Posted on 08/17/2015 1:46:45 PM PDT by BradtotheBone
Looks like Trump (or anyone else) will have to break up the families then - his comments about deporting the kids with the parents was “to keep the families together”. If that’s what it takes, so be it.
Also, if an illegal ‘changed their mind’ and tried to come back they would be treated as a ‘new illegal’ and deported... with their host country charged for the inconvenience they've caused the US.
I think you might be right about that, Lurker. But that would depend on whether one construes citizenship according to the doctrine of jus soli or of jus sanquinis. Evidently, Judge Napolitano is squarely in the first camp.
Some definitions:
(1) Jus soli (from the Latin, meaning "right of the soil"), a/k/a "birthright citizenship," holds that citizenship of a person is determined by the place where a person was born. Thus, whoever is born in the U.S. and is subject to its jurisdiction is automatically granted U.S. citizenship. That's what the Fourteenth Amendment appears to hold.Regarding (1), and the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, I do not see any direct guidance as to how to construe the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" language. To me it seems the question, "who is subject to the jurisdiction...." is not answered at all. And maybe that's the problem. Or opportunity, depending on how one looks at it.
(2) Jus sanguinis holds that citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having one (or both) parents who are themselves citizens of the state. This undoubtedly is the rationale behind the Article II constitutional requirement that the POTUS must be a "natural born" Citizen (or a naturalized Citizen — i.e., one who obtained citizenship through the legal immigration process), of the United States. So, a person who was born out-of-country to one (or two) Citizens of the United States is a "natural-born" citizen. Jus Soli clearly cannot be the determinative principle of presidential eligibility.
And I wonder, what is the sense of believing that an infant born to a citizen of another country is immediately under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government, just because the child was born on U.S. soil? I had always thought that minor children are under the jurisdiction of their parents. Under jus sanguinis, if the parent(s) is from, say, Colombia, then the kid is a Colombian citizen. Plus it goes without saying that minors cannot give affirmative consent to the Oath of Citizenship before age 18.
Are there other countries in the world who consider, say, a child born to American tourists on their soil are under their "jurisdiction," and thus automatically citizens of their country?
Plus we have to look at the historical setting of the Fourteenth Amendment. Clearly, it had an end in view: To ensure the civil liberties of former slaves. Entirely commendable in my view. (But they had to nationalize citizenship to do it, a severe encroachment on the sovereignty of the several States; but that's an issue for another time.)
The irony here is all former slaves then living were already natural-born citizens of the United States from the date of their birth. (One can say with confidence that voluntary immigration from Africa to the United States prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment was exactly zero. Africans weren't rushing in, in droves, to deposit "anchor babies" on our shores. The emancipated slaves (Praise the Lord!) were folks whose families had already been here for a very long time.)
In conclusion, the Fourteenth Amendment appears to be poorly drafted. It's a reminder that "no good deed goes unpunished": In order to promote a virtuous, just goal, the drafters of the Fourteenth seem not to have recognized that they were opening a can of worms that we wouldn't even notice, until roughly 150 years later.
Just some thoughts.... Thank you ever so much for writing, Lurker!
Hi Betty. Go here and then to the article via the link:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3326031/posts
In it, the author discusses the different understanding that existed regarding “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the Civil War era. So, while you are correct, the culprit might not be poor drafting.
YOU are subject to US jurisdiction in the US and abroad. For example, you MUST file income reporting paperwork. (And a host of other requirements.)
Now, a hypothetical illegal Mexican living in the US goes abroad. Must he file income reporting paperwork with the US IRS? Of course not. Why not? Because his sovereign is not the US...the original understanding of ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. It defined an individual’s sovereign.
50,000,000+ illegals voting multiple times..
may have an impact on this election..
OK 40,000,000 maybe 60,000,000.... who knows the census bureau don’t..
Whats to STOP them in MOST States?.. NOTHING..
Also a host of other people illegal to vote....... VOTE..
No I.D.’s means anyone can vote or even dead people.. dogs, cats.. snakessss... cartoons..
Trump might mention THAT.. IF he is not a democrat in sheeps clothing..
The democrats would have his ASS if he mentioned THAT..
NO Proof one way or the other.. proving conservative credentials..
much like Obama no proof of ANYTHING.. unless it’s UNIMPORTANT stuff..
Nor malfeasance either.
Thank you for the link to Hans A. von Spakovsky's excellent article, published January 14, 2011 at Fox News' Opinion column. I didn't see it the first time around, but am grateful to find it now.
It confirms that my "instinct" about this issue is correct. That ultimately, citizenship boils down to allegiance to the nation one wishes to join. Allegiance is not a "biological fact"; it is an "inherited," cultural fact.
Thus I am definitely in the school of thinking that holds jus sanguinis — from the Latin, meaning "law of the blood" — is a better criterion for determining citizenship than jus soli doctrine ("law of the soil").
The latter gets you mobs of freeloaders at enormous taxpayer expense who care not a hoot about American principles and values. So they have nothing to give their "allegiance" to. You can't make citizens out of unsuitable material — people who don't care about or share fundamental American values to which they can pledge their allegiance.
Thank you ever so much for writing, dear brother in Christ, and for the outstanding link!
Methinks you worry too much. It seems that you are ever vigilant about what could go wrong.
Do you not suppose that sometimes, possibly, things could go right?
******************************
Interesting, betty boop. I like it, too.
The laws of citizenship are how we decide with whom we will share our sovereignty. In a democratic republic we share power, we share our sovereignty with our neighbors. But we don’t give it up to just anyone, we have laws that limit who we allow to share power over us.
