Injunction to get birth certificates for US-born kids denied

SAN ANTONIO (AP) — A federal judge in Austin has chosen not to intervene on the behalf of immigrant families who were denied birth certificates for their U.S.-born children because Texas health officials wouldn’t recognize certain forms of identification as valid.

U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman denied an emergency injunction Friday sought by the families who say immediate harm is being done to them and their children. The judge said the lawyers for the families have raised “grave” concerns but additional evidence is needed.

Thank you for referencing that article jazusamo. As usual, please bear in mind that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

As mentioned in a related thread concerning this issue …

Hypothetically speaking, even if all legal voters in the USA supported the idea of automatic citizenship for anchor babies, based on the intentions of the proposers of the 14th Amendment as indicated by the congressional record, if neither parent of a baby born in the USA is a USA citizen then their child is likewise not a USA citizen.

Thanks to Mark Levin, below are excerpts from the congressional record which show this. The first excerpt is the clarification of the 14th Amendment’s jurisdiction clause by post-Civil War Senator Jacob Howard.

"The first amendment is to section one, declaring that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens [emphases added], who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” — Senator Jacob Howard, Congressional Globe, 1774 - 1875 Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session.

And to clear up any confusion about “foreigners” and “aliens” in the excerpt above being used to describe the family members of ambassadors or foreign ministers, the excerpt below is another official perspective on what the 14th Amendment’s jurisdiction clause means.

"Of course my opinion is not any better than that of any other member of the Senate; but it is very clear to me that there is nothing whatever in the suggestions of the Senator from Wisconsin. The provision is, that “ all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” Now, does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajo Indians are subject to the Complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. [emphases added] Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make …” — Senator Lyman Trumbull, Congressional Globe, 1774 - 1875 Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session. (See middle of first column.)

The reason that there’s so much confusion about the 14th Amendment’s jurisdiction clause imo, is because activist justices twisted the intentions of the drafters of that amendment when they decided the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark in his favor.

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.