Ted Cruz: Birthright citizenship "doesn't make sense" [Watch Video]

CBS News Face the Nation ^ | 08/23/2015 | By REENA FLORES

[Abby4116]

ALL congressional seats will be up for election in 2016.

Plus 1/3 of the senators.

[South Dakota]

But Cruz was a Cuban citizen

[Nero Germanicus]

Most of what you said is correct but there are a few other facts. Wong Kim Ark’s parents had returned to China and he made two visits to China to visit them. When he returned the first time, he was allowed back in to the U.S. and deemed to be a “native.” On his return from trip number two in 1895, he was detained and labeled a foreigner. He sued and eventually the Supreme Court ruled in his favor 6-2 thus establishing birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

From the Court’s ruling:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)

[An alien parent’s] “allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, ‘’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born ‘

“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’

…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.”

[South Dakota]

it was decided before the 14th Amendment was ratified so it cannot say anything about the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

The 14th amendment was about slaves born on US soil, not immigrants

[norwaypinesavage]

You can see how much the liberals fear Cruz by reading the comments. Most focus on his Canadian birth, and not the issue of anchor babies of criminal entrants. It seems that it is now PC to be a “birther”.

[Nero Germanicus]

The reason we can deport illegals is because they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of U.S. immigration law. If an illegal alien wasn’t subject to the jurisdiction of our laws, we couldn’t prosecute them for the many crimes they commit.

[dschapin]

I actually tend to agree with your analysis. I simply was saying that if I was arguing the other side that would be my basis.

[dschapin]

Though - ambassadors can be expelled and they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. So, that might be a good counter argument.

[Nero Germanicus]

I understand.

[Nero Germanicus]

I prefer prosecutions under the laws of the land to expulsions.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: The reason we can deport illegals is because they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of U.S. immigration law.

Here’s a question to answer before we make that conclusion... if a diplomat commits a crime in the USA, can we arrest him or kick him out?

Or is it the case that a diplomat can rape and kill anyone in the USA and be immune from prosecution in this country by virtue of his diplomatic status?

[Nero Germanicus]

It depends on the official position of the person with diplomtic immunity.
An ambassador, for example, has full, complete and unlimited immunity from prosecution or being called as a witness, but an ambassador can be expelled.

Wikipedia has a nice chart showing the limits of diplomatic immunity:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity#Diplomatic_immunity_in_the_United_States

A couple of examples:
In July 2013, Joshua Walde, an American diplomat in Nairobi, Kenya, crashed into a mini-bus, killing one man and seriously injuring eight others, who were left with no financial assistance to pay for hospital bills. United States embassy officials took the diplomat and his family out of Kenya the following day. The United States government was concerned about the impact the accident could have on bilateral relations with Kenya.Walde gave a statement to police, but was not detained due to his diplomatic immunity. Kenyan police say the case remains under investigation.

On 24 April 2008, in New Orleans, Mexican press attaché Rafael Quintero Curiel was seen stealing BlackBerry PDA units from a White House press meeting room. Quintero made it all the way to the airport before members of the United States Secret Service caught up with him. He initially denied taking the devices, but after being confronted with security video, Quintero claimed it was purely accidental, gave the devices back, claimed diplomatic immunity and left New Orleans with the Mexican delegation. He was eventually fired for the incident.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: but an ambassador can be expelled.

Yet he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. And his children born here are not either.

So, why should an illegal alien who can also be expelled ( AKA deported ) have his children considered subject to our jurisdiction? Shouldn’t they be considered subject to the jurisdiction of the country their parents come from?

