Posted on 04/24/2013 6:53:09 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
What you "see is an opportunity to misconstrue.
So we’ve moved on from, “the Constitution doesn’t say this, to, “the courts got it wrong”. If you want to change the constitution to read what you want it to say, there’s always the Amending formula. Good luck with that, btw.
I haven't moved anywhere. You've tried three different "synonyms" for "subject" and I didn't bite. It has a very specific legal meaning, but then, given that you apparently prefer a "living Constitution," I'm not surprised at your pathetic stand on a set of opinions you clearly haven't read. BTW, the dissenting opinion was written by Chief Justice Fuller.
Apparently it’s also point well taken. The child knows no other country than the United States. Her home country is the US, the country she was born in.
“given that you apparently prefer a “living Constitution,”
Actually, it’s you who refuses to accept what the constitution says. I’m arguing that we should follow the constitution, even when it says something that we don’t like.
Radical, eh?
"Well taken" eh? Guess what? You're therefore in the same corrupt company as the group of "Justices" that decided US v. Wong Kim Ark:
We have George Shiras, a prominent (drum roll please) railroad lawyer with no prior judicial experience and friend to corporate railroad barons with a rather keen interest in retaining Chinese coolies. Kinda reminds you of something rather more contemporary, doesn't it?
We have Horace Gray, author of the majority opinion, a buddy of Brandeis, Holmes, and other noted court activists and a big fan of paper money.
We have Yalie David Brewer, founder of the American Society of International Law, peace advocate, and judicial activist toward using the court to supersede State laws.
We have Yalie Henry Brown, author of Plessy v. Ferguson!!!, and a huge fan of the use of Admiralty Law as a regulatory means (even though he hired a substitute to serve in the military for him in the Civil War).
That puts you in company with the ideological left. Congratulations. Wear it with pride.
Actually, it’s you who refuses to accept what the constitution says, because you had to redefine the term, "subject" to get away with interpreting it the way you do. That's rubber language, the essence of a "living Constitution." I’m arguing that we should follow the constitution IN ITS ORIGINAL MEANING, even when it says something that YOU don’t like.
Next time try reading the links you're given for a change. You might actually learn something.
It doesn't "extend" birthright citizenship to the children of [resident] aliens, in the sense that it really had no intention of making any actual changes in the rule of citizenship as it had been up until that time. The purpose was simply to declare what the law already was, and to try and make sure that no one (read, "former slave-holders, and officials in the former slave-holding states") could deny the rights and privileges of citizenship, in particular, to the millions of freed former slaves.
The children born here of resident alien parents had always been natural-born members of the society. First they were called "natural born subjects," then they were called "natural born citizens" when we substituted the word "citizen" for "subject."
The real reason for the clause was to extend the protections of the Bill of Rights to persons other than natural persons, i.e., corporations. It was later admitted by Senators Bingham and Conkling.
Um... no. The real reason was as stated above.
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" meant those that were American 'subjects.' One was "subject" by virtue of citizenship.
No, the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" really meant "fully subject to the laws of the United States, without any kind of special exemption or immunity." The term did not include Indians (i.e., Native Americans), as long as they stayed within their tribes. When they left their tribes and came to live among the white man, they became "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States," whether they became United States citizens or not. And Indians, even though born on United States soil, had to go through a naturalization process if they were born in Indian tribes NOT because they had non-citizen parents, but because they were born as members of a de facto foreign nation which we made treaties with, just as we made treaties with England and France. However, once they left their tribe and came to live among the white man, their children born subject to United States jurisdiction were natural born citizens.
I suggest you consult a law dictionary of that time to confirm the meaning of the term.
I suggest you consult the same law dictionary for what "native" meant. "Native" and "natural born" were generally taken to be synonymous, although "natural born" is a slightly more expansive term that most likely includes the children born overseas of US citizen parents.
It does.
There is a pretty decent argument that A) folks here illegally are the equivalent of a foreign, invading army, and thus their children are not born citizens, and B) citizenship by birth, that requires being “subject to the jurisdiction” doesn’t really apply to those not domiciled here - to use the term from WKA.
Nonsense. The left wants the same thing you do - making it so that citizenship is whatever the state says it is. Comrade - you should toe the line. It would be a sad thing if anything happened to your papers...
Birthright strips away all those shenanigans. You’re born here? You’re an American.
You fight invaders by changing laws? Or do you fight invaders by preventing them from getting into America in the first place?
Again, the original meaning of the Fourteenth was to provide civil liberties to all those born in the US. Some people want to go back to the old system where some Americans are not considered to be legal persons. (not them of course!)
