adds up to a net gain of one person every 11 seconds, or about 8,000 every day. It took 39 years to add the most recent 100 million; the next 100 million will take a couple of years less than that.

The US population growth rate is expected to decline a bit by mid-century. Still, by then the numbers will have increased to some 420 million, according to official calculations. Critics of US immigration policy say the number could be significantly higher.

"If Congress should end up ducking the issue of immigration reform and maintaining the status quo of mass legal and illegal immigration, our population is projected to still continue its rapid growth," warns the Federation for American Immigration Reform in a recent report. "Our projection is for a population of between 445 and 462 million residents depending on the assumptions used."

Diversity is changing attitudesBut societal changes tied to population are more than numbers.

As the racial and ethnic mix among Americans shifts in the decades ahead, public attitudes are likely to change as well. In some ways, they already are.

For example, between 1986 and 2003, the share of adults who approved of interracial marriage rose from 70 percent to 83 percent, according to a Roper Reports study. This trend is especially true among young Americans. A 2002 Gallup survey showed that just 30 percent of adults 65 and older approved of marriage between blacks and whites. But among people between 18 and 29, 86 percent said they had no problem with interracial marriage.

"The fact that today we see young people intermarrying more, interracial dating much more common - all of that I think portends that we're going to become much more ecumenical in the way we look at things than we were in the past," says William Frey, a demographer at the University of Michigan and the Brookings Institution. "I think we'll have much more tolerance for people of other backgrounds, cultures and languages, points of view, and religious and belief systems."

What's certain is that there will be a lot more Americans.

William. I respect your opinion whole heartedly.

You may be against amnesty. But at least I can agree to disagree with you. You present arguments that are both logical and reasonable. Not the typical "they're evil invaders" crap.

The happy horse sh*t you refer to is what our country was built on. They represent the ideals to which all of us were charged to aspire. If you stop trying to aspire to the lofty goals of the forefathers of this country, you relegate your self to being simply a consumer valuing only what you can get out of this country for yourself.

It's true that money talks and bs walks. But that being the case. We should be making our money say what is correct and right. Sure there are immigrants out there with sh*t for manners and such. But you grow up in some third world country with no objective other than survival and see if you care about other people's manners.

I'm not saying it's right. But don't make the good honest hardworking people that come to this country to secure a better life for themselves and their families; pay for the crimes of other fools.

Let's not forget that plenty of Americans are also guilty of the crimes and nuisances you named. And we can't deport those folks. As for the main issue of anchor babies, put yourself in their spot for a moment. If you came from a country where you're considered to be doing well if you can learn to read, write, and not get yourself killed, wouldn't you do everything in your power to grab hold of an opportunity for something better in your life? Wouldn't you want your kids to not have to suffer like you did?

You might think that what I'm saying is a bunch of idealistic crap, but the fact is that it's a harsh reality for a lot of folks out there. The United States represents hope for a great many folks. Especially those here in the western hemisphere. Money may talk. But it's the people that MAKE that money. We need to invest in them. Or there won't be much of any money left.

Just so you know. I am for some kind of control. But we tend to over react way too much in this country. And for all the chest pounding from the left and the right, what we need is reasonable middle ground solution. And even if it's not 100% perfect, we should strive for something that is as just as we can make it.

Benny,

Yes. We can agree to disagree. I see the human side of the issue, but it does not justify the "wink and nod" we have been applying for decades. I just can't turn a blind eye.

Oh...

and I should I guess clarify that when I reference amnesty, I'm talking about the people who are alread living and working here. They're already producing a cash flow within our system. So amnesty for these folks gives them the chance to legally become part of the system and pay their taxes on earnings just like the rest of us do.

I don't agree with just letting everyone come and go as they please. Such a thing would be unreasonable and would be a stress to our system. I also believe that a reasonable and logical immigration solution should be in place before amnesty is granted to those earning a living here. If not then the influx would continue unchecked and we would be back at square one.

For those who reside here undocumented, a choice could be given to return to their "home lands" or stay. If they choose to stay then they would be entered into the system and would begin paying taxes with no back tax burden.

If they chose to leave then they would need to forefeit all possesions such as houses, vehicles, appliances, etc.. to be sold in payment of taxes yet unpaid. It wouldn't amount to much, but the point would be clear, firm, and fair. "Stay and pay, or leave the way you came."

I think most would rather pay into the system and keep their nicer lives than return "home" and start over.

The human side must always be taken into account. That way we won't hurt as many people as we would otherwise.

That would be a middle ground of some kind.

Whatever works. But the issue was one of the immigrants defrauding the government not business. Besides, how can this be in error any way? It doesn't even actually happen. It was just an idea.