[Nero Germanicus]

Illegal aliens are prosecuted under the U.S. law for any crime that they commit. They are “subject to the jurisdiction” of state, federal law and local ordinances.
There is a huge difference between explulsion of a person with diplomatic immunity and prosecution of a person for a crime, including the crime of being in the nation illegally.
Legal immigrants, and persons on student, work or tourist visas can also be deported under U.S. Immigration laws.
Examples of deportable offenses for legal immigrants:
Failure to Obey the Terms of A Visa or Otherwise Maintain Status
If someone is in the U.S. as a nonimmigrant (most likely with a visa), various conditions apply to their stay. For example, if they are a tourist, they are not allowed to work. If they fail to abide by these conditions and maintain nonimmigrant status, they become deportable.

Failure to Advise USCIS of Change of Address
It’s a crime for immigrants not to submit immediate notifications to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) of their changes of address within ten days.

Commission of a Crime
A number of crimes — though not all — can result in an immigrant’s becoming deportable from the United States. The full list is at Section 237(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, or “I.N.A.” For example, crimes that can get a green card holder or a nonimmigrant alien deported include alien smuggling, document fraud, domestic violence, crimes of “moral turpitude,” drug or controlled substance offenses firearms trafficking, money laundering, fraud, espionage, sabotage, terrorism, and of course the classic serious crimes such as rape, murder, and any other “aggravated felonies.”

For any alien, legal or illegal who is convicted of a crime, the court is not likely to label it a “crime of moral turpitude” or an “aggravated felony.” The alien may simply be told that the crime is classified as, for example, a “misdemeanor”. However, the immigration authorities will make their own judgment about how the crime is classified for immigration law purposes, with the result that certain misdemeanors can, in fact, make any alien deportable.

Violation of Immigration Laws
Someone who violates the immigration laws by, for example, participating in a fraudulent marriage or helping smuggle other aliens into the United States, may be found deportable.

Receiving Public Assistance
Anyone who has received a green card knows that proving that they would not become a “public charge” — that is, have to rely on need-based government assistance — was an important part of proving that they were not inadmissible to the United States and get a green card. The immigration laws follow this up with the statement that, “Any alien who, within five years after the date of entry; has become a public charge from causes not affirmatively shown to have arisen since entry is deportable.” (Section 237(a)(5) of the I.N.A.)

Anyone having a green card, their petitioner, and any other financial sponsor, are supposed to follow through with their promises to support the alien (and can also be asked to reimburse any agencies from which the immigrant received public assistance.)

[SeekAndFind]

I’m still not convinced that the “subject to jurisdiction” clause of the constitution was INTENDED to include children of illegals.

At best, the 14th is SILENT on the issue of illegals because I don’t think the drafters had them in mind when it was drafted.

Consider — In 1884, 16 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, John Elk, who — as you may have surmised by his name — was an Indian, had to go to the Supreme Court to argue that he was an American citizen because he was born in the United States.

He lost. In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment DID NOT GRANT Indians citizenship.

The “main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the court explained — and not for the first or last time — “was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black ... should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.”

So, if American Indians born in American soil were not considered SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the United States, therefore NOT CITIZENS *AFTER* the 14th Amendment was approved by the states, WHY SHOULD ILLEGALS?

American Indians were not made citizens until 1924. SO, what happened during those 56 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment? Indians were not American citizens subject to the jurisdiction of this country, even if they were BORN in the United States.

It required a SPECIFIC ACT BY CONGRESS, “THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924.” to make them citizens.

Supreme Court precedents specifically say that children of foreign diplomats, and also children of occupying forces, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and do not automatically get U.S. citizenship upon birth.

Therefore, I don’t think that it would be a huge problem for Congress to treat illegal immigrants like foreign diplomats or American Indians prior to 1924, who are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

We treat them like any foreigner living in the United State until they LEGALLY apply to become permanent residents and become naturalized.