What your push does is precisely this. It sets up two classes of Americans - one who are citizens and one who are not. This provides a powerful incentive for abuse and exploitation - if you have Americans who cannot vote to protect themselves then they need their betters to protect them.
We’ve been there. It’s a bad road. Let’s not repeat the mistakes of the past.
Yes. And it bothers me that some who claim to be conservatives want to simply throw an accurate understanding of the Constitution out of the window and insist is says stuff it doesn't say, simply because they don't like what it does say.
This is not a conservative attitude at all. This is a "by-G*d-I-want-my-way-the-real-Constitution-be-d***ed" attitude. To me, it's the same attitude as that of many liberals.
Basing it on the citizenship of your parents, would have lead to a permanent underclass (a-la Europe).
To a significant degree, it could have. It's an absurdity.
Imagine the Amish who immigrated here from Germany starting back before there ever WAS a United States of America.
This is a very close-knit community of people. Suppose being a citizen required citizen parents, and suppose that many of the original immigrants never went through the naturalization process. We could have people being born now all of whose ancestors have lived their entire lives in the United States 7 or 8 or 9 generations, who were "aliens."
Is it radical to provide citizenship to someone without regard to their country of origin? Absolutely - but that is part of what made America what it is.
I think it was radical to welcome immigrants in the way that we did, and to declare that all races were equal. But as for the citizenship, I don't think that was radical at all. It was simply the continuation of the policy and law as it had already existed for centuries.
There is absolutely no need to ‘enforce’ things this way. Enforce immigration laws by deportation. This is just a fool’s errand that has deep and long lasting consequences. Negative ones that serve to help no one whatsoever.
Agreed.
Radical, eh?
For some of these people, radical indeed.
You don't get to redefine a term as defined in a law dictionary of that day for the purposes of supporting an argument.
I suggest you consult the same law dictionary for what "native" meant. "Native" and "natural born" were generally taken to be synonymous, although "natural born" is a slightly more expansive term that most likely includes the children born overseas of US citizen parents.
Neither "native" nor "natural" are in the citizenship clause. The latter was specifically omitted for purposes of extending privileges and immunities to corporations.
I don’t care where they are from, if parents are here illegally there should be no citizenship for the children for simply being born here and I do not believe the framers of the Constitution had that intent. If parents are here legally- foreign student, work permit, etc. then I could see it, but not if they are illegally here. That is like saying if parents rob a bank their children can keep the money.
At some point we have to see the damage done to this country by birthright citizenship for children of illegals or we are doomed as a country. At some point we need to apply some common sense.
It isn’t changing the law. The term “natural born citizen’, which the US Supreme Court has said included and excluded the same folks as the 14th Amendment did, NEVER included those kids born to a foreign, invading army:
“But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.”
Also, the WKA decision made much of the fact that the parents of WKA were DOMICILED here:
“The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution...”
And
“...whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”
IIRC, domicile is mentioned 18 times in the WKA decision.
I didn't.
"Subject" as a noun has a specific meaning in law. That meaning is closely CONNECTED TO, but not 100% analogous to, the meaning of the word "subject" used as an ADJECTIVE.
Or, to put it another ways: "subject" means "obligated to act at the discretion, or according to the judgment and will of somebody else." This definition comes from Bouvier's definition of the VERY closely related word "subjection."
A "subject" is not the only person who is "subject to," or obligated to obey, the law of the United States. Persons who are not citizens (or subjects, if you will) but who are merely aliens, are also SUBJECT TO the laws and jurisdiction of the United States.
So I didn't "redefine" anything.
Neither "native" nor "natural" are in the citizenship clause.
Not of the 14th Amendment. But "natural born" is a key phrase in the Presidential eligibility clause of the Constitution. I assume that you are yet another birther making the patently false claim that "natural born citizen" means "born on US soil of two citizen parents." If you aren't, then I beg your pardon.
Show don’t tell.
Deport the parents. Let the child go with them. The child keeps his citizenship. He can come back when she’s 18 and live in America.
That’s one solution.
Another is if the parents are willing to give the child up to a foster home and the child can stay here while the parents are deported.
I agree- it is a problem, and we shouldn’t be rewarding those who break the law. The child is innocent and did nothing to warrant her situation. We need to draw a distinction between the two while respecting the rights of the child to American citizenship.
The solution is to prevent them from entering America in the first place. If this had been done - then the child wouldn’t be an American citizen, and they wouldn’t be in America.
Changing the law won’t help things even if it is changed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.