Speech #1050075917

The court ruled that the Indian born of a member of the tribe within the United States was still not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. and that Mr. Elk was not a U.S. citizen by right of the 14th amendment. Let me remind my colleagues that this is the same 14th amendment that a lot of people say illegal aliens should get automatic citizenship for. that a legal Native American within the United States has been ruled not to be a U.S. citizen. But this House and this Congress and this Federal Government has continued to assume that illegal aliens qualify under that category. I think that any reasonable person would say there should be some major questions raised here. I think the question illustrates quite clearly that not all individuals born within the territory of the United States automatically get citizenship under the 14th amendment. because there is that conditioning clause "subject to the jurisdiction." The next case that is always brought up on this issue. Mr. Speaker. is a case that people that want to give automatic citizenship to illegal aliens point out. and that is U.S. versus Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was an individual who was the son of two Chinese immigrants. legal resident aliens. who were allowed to set up business within the United States. and the child was born while they were here legally in the United States. When Mr. Wong Kim tried to come back from a visit after his parents had been extradited through the Chinese Exclusion Act. he went to visit them in China. tried to come back into the United States. and he was told he could not because he was not a citizen. The Supreme Court ruled quite clearly on that and made a reference to a case. which was our British common law case. that the parents had been legal under a case called the Calvin case. and that the Supreme Court ruled that because they were residents of the United States and had been permitted under British common law and United States immigration law to be in the United States. that the child had the rights. because while the parents were in the United States. they had a temporary allegiance through legal immigration. This may really sound like a bunch of legal gobbledygook. but it comes back to the point of fairness. and it comes back to a point that I think those of us in Washington forget too often. The whole case that we are talking about citizenship and automatic citizenship comes back to a basic rule that there are rights and responsibilities. and that people or individuals cannot claim rights without bearing equal responsibilities. Actually in the Calvin case. which was a case where a Scotsman was basically told by one group that he was not a citizen and could not qualify in the English courts. that he had no rights there. that Calvin was able to prove that he had rights because he had obligations. that his parents could have been tried for treason. could have been drafted for service to the king. that his parents in a most gross sense could have been drawn and quartered as traitors because they had an obligation to be loyal to their government. and because of that obligation. there became a right to the child. The same argument has to be reflected. that there are those in our society who think that rights come without responsibilities. I think we may debate back and forth when and where those begin. but I think it is quite clear here with this case that the law that we base our immigration birthright citizenship is based on a British law that was articulated in the Calvin case which said if the parents are obligated to be loyal and to serve the government. with that obligation comes the rights of the child to be a citizen. The British said it in their very poetic way. It says quite clearly that it is not the ground that really matters. it is the state of mind. The terminology that was used in the Calvin case was that it is not the soil or the climate. but the loyalty and the obedience that makes the subject born. I think anyone here would agree that it would be absolutely absurd to think that an illegal alien owes loyalty and allegiance to the U.S. Government. If we can come to that conclusion. that a person who has violated our immigration laws. that has come into this country illegally or stayed in this country illegally obviously does not have either the concept of loyalty to the United States or the obligation being enforced of that loyalty. In fact. I would remind a lot of my colleagues who think that the concept of not giving illegal aliens automatic citizenship is such an outrageous concept. I would ask those colleagues to remember how long would you stand by in this House if an illegal alien was tried for treason. if an illegal alien was being drafted to serve in the U.S. Army. and that illegal alien said. "Look. I want out of it. I dont want to have to serve. I would rather go back to my country." The concept of trying an illegal alien for treason is as absurd today as it would be in the 1860s when the 14th amendment was passed. That same absurdity applies to the fact that you give automatic citizenship to somebody without the related obligation to them or their parents. Mr. Speaker. it may seem like an academic debate. I think that we have pointed out again and again as we talk about illegal immigration that this city. Washington. DC. and this Federal Government has an obligation. an obligation to start clarifying what behavior is appropriate. and what behavior will be rewarded. and what behavior is inappropriate. and what behavior will not be rewarded.