Posted on 08/24/2015 6:10:42 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Naturalized US citizens can be stripped of their US citizenship and sent away to their original countries.
Dual citizens who have double allegiances, even if born in the United States, the US can banish those persons to never come back again to the United States. See Kawakita v. United States, 1952.
Congress has the collective, naturalization, plenary powers of Article 1, Section 8, and Amendment 14, Section 5., but are restrained in Article 1 to make ex post facto laws making it doubtful to strip citizenship in this manner.
I would agree that by coming here illegally you do not have ‘permission’ to be here OR to have a baby here, and if you do you cannot force the USA to make the baby a citizen.
Excellent, thank you. I read the law review you posted and wondered what your thoughts are for the Prof. Chapman article.
I find myself beating my head against the 14th, which seems futile. It doesn’t seem right that an illegal can legally domicile in the U.S., especially if receiving the goodies (welfare) to do so. I realise right and the law are two different things. So it seems there is a path to pursue making it illegal for illegals to work, rent or purchase “domicile”, obtain driver’s license, ss#, tax refunds, etc etc.
Thank you so much for your thoughts on the two articles and responding.
Which one was it? Or does his moniker start with "N.G."?
Sorry I missed that. Now is not the time to be a "birth citizenship" troll. People are waking up.
First, the ‘question of birthright citizenship was not before the court’ in Wong Kim Ark. Then the ‘question of birthright citizenship was not before the court’ in Plyler v. Doe. And yet, Brennan places a deceitful citation in a footnote of the later and the liberal establishment uses it as a false basis for decades of pro “anchor baby” regulations.
Sometimes footnotes are given full force as precedents and sometimes they are not.
I'm glad I'm not a lawyer! The courts are lawless.
Justin Lollman - Wong Kim Ark has long been read unquestioningly as awarding citizenship to every person born in the United States, irrespective of the residency status or domicile of that person’s parents.
Not true, and we would not be having discussion if it was true. The Supreme Court has never held illegal immigrants children born in the US as citizens. And see post #55.
Justin Lollman - United States to nondomiciled, alien parents. Put differently, the Citizenship Clause only extends to persons born in the United States to parents, one of whom is either a U.S. citizen or a U.S.-domiciled alien. This reading not only finds support in the Clause’s original meaning, but also, as this Note attempts to show, was the interpretation endorsed by the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark.
Again not true. In Justice Grays' opinion, see post #27, he says the opposite.
You got the initials right on the first guess. [We know these obot trolls too well.] The smack down is worth a read. Look at the last post/post 83 on the NBC thread:
Trump: I don’t think children born to illegal parents have citizenship
Hot Air ^ | 8/19/2015 | ALLAHPUNDIT
Posted on 8/20/2015 3:01:48 PM by Laissez-faire capitalist
For a very good and easier read about citizenship than Wong Kim Ark is to review
Supreme Court case Rogers v. Bellei, 1971.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/401/815.html
This is a superb article. I now have a complete, accurate understanding of the 14th Amendment’s application to the “birthright citizenship” issue: no U.S. citizenship for anchor babies.
Unfortunately Bill O'Reilly doesn't appear interested in changing his mind once he's started to believe something. He runs roughshod over actual experts who try to explain his errors to him. I'll never forget the time Thomas Sowell tried to explain the law of supply and demand to him and he just talked over him until Sowell gave up. O'Reilly lost a lot of credibility for me that day, and he's never earned it back.
You too can be just as "good" as lieyers reading legal opinions. :-)
"How to Read a Legal Opinion "
By Orin Kerr, George Mason U., 2007
From 'How to Read a Legal Opinion'. Link posted in #71.
..."In other setting, courts may justify their decisions on public policy grounds. That is, they may pick the rule that they think is the best rule, and they may explain in the opinion why they think that rule is best. This is particularly likely in common law cases where judges are not bound by a statute or constitutional rule."
Alas, Justice Gray in WKA dismissing Senator Howard's and other law makers' intent about the 14th Amend. that they were only "debates" so he could justify his opinion under the common law of England.
dear dsc,
I suppose all of your proposals might have an iota of merit, were you not to disqualify yourself as being educated to the reference that I had made, regarding the actions that President Eisenhower, (you DO recognize that name, don’t you?), took to relieve this nation of the illegal immigrant problem during his time in the White House.
He had the illegal immigrants boarded on ships and sent to disembark, in southern Mexico, near to that country’s southernmost border.
There is no known record of what happened to those who refused.
Legislation? Since the mulatto queer loves using the Executive Order, as a democrat, why not the next Republican do the same, in regards to the illegal invaders?
RE: This is a superb article. I now have a complete, accurate understanding of the 14th Amendment’s application to the “birthright citizenship” issue: no U.S. citizenship for anchor babies.
The great thing about National Review is this — they presented BOTH OPPOSING SIDES of the issue.
The first one was written Professor John Woo of UC Berkeley Law School who argued FOR birthright citizenship even for children of illegals.
See here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3327882/posts
This article is a rebuttal to that one.
Should have used a /s
Professor Yoo is therefore simply mistaken in his claim that “the Supreme Court has consistently read Section One as granting birthright citizenship to the children of aliens on U.S. territory.” In fact, it has never held that the children born on U.S. soil to parents who are in this country illegally are citizens. In the 1898 case of Wong Kim Ark, the Court simply held that a child born of Chinese immigrants who were lawfully and permanently in the United States — “domiciled” here, to use the Court’s phrase — was a citizen. Language in the opinion that can be read as suggesting that birth on U.S. soil alone, no matter what the circumstances, confers automatic citizenship is pure dicta, because no claim was at issue in the case other than whether the child of lawful, permanent residents was a citizen.
Justice Brennen's silly footnote in Plyler:
As I said, no Supreme Court case has held otherwise. Wong Kim Ark did not so hold. Neither did Plyler v. Doe in 1982, contrary to the Journal’s assertion; the relevant language in that case is simply a footnote for comparison with the Equal Protection Clause, and pure dicta.
Liberal Brennen knew WKA, 1898 never held so he slips in a footnote #10 referring to some early 20th century book author. No Supreme Court case to cite, so he goes to meaningless dicta.
“I suppose all of your proposals might have an iota of merit, were you not to disqualify yourself as being educated to the reference that I had made, regarding the actions that President Eisenhower, (you DO recognize that name, don’t you?), took to relieve this nation of the illegal immigrant problem during his time in the White House.”
Ya just had to get snide and shirty, didn’t you? I was alive for Eisenhower’s terms in office, and recently refreshed my memory with the article that’s been going around—which, I suspect, is where you first learned of those events.
“He had the illegal immigrants boarded on ships and sent to disembark, in southern Mexico, near to that country’s southernmost border.”
He had *some* illegal aliens taken by ship to Veracruz, which is on the Gulf coast not especially near the southern border. Interestingly, Old Fuss and Feathers landed his men—including Marse Robert and U.S. Grant—at Veracruz in 1847.
“There is no known record of what happened to those who refused.”
It is safe to assume that the first couple of trouble-makers got butt-stroked in the mouth with the steel butt-plate of an M1 Garand, and the rest just trotted aboard.
“Legislation? Since the mulatto queer loves using the Executive Order, as a democrat, why not the next Republican do the same, in regards to the illegal invaders?”
The difference between good and evil is that good does things right.
When lawyers are involved, common sense isn't.
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution when it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).
I need to check my 2014 midterm results.....but even uber-liberal states voted in Republicans.
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.