[Nero Germanicus]

Tribal American Indians had treaty and sovereignty rights that were determined to preclude jurisdiction until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Many non-reservation Indians had already been granted citizenship.
“The Act granted citizenship to about 125,000 of 300,000 indigenous people in the United States. To put these numbers in perspective, the U.S. population at that time was less than 125 million. The indigenous people who were not included in citizenship numbers had already become citizens by other means; entering the armed forces, giving up tribal affiliations, and assimilating into mainstream American life were the ways this was done. Citizenship had been granted in a piecemeal fashion before the Act, which was the first more inclusive method of granting Native American citizenship. The Act did not include citizens born before the effective date of the 1924 act, or outside of the United States as an indigenous person, however, and it was not until the Nationality Act of 1940 that all persons born on U.S. soil were citizens.”— Wikipedia

Ending birthright citizenship is probably going to take overturning the Supreme Court’s ruling in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898) which established the precedent of non-citizen offspring being citizens if born here. Of course Wong Kim Ark’s parents were here legally when he was born.
The second sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment has been interpreted to be definitive: “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.
The wording switches from “citizen” to “person.”

[mazda77]

BUT, the parents were here LEGALLY. Quit trying to obfuscate the whole story. Anchor Babies is an issue because of ILLEGALS.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Tribal American Indians had treaty and sovereignty rights that were determined to preclude jurisdiction until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

PRECISELY. So my point is this — the 14th Amendment was NOT MEANT for everyone born in American soil. The intent was narrowly tailored for SLAVES and their CHILDREN born in the United States.

Illegals and American Indians were not in the drafters’ mind otherwise, why the NEED for the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924?

So Congress can pass laws deciding under what circumstances a person can or cannot be a citizen. They can do it today.

RE: Ending birthright citizenship is probably going to take overturning the Supreme Court’s ruling in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898) which established the precedent of non-citizen offspring being citizens if born here. Of course Wong Kim Ark’s parents were here legally when he was born.

I don’t have a problem giving birthright citizenship with children of those who are here LEGALLY ( e.g. Wong Kim Ark, Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio ).

So, the above case is an ENTIRELY SEPARATE ISSUE. Let’s stick to the issue of ILLEGALs.

RE: “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.
The wording switches from “citizen” to “person.”

OK, so Congress passes a law withholding birthright citizenship from ILLEGALS. I don’t think that deprives them of life, liberty or property.

The law they pass IS DUE PROCESS.

I don’t even have a problem making the law APPLY ONLY AFTER IT HAS BEEN PASSED ( not retroactively ).

[Resolute Conservative]

I wish we would enforce section 3. 90% of incumbents could not hold office.

[Corazon]

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/murray:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28lcrbmrpt2327div2%29%29


African American Perspectives: Pamphlets from the Daniel A.P.Murray Collection, 1818-1907
The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution considered : the right to pursue any lawful trade or avocation, without other restraint than such as equally affects all persons, is one of the privileges of citizens of the United States which can not be abridged by state legislation : dissenting opinions of Mr. Justice Field, Mr. Justice Bradley, and Mr. Justice Swayne, of U.S. Supreme Court, in the New Orleans slaughter-house cases.

Supreme Court of the United States. December Term, 1870.

The first clause of the fourteenth amendment changes this whole subject, and removes it from the region of discussion and doubt. It recognizes in express terms, if it does not create, citizens of the United States, and it makes their citizenship dependent upon the place of their birth, or the fact of their adoption, and not upon the constitution or laws of any State or the condition of their ancestry. A citizen of a State is now only a citizen of the United States residing in that State. The fundamental rights, privileges, and immunities which belong to him as a free citizen, now belong to him as a citizen of the United States, and are dependent upon his citizenship of any State. The exercise of these rights and privileges, and the degree of enjoyment received from such exercise, are always more or less affected by the condition and the local institutions of the State, or city, or town where he resides. They are thus affected in a State by the wisdom of its laws, the ability of its officers, the efficiency of its magistrates, and education and morals of its people, and by many other considerations. This is a result which follows from the constitution of society, and can never be avoided, but in in no other way can they be affected by the action of the State, or by the residence of the citizen therein. They do not derive existence from its legislation, and cannot be destroyed by its power.

---------


THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE