Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ted Cruz: Birthright citizenship "doesn't make sense" [Watch Video]
CBS News Face the Nation ^ | 08/23/2015 | By REENA FLORES

Posted on 08/23/2015 9:29:38 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz wants to put an end to birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants, proposing an amendment to the Constitution if necessary.

"I think birthright citizenship as a policy matter doesn't make sense," Cruz said in an interview that aired Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation." "We have right now upwards of 12 million people living here illegally. It doesn't make any sense that our law automatically grants citizenship to their children because what it does is it incentivizes additional illegal immigration."

The issue of nullifying birthright citizenship, while long in the sights of Republican legislators, recently took off in the 2016 policy debates when billionaire Donald Trump proposed to do away with it as part of his comprehensive immigration plan. Trump added last week that he didn't believe "anchor babies" were actually citizens -- and the crowded Republican field rushed to weigh in.

The Supreme Court has long held that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees those born on U.S. soil American citizenship. The Amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

Yet some constitutional scholars, according to Cruz, say that Congress could simply "pass a law defining what the words in the 14th Amendment 'subject to the jurisdiction' means." But in order to assure the repeal of birthright citizenship, the Texas senator also proposed wholly amending the Constitution, saying "we should change the law."

(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 14thamendment; anchorbabies; birthright; citizenship; h1b; illegals; immigration
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-77 next last

1 posted on 08/23/2015 9:29:38 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

According to Mark Levin, the Supreme Court has said no such thing.


2 posted on 08/23/2015 9:31:51 AM PDT by Catsrus (The Great Wall of Trump - coming to a southern border near you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"My view, there's a good faith argument on both sides," Cruz said. "We should pursue whichever one is effective but as a policy matter, we should change the law."

Why not pass the law and see how the courts decide. A Constitutional amendment might not be necessary. There are two bills now in Congress since January, one in the Senate sponsored by David Vitter and one in the House, sponsored by Steve King, HR 140, that eliminate birthright citizenship. Someone should ask Cruz if he supports these bills.

3 posted on 08/23/2015 9:36:04 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Dear leader will just veto a bill like this and then it will fail to get a majority to override the veto - the DEMS will block it and I’m sure we can count on some of the RINOs to vote with them.


4 posted on 08/23/2015 9:37:57 AM PDT by Catsrus (The Great Wall of Trump - coming to a southern border near you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

In Inglis v. Trustees (1830) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court ruled that a child born on U.S. soil, of a father who owes allegiance to a sovereignty other than the United States, is not a U.S. citizen at birth; the citizenship of such a child is that of its father, not its place of birth [20]. Consequently, the U.S.-born child of a foreign-citizen father cannot be a natural born citizen [41].

Thus, the modern-day consensus opinion (that birthplace alone confers natural born citizenship), though widely held, appears to be an assumption, not settled law or established fact.


5 posted on 08/23/2015 9:38:07 AM PDT by South Dakota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Catsrus

Mark Levin is wrong if he thinks that the 14th Amendment says nothing on Birthright Citizenship. There is a very good case to be made that the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship to everyone born in America except for the children of foreign diplomats (and at the time it was written the Indian tribes) who are not subject to US Law -ie diplomatic immunity. The whole question depends on what the phrase “and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof” means. Most scholars believe that if someone did not have immunity from U.S. law that they were “subject to the Jurisdiction...” of the United States. So, anyone who says that its going to be easy to get rid of Birthright Citizenship without a Constitutional Amendment doesn’t know what they are talking about.


6 posted on 08/23/2015 9:39:15 AM PDT by dschapin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Legal or illegal, we need to deny entry to people who hate us (muslims), to people who don’t like us and just want to take advantage of our generosity, all the while not assimilating and disliking us.


7 posted on 08/23/2015 9:41:39 AM PDT by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dschapin

No, he isn’t wrong. If you read the first part of the 14th and stop there - you would think that’s what is says. But, following the comma is a clause that says no alien or foreigner . You need to read it for yourself and stop spewing untruths.


8 posted on 08/23/2015 9:43:08 AM PDT by Catsrus (The Great Wall of Trump - coming to a southern border near you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Catsrus

According to Mark Levin, the Supreme Court has said no such thing.
++++
Yes, he has. But, unfortunately, I think there have been court rulings that lend some legal support to the current insane policy. And do we really believe that Roberts or Kennedy would both come down on the right side of this issue. I doubt it seriously.