:-)

Dude, don't try to argue with Debbie. She's set in her ways. As if a person who is deported is shackled and shipped off with only the clothes on their back...Has anyone heard of voluntary departure as opposed to deportation? Then they could take their stuff...it's done all the time in lieu of forced deportation...usually firced deportation is reserved for violent criminals and aggravated felons. Debbie just sees the world in one light and doesn't realize that there are two sides to every pancake.

Debbie you really are amazing. You somehow think that in face of all the law, history and logic that defeats your case that if you just keep shouting loud enough and often enough you will eventually be right. Sorry, it does not work that way. You're still wrong.

William Duda: In answer to your question, the article is posted. It's a title VI law that protects the civil rights of ALL people on U.S. soil. It protects them from any discrimination based upon national origin and other factors.

Hope that answers your question....

alan: I think you will be VERY interested in the outcome of the debate on the right to citizenship. Regardless of what is written - perception and enforcement are also key factors in any court's decision.

As you know, they have long been recognized as U.S. citizens.

You have to check out this site....It is so neat!!!

http://www.unitedstates.fm/minutemantv.htm

Go down to the middle of the screen, and click on Minuteman.tv promo

From the site I recommended above, also click on "Attack on Americans!! Watch this Video.

Anybody that does not think that our country is headed toward civil war/revolution, definitely needs to watch this video.

Jackie,

What discrimination? Let me know how enforcing the law is discrimination. You have to single out a group based on SPECIFIC national origin, religion, race, etc. in order for discrimination to be valid. I really think your claim is full of holes. If that were the case, how could we deport anyone?

Debbie.

I buy a car. With a loan. I drive to Mexico. How is the bank going to collect from me? Hell, how are they going to find me? Or, I buy a house, I have a mortgage. I open a home equity line on the home and take out cash on the line. I fly to Rome. You going to stop me? The bank going to stop me form flying? Nope. Sorry.

I purchase appliances, furniture, all kinds of household goods on credit. I pack up a truck and head to Canada. Are you or is anyone else going to stop me? Does the bank have a GPS locator on all of my merchandise? Debbie, you are living in a fantasy world.

Debbie C.- -the citizenship of a naturalized IS revocable. It is NOT true that once a US citizen, always a US citizen. The citizenship of a naturalized citizen IS subject to revocation and this has been done.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/ina340.htm

One of the things that keeps being repeated is that these immigrants are depleting our system. One possible solution to the problem, along with securing the boarder, is to change the system itself.

What if instead of income tax, there were a national sales tax of say 10%? Each state would collect taxes on sales made within its boarders, and taxes on sales across state lines could be collected directly by the federal govt. In this way it wouldn't matter how many people were living in an area as far as economics are concerned. Because everyone would be paying their fair share of taxes. Rich poor or otherwise.

Even if you're an illegal immigrant you still have to buy stuff. And as long as taxes are based on consumer spending, the system will continue to see an influx of revenue that can be used for the very programs these people use. Everyone, immigrant or not, will benefit. The rich and the poor will all pay according to their spending so the rich will pay more and poor will pay less. It works out.

It would be a great expense to deport all of the illegal immigrants that would remain within our borders after they have been secured. It would make more sense then, to simply adjust the system in the way I've described and turn the problem into a benefit for all of us. Assuming of course that depletion of the system is indeed the true sore spot in this issue.

And as for credit, well, you have to be in the system to get credit to begin with. And even if you do get a secured line of credit, the only way you'll get the kind of credit you need to buy cars, high end appliances, plane tickets, and the like, is to prove to the banking industry that you are responsible with your money and pay your debts on time. The only people that can do that are responsible people. And responsible people are the kind of people we don't mind having within our borders anyway.

It's also interesting that immigration only became a "hot issue" after the war in Iraq started getting so much attention. In all the years before the current administration took office, immigration reform was a luke warm issue at best. Adjusting our current economic structure, securing our boarders properly, and enforcing current immigration laws would solve the problem in full. But as Americans we need to demand these things be done by our elected officials.

WOW! This is both an intellectual and personal discourse! Let me jump in with this fact. The majority school-age of illegal aliens and/or children of illegal aliens become high school drop-outs! Each of these drop-outs will cost $100,000 in goverment support and draws on our economy across the course of their life time. At the present rate, these individuals will cost us 2 trillion dollars! I agree, watch Lou Dobbs!

Secondly, I find it most disturbing that "illegal aliens" resent the term and prefer to be called "immigant workers." Now, illegal aliens have learned the lingo of political correctness in order to divert attention from the fact that their entry into our country is "ILLEGAL."