The facts are not entirely clear, but it appears that Dogan was born in the United States to Turkish parents who returned to Turkey not long thereafter. (The ABC story says he was two years old.) Apparently Dogan had lived in Turkey with his family since that time. He apparently was, in other words, a "birthright citizen," solely by virtue of the fact that his parents were residing in the U.S. when he was born.
If that is the case--and, again, the facts are not yet entirely clear--it is silly to call him an "American of Turkish descent." He, like the other members of his family, was a Turk. The idea that his presence among the dead raises a special diplomatic problem is absurd; if it does, it shouldn't.
PowerLine's opinion happens to cover the "Anchor Baby" issue quite nicely.
6 comments:
So you disagree with the US Constitution?
One word answer please: yes or no. Were the Founders were wrong?
Actually, it was not "the Founders," Jim.
Here's the pertinent quote:
The 14th Amendment: "Section 1. 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. ..."
SCOTUS was wrong in its interpretation of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."
SCOTUS makes mistakes, ya know.
Brain fart. Mea culpa. Pretty amazing, really, that a founding document would NOT define such an integral concept.
So, I could just try to trap you a different way: yes or no -- were the Founders wrong for not defining citizenship?
Prolly an oversight, although they hinted at what constitutes 'citizenship' in their census instructions.
THERE they screwed up royally (heh), with their infamous "2/3rds" (or was it 3/5ths?) enumeration of slaves.
Curious omission, though. Perhaps they were thinking that the States would determine State citizenship and that would suffice for US citizenship purposes.
"...for US citizenship purposes"...
Addition:
Given the 9th/10th Amendments, it's likely that State determinations would rule.
Post a Comment