The idea should be that only those people who respect and believe in what we have built should be allowed to join in deciding how it will be carried forward.
Citizenship laws should not be used for the purpose of manipulating labor costs, demographics, voting patterns. They should certainly not be used to replace the citizens with another more easily controlled citizenry.
If you are bringing in people at the rate of a million a year, legally, and another million a year illegally, and doing this while millions of citizens are standing on street corners unable to find work, there is something afoot.
Combine that, the million legal and million illegal, with another million abortions per year. Over a couple of decades you will see an enormous demographic shift, which is what we have seen and have not always understood.
We are being replaced. In large part we are doing it to ourselves. It is being done to us by our betters, but with our consent be it informed or uninformed. The wages of sin is death it is said, and in fact the wages of sin is to be replaced in your own country.
You want PROOF??? In advance? Good luck.
Come on it would simple to have proof..
Trump get on some TV or even make a damned video on you tube...
Explaining how he was once a democrat but got wise to them..because of this and that or other..
And has sea change of heart and no longer holds those views..
So-called Liberal views and is a Constitutional defender NOW..
And now knows the democrats despise the Constitution..
be simple really..
From the heart.. admitting complicency in the leftist evil that has been committed..
But alas I doubt he would because he is a MOLE.. still is a democrat and has no idea he was promoting for years TREASON sedition and espionage... done by democrats from even before Wilson..
AND, be advised, STILL WILL act as a democrat... as President..
He is the Cow Birds Egg in the Robins nest..
A Vampire currently sucking GOPE blood..
And has no qualms about sucking democrat blood..
AND the blood eventually of the ones that vote for his Ass..
He’s not for America he’s for Trump.. and SAVING the Crony Capitalists.. i.e. democrats and Rinos..
He is the SAVIOR Messiah of Crony Capitalism.......
you know threatened by TED CRUZ... he is the ANTI-CRUZ missle..
pretty smart actually.. the democrats/rinos/Gope fully know with a Cruz Presidency the JIG is up LITERALLY..
Thats why? Trump is in the race at all.. the ANTI-CRUZ Missle..
Cruz could ..DO.. most of what Trump proposes Constitutionally and more.. bring to Justice many democrats full treason and espionage.. and a boatload of RINOS..
to wit: the Cruz-missle..
Dershowwiz said he was the smartest Law student he ever had.. and he is..
Regarding (1), and the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, I do not see any direct guidance as to how to construe the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" language. To me it seems the question, "who is subject to the jurisdiction...." is not answered at all. And maybe that's the problem. Or opportunity, depending on how one looks at it.
From another thread on the subject:
Spakovsky is a very good writer and luminary. I respect his opinions and findings immensely.
He’s absolutely right about this. But again as with other amendments, the writing of the amendment is poor because there is never any authority delineated to determine and execute certain phrases. The phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ can only be enforced by a government body and no government body is specified. State offices issuing birth certificates have defaulted to issuing BCs for any child born on American soil. There are no statutes that require state offices to determine how to execute and enforce the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’.
When new amendments are drafted, especially from the forthcoming Article V Convention of States, the drafters must think and work to write enabling language to each proposed amendment. Otherwise, abuse of new amendments will surely ensue regardless of the amendment’s meaning and intent. The 14th Amendment is a prime example of how certain groups take advantage of poorly crafted words by ignoring certain phrases or by injecting new meaning and intent in derived rulings.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3326031/posts?page=12#12
We might consider a 'General Reference Amendment' to the Constitution via Article V (not via Congress as they appear at this date hopelessly compromised, thus inept) along these lines:
AMENDMENT XXX
************************************************
For general reference, meanings and intents of all parts of the Constitution of the United States are strictly bound in all respects by the express provisions found in the 'Book of General Definitions and Resolutions' published by the 2016 Article V Convention of States.
************************************************
The year 2016 is a placeholder for the actual year the COS is concluded and the noting of '2016 Article V Convention of States' is a specifier for the actual authorized assembly. Heretofore, the meanings and intents have been left to legal scholars who reference the Federalist Papers as well as precedents but there is only a gentleman's agreement that these references are substantive to law. Whereas, an amendment of the above kind, ties and binds all rulings to specific definitions and resolutions adopted by the States.
I will be getting a copy of the Art. V COS rules that were introduced for review at the annual ALEC meeting held last month in San Diego in which thousands of state legislators attended. I note there are 7,398 state legislators in total who will according to each State authorize small state delegations to attend the Art. V COS. There is delay in getting the COS rules as they are not yet available to the public because the coordination among so many legislators holds up their publication. However, I will be getting a draft version via a state legislator that will be for unofficial discussion purposes only.
Deport Nap now.
Oh and I hope you will join with me and others in calling our era ‘The American Reformation’ after the outstanding essay by Robert Gelinas:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3325899/posts
Please have a look if you haven’t already.
Here’s the direct link to the Robert Gelinas essay:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/the_trump_paradox.html
His exposition touches on much more than the title indicates, much more than just the phenomenon of Donald Trump who is but a symptom of the underlying American strife.
Which is why I would be extremely reluctant to vote for Jeb Bush. Not to mention a few of the other guys holding themselves out as presidential nominees....
Thank you for the link to the dazzlingly lapidary Robert Gelinas article!
I see you continue to do your assiduous "homework" WRT the COS. I hope you'll ping me on developments from ALEC. I'm definitely "on-board."
Thank you, dear Hostage, for all you do!
You’re welcome!
It’s so exciting to be alive and part of the coming ‘American Reformation’!
bkmk
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.