But we do have to try. I hope something comes of this.


9 posted on 08/23/2015 9:44:36 AM PDT by InterceptPoint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dschapin

You should listen to his audio rewinds and read his piece on this issue. He isn’t wrong - you are misquoting what he has said.


10 posted on 08/23/2015 9:45:19 AM PDT by Catsrus (The Great Wall of Trump - coming to a southern border near you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: InterceptPoint

It doesn’t have to go to the Supreme Court - it is in the hands of Congress. Once again, people need to listen to Mark’s audio rewinds on this subject. He was also on Hannity about this - and I think that is still up online.


11 posted on 08/23/2015 9:46:59 AM PDT by Catsrus (The Great Wall of Trump - coming to a southern border near you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: South Dakota

Both the cases you cited are completely distinguishable. Inglis v. Trustees doesn’t apply for two reasons (1) it was decided before the 14th Amendment was ratified so it cannot say anything about the meaning of the 14th Amendment. (2) It was about someone who was born in the Colonies and left before the Revolution, never to return. Thus the Court held that the person never became an American Citizen because he had never lived in America - just the British Colonies.

ELk v. Wilkins is more relevant. However, it still does not hold what you think. It is about an American Indian who was born on a reservation and then later renounced his tribal membership and wanted to claim U.S. citizenship. At that time the reservations were treated like foreign countries and were dealt with via treaties not U.S. law. Therefore, he was found not to have been born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.


12 posted on 08/23/2015 9:47:47 AM PDT by dschapin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
what it does is it incentivizes additional illegal immigration

It's worse than that. It means that illegal aliens - the parents - are the people who decide who our citizens will be: their children.

No nation on Earth goes along with that.

13 posted on 08/23/2015 9:47:48 AM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South Dakota

Our first Naturalization Act of 1790 established “natural born”[To children born overseas] back in the day.

Key word is citizens, not citizen, ie one parent.


14 posted on 08/23/2015 9:49:14 AM PDT by Theoria (I should never have surrendered. I should have fought until I was the last man alive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dschapin
From the article:
"The Supreme Court has long held that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees those born on U.S. soil American citizenship"

What Mark Levin said is the Supreme court has never ruled that children of illegals are American citizens. So this statement is false.

He also says there's another part of the Constitution. It's article 1, section 8, clause 4. It says in plain English. "The Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization."

Levin says "Now, you know what that means? That means Congress, not the courts, not the president, not ICE -- it means the United States Congress has the power to regulate immigration in this regard."

15 posted on 08/23/2015 9:49:21 AM PDT by conservative98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Catsrus

The 14th Amendment says nothing about “no alien or foreigner” Here is the complete 14th Amendment.

Amendment XIV

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


16 posted on 08/23/2015 9:49:43 AM PDT by dschapin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Catsrus
Of course Obama would veto it. But he will veto everything the GOP candidates are saying about Obamacare, PP, etc. The issue is what will they do when they are President.

The next President, if it is a Rep, must use the bully pulpit to get Congress to act. The case is easily made thru available data. Why should the US be only one of two developed countries with birthright citizenship?

17 posted on 08/23/2015 9:49:59 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: South Dakota

That’s absolutely correct.

A ‘child’ at the time of birth is not subject to any allegiance other than that of the legal parent or guardian.

The fact is that ‘birthright citizenship’ has been squashed from view by political leaders and because of this cover provided to this false notion, immigration attorneys have marked it as a LOOPHOLE and made it their cash cow business, promulgating it as a lie that it is completely legal and constitutional, and furthering their abuse of it by joining it with Ted Kennedy’s 1965 chain immigration reform so that an anchor baby becomes a beachhead for an invasion of illegals.


18 posted on 08/23/2015 9:51:19 AM PDT by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: conservative98

Congress has the power to regulate naturalization. ie, when people born outside the United States seek to become U.S. citizens but the 14th Amendment (which was ratified after Article 1, section 8, clause 4 and thus would amend it if there was a conflict) guarantees that “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.” 14th Amendment, Section 1.


19 posted on 08/23/2015 9:53:54 AM PDT by dschapin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-77 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson