Posted on 08/19/2015 2:18:25 PM PDT by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
Critics say that Trump’s plan is unrealistic, that it would require a constitutional amendment because the Fourteenth Amendment mandates birthright citizenship and that the Supreme Court has upheld this requirement ever since its passage in 1868. The critics are wrong. A correct understanding of the intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment and legislation passed by Congress in the late 19th century and in 1923 extending citizenship to American Indians provide ample proof that Congress has constitutional power to define who is within the “jurisdiction of the United States” and therefore eligible for citizenship. Simple legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president would be constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is the familiar language: “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.” Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Today, we somehow have come to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction; but this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous. If this had been the intention of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, presumably they would have said simply that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are thereby citizens.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
These classes of people, even if born here, are NOT American citizens under the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952:
a child born on American soil to a:
(1) foreign ambassador,
(2) head of state,
(3) foreign military prisoner
So what prevents Congress from simply adding another class of people to the list?
What to the Federal courts say? Not just SCOTUS but the various Circuits as well.
Geeze, these 14th amendment issues are now coming out of the woodwork.
The parents aren’t citizens. They can be deported and if they don’t want to take their children back to Mexico with them, that’s their business.
Simple solution, just list em as LBGTG-mouse and they are protected
bfl
PING
A Court that can discover a previously unknown Constitutional right to homosexual marriage hidden in the emanations of penumbra will have no problem finding a Constitutional right to anchor baby citizenship for illegal aliens in the 14th Amendment.
The Federal Courts probably say nothing. They would have no reason to weigh in on the issue, since (as posted above in the thread) children born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents are not one of the categories excluded from citizenship under the Immigration and Nationalization Act. Because they are not excluded by statute, the Federal courts would have no reason to reach the Constitutional question. It would only get to court if the Act were changed to exclude children of illegals, and someone argued that the Act (as amended) violated the 14th Amendment. Since that has not happened, it is highly unlikely that a Federal court would have weighed in on the issue.
District and Appelate Courts haven’t said much.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649 (1898)
The last big case on this was in Wong Kim Ark in 1898 in SCOTUS.
There were some specific qualifiers for citizenship that the Court analyzed along with 14th Amendment analysis and previous case precedent. It will surely litigated and be argued both ways if Trump wins and then follows through on his deportations. It could go 5/4 for or against with the present Court composition.
I support ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens.
That said, those who argue the original intent of the authors/framers 14th Amendment with respect to the Native American Indian fail to adequately describe the unique relationship between the United States government and Indian Nations.
That relationship is wholly different from the relationship between the United States government and aliens illegally entering our geographical limits.
American Indians had tribal sovereignty within the geographical limits of the United States. That sovereignty gave them the ability to govern and to protect and enhance the health, safety, and welfare of tribal citizens within tribal territory. Tribal governments maintain the power to determine their own governance structures and enforce laws through police departments and tribal courts. The governments exercise these inherent rights through the development of their distinct forms of government, determining citizenship; establishing civil and criminal laws for their nations; taxing, licensing, regulating, and maintaining and exercising the power to exclude wrongdoers from tribal lands.
Illegal aliens entering the geographical limits of the United States have no such sovereignty or right to self-governance. Therein lies the difference.
The right of Native American Indians to self-governance existed long before the 14th Amendment.
I will leave it to others to argue whether Congress exercised a plenary power to define “subject to the jurisdiction” when they excluded Indians from birthright citizenship or whether they simply codified an existing legal distinction established by treaty.
Read the paragraph below Then read it again. Then read the sentence containing the word SUPERFLUOUS and the one that follows it again.
You now know all you will ever need to know about this issue. And you will know that, as usual, Trump is right.
++
Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is the familiar language: “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.” Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Today, we somehow have come to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction; but this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous. If this had been the intention of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, presumably they would have said simply that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are thereby citizens.
++
All illegal aliens born after the 1986 amnesty must return to their country of origin.
According to Napolitano and those like him, anybody born here is a citizen which is in direct contravention to the specific wording of the 14th Amendment.
The money quote and something I have been saying here for quite some time. Domestic enemies span the political spectrum.
No matter what, if people can’t read the Constitution is useless. And today liberals and a lot of RINOs can’t read.
Anchor babies should not be citizens because their citizenship was obtained through a criminal or fraudulent act. I think lawyers call that “fraud in the inducement...”. That will void any contract.
(1) foreign ambassador,
(2) head of state,
(3) foreign military prisoner
Given the remote possibility that you haven’t seen the following excerpts, you might find them interesting. The post-Civil War congressional record shows that Senators Jacob Howard and Lyman Trumbull had clarified the jurisdiction clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
"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. (See lower half of middle column.)
"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 ofthe 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.)
But also note that I agree with Mark Levin that activist justices (my wording) in the last years of the 19th century had wrongly ignored the intentions of the drafters of the 14th Amendment’s jurisdiction clause by declaring in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that anybody born in the states is basically a citizen.
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.