Sunday, November 21, 2010

Please, Leave It To The Experts

Immigration law is a very esoteric subject. Many comment on the issue, but don't know even the basics. Constantly people refer to illegals getting American citizenship, but what they are refering to is legal permanent residence, which eventually leads to American citizenship.
Exhibit Number 1 is Bruce Maiman of the Examiner:
My suggestion: "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, if they are born of a parent who is a legal American citizen."
Hey, what, then, is an illegal American citizen? That is the problem. Maiman probably never read the Immigration and Nationality Act. Without any background knowledge of the issue, you just look stupid. Like ending up claiming that there are some illegal American citizens.
Well Maiman, all persons who are not American citizens or nationals, are aliens. I bet that Maiman doesn't even know the difference between an American citizen and an American national. Well, all citizens are nationals, but not all nationals are citizens. Nationals who are nationals but not citizens are those born in American Samoa and the Swains Islands. Of course aliens are divided into those who are legally present and those who are illegally present. They are also divided into immigrants and non-immigrants.
Of course the illegal aliens are the issue when dealing with persons "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." If they are illegal, then they probably aren't subject to the jurisdiction thereof. More importantly they are likely also citizens of other countries, like most Mexican illegals.
A better definition of birthright citizenship would be those born to a mother who is either a citizen, national or legal permanent resident of the United States. But you can't give intelligent commentary if you don't know nothing about immigration and nationality law.
And another example of a lack of knowledge. This time what authorizes sponsorship of immigrants.
By birth, the babies are American citizens who will have the ability to travel freely to and from the United States, with easy access to a U-S education and the chance to start a life here. The citizen child could later sponsor the legal immigration of his or her entire family permanently to this country. The 14th Amendment makes this all perfectly legal.
Ah, well...not quite. Sponsorship of relatives for legal immigration is based not on the 14th Amendment, but on an Act of Congress, the aforementioned Immigration and Nationality Act, that authorizes various means to immigrate to the U.S. including the dominant family based relationship immigration. The Congress can end family based immigration just as it can end any method of immigration. Just as it could end citizenship for the 340,000 odd anchor babies born to illegals, it could end their sponsorship of chain migration.
And then there is this stupidity:
The 14th Amendment's language has never been tested directly by the Supreme Court. It's not unlike the Second Amendment. It was 2008 before the court finally answered a 217-year old constitutional question about an individual right to own a gun.
Well, the 14th Amendment has been litigated to death, much less not tested directly. And the issue has been dealt with indirectly regarding birthright citizenship in Wong Kim Ark, which said that children born to legal immigrants are citizens. Though nothing about illegal alien parents.
Close...not even. Maiman, get a research assistant.
Let's resolve to in the future only allow commentary on immigration if you know something about it.

No comments: