Exactly.
I don’t know why you would say that. The law, as proposed, explicitly excludes such children, all the more so because there a set of rules for an infant born “legitimately” and a different set for those who aren’t. So it’s not like someone could later claim that the paternity was simply forgotten when the legislation was written. Clearly it wasn’t, and clearly there is specific intent to exclude paternity from consideration.
Yeah, or it ends up in a very heavily amended and revised version, I’d agree on that.
See the link in post #10. The bill would eliminate the right of citizenship for these kids via jus soli (being born in the US), but does not address jus sanguinius.
ETA: That was addressed to Boyo Jim.
That’s kind of my feeling too, but I haven’t any specific legal background to be confident in such a judement.
If have heard the term “anchor baby” used in discussion of this and similar proposals. The idea is that pregnant foreign women will do whatever they have to to get inside the border and deliver here. That gives their baby citizenship, and also somehow fuzzes up the women’s status – the baby can’t be deported, and the baby can’t necessarily be forcibly separated from the mom, so the mother gets to stay too.
Quoted for truth. I’m not one to declare things like this lightly, but this would undermine what the United States is, to me at the very least.
Thank you for that link.
So I see there are specific means for a child born outside the country to an American father to acquire citizenship.
Do you see this proposal as an attempt to make the legal status of those kids identical to ones born IN the US? It’s an interpretation I hadn’t considered.
Certainly the baby is an American citizen and can’t be deported. But the mother certainly can, and mothers of minor American citizens are deported all the time. The mother can either take her American citizen baby back to her home country (where it will almost certainly also have citizenship), or she can leave the baby under the care of people who are legally allowed to reside in the United States, but it’s simply false that she can’t be deported.
No, not at all. I doubt the bill’s authors care about those kids either way.
That’s how I see it. We are chipping away at who we are. Us vs. them. It’s all I see anymore, either internally or in the world arena. The essence of “us” is little more than a memory these days, it seems.
I think it’s more that if the bill said that such people weren’t citizens, that would be a clear violation of the amendment, because the amendment defines who a citizen is. But the amendment doesn’t define who’s “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”, and therefore that can be legislated.
I didn’t mean to say she couldn’t be deported, but deportation becomes much more complicated and difficult with the mom clinging to her newborn baby American. Like she is clinging to an “anchor” – hence the term.
So, a pregnant Mexican comes across the border to have an abortion in U.S> hospital. Clearly, she’s entitled to one, since her fetus is not “subject to the jurisdiction [of the U.S.]” – right?
But wouldn’t the effect be the same? A kid born in France to a French mother and American father would not be a US citizen, and not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US. A kid born in the US to a French mother and American father would not be a citizen because it is “not subject to the jurisdiction…”
BTW, I am still intrigued by the concept of someone walking around within our borders who is “not subject to the jurisdiction” of the United Sates. I would ahve to assume that the individual states’s jursdictions would be inluded among the United States.
Other than diplomats, are there any human beings walking around with this status? Doesn’t someone’s mere presence make them subject to the jurisdiction of wherever they happen to be?
Actually, there is a specific law banning the use of federal funds for such abortions. But yes, she would have the right to have the procedure, so long as it was on her own dime.
Which brings to mind another scenario…
What happens to such an infant if the mother dies in childbirth? I guess the hospital would just place them outside their door?
Executive Order, not a law… and it only applies to NGOs outside the US.
No, I don’t think so. It just came up in the news in the past couple of days, that judge Sotomayor had upheld the law in one of her decisions. I will look for a cite.
And in fact, if they’re not subject to the jurisdiction, then they’re not subject to the proposed law we’re discussing, are they? And they’re not subject to whatever law makes them not subject to the jurisdiction, which actually makes them subject to the law, which then actually makes them not subject, which then makes them subject, which then… ?
STOP! The smoke is starting to come out my ears. 
The other major exception is members of invading armed forces (as I mentioned above). If Canada declared war on the US, and sent some troops to invade the US, and among those troops (or support personnel) there was a pregnant woman who gave birth while in the US, that baby would not a US citizen.