[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 139 (Wednesday, October 8, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8692-H8693]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   H.R. 7, THE CITIZENSHIP REFORM ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an item that is 
being considered by this body, at least for markup, very soon. That is 
the Citizenship Reform Act of 1997, H.R. 7. For many of us, we may 
think that under the 14th amendment, the privilege of automatic 
citizenship is something that is automatic and applies to everyone born 
on U.S. soil.
  H.R. 7 clarifies the fact that under the 14th amendment not every one 
born on U.S. soil gets automatic citizenship; that there is a 
conditioning clause in the 14th amendment that says you must be 
``subject to the jurisdiction thereof''.
  To clarify this fact, consider that the children of diplomats here in 
Washington, DC, or back in New York do not get automatic citizenship at 
this time because their parents are not ``subject to the 
jurisdiction''; the same way that native Americans did not get 
automatic citizenship until the 1920's because Congress granted it, 
because basically Indians who were in the tribal environment were not 
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because they owed 
loyalty and obedience to their tribe before the United States.
  H.R. 7 clarifies the fact that illegal aliens do not fall into the 
category of ``subject to the jurisdiction'' of the United States, 
because they first of all are not obedient to the immigration laws, and 
are committing by their presence on U.S. soil a violation of national 
sovereignty; and, No. 2, they do not owe allegiance or loyalty to the 
United States. I think everybody would agree that if an illegal alien 
was tried for treason and brought before a court for treason, that the 
most liberal to the most conservative American would be outraged at the 
fact that somebody who was illegally in the country was now being 
required to be loyal.
  Mr. Speaker, the same argument goes to automatic citizenship. If the 
child is born of parents who do not owe loyalty to the United States, 
if that basic obligation is not being met by the parents, the child 
should not get the automatic citizenship.
  This is a thing of fairness, too. Let me remind all of my colleagues, 
there are people waiting patiently to come into this country legally, 
and while they are waiting patiently they are, some of them, having 
children. Those children, whose parents are playing by the rules, do 
not get automatic citizenship, but right, today we are rewarding those 
parents who violate the law in coming to this country illegally.
  Some people may say it is not that big a deal, why even talk about 
it? Mr. Speaker, I am here to tell you it is a big enough deal that 
96,000 births in California alone were the children of illegal aliens. 
We are talking about 40 percent of the Medicaid births in the State of 
California are children of illegal aliens. We are talking about 
hundreds of millions of dollars a year that one State is spending with 
Federal funds.
  It is an issue that needs to be addressed, and it is first and 
foremost an issue of fairness. Why should we require the children of 
people who are legally waiting to immigrate, to go through the 
naturalization process and ask for permission from the United States to 
become U.S. citizens? When at the same time, we will reward the parents 
who have broken the law and

[[Page H8693]]

give their children automatic citizenship with no processing at all? It 
just is not rational. It is not fair.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that we must also recognize that the Supreme 
Court has never ruled on the issue of automatic citizenship for the 
children of illegal aliens. In fact, in the one case that is pointed 
out so often, the Wong Kim Ark case back in the late 1880's, the court 
ruled specifically that his parents were legal residents and that legal 
residents owe allegiance and owe loyalty and must obey the law. And by 
their legally immigrating, they showed that they were obedient to the 
Federal Government and the Government of the United States, and that 
they were ``subject to the jurisdiction'' by getting permission to 
enter this country legally.
  That definition does not fall on those who have broken our laws and 
immigrated illegally. In fact, the case that we are referred to again 
and again is a 1608 case in England, the Calvin case, that says that 
people who have obligational loyalties get citizenship; those who do 
not do not get automatic citizenship. In the words of the English, in 
their flowery way of saying it, they say it is the loyalty and the 
obedience, not the soil and not the climate that render citizenship.
  I think in all fairness we have got to understand that those who are 
obedient and play by our laws should be rewarded. But, Mr. Speaker, 
those who have broken our laws, violated our national sovereignty and 
refused to recognize that they must be ``subject to the jurisdiction'' 
of the United States should not today have the right of automatic 
citizenship.
  This Congress should finally tackle this issue, address this issue 
and send a very clear message, not just to our own citizens, that we 
believe in fair and equitable treatment but that we will no longer 
reward illegal immigration with automatic citizenship. I ask everyone 
to contact their Member of Congress to address this issue and support 
H.R. 7.

                          ____________________