Posted on 08/27/2015 5:52:59 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
“Bin Laden 2016” raises the question: Does “birthright citizenship,” regardless of parentage, qualify one to become president of the United States?
Now that I have your attention, let’s consider a logical consequence of the current policy of the U.S. government, granting “birthright citizenship” to a child born in the United States of illegal immigrants, otherwise known as an “anchor baby.”
Section I of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:
“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.”
At the heart of the contentious debate over “birthright citizenship” is the phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction of.” The author of the phrase, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, made it abundantly clear during Senate debates that it does not apply to alien children:
“It excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
Likewise, Howard’s co-author, Sen. Lyman Trumball of Illinois, said that the phrase meant complete jurisdiction:
"not owing allegiance to anybody else."
Ignoring the interpretation of the men who wrote the phrase is like ignoring Abraham Lincoln on the Gettysburg Address, preferring the scholarship of a guy who once worked for the Gettysburg Planning and Zoning Department.
“Birthright citizenship” is based on an absurd interpretation that assumes the phrase, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” means geography. It’s based on the English common law doctrine, “jus soli,” meaning “right of the soil.” The subject of a king could not renounce allegiance to the sovereign ever. Citizens aren’t subjects.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“Jus soli” renders the jurisdiction phrase superfluous and redundant because the preceding phrase, “in the United States,” identifies the geography. Being subject to U.S. laws applies to citizens and aliens. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is concerned with one’s political allegiance to the United States and no other, as Howard and Trumball said.
I agree with all that.
But it does not matter.
At some point, a court case will come before the US Supreme Court and nine people will look at the legal language, and weigh all the precedent and then they will make an arbitrary decision that makes them feel good about themselves.
Until that happens, it’s all idle speculation which cannot achieve a darn thing.
RE: At some point, a court case will come before the US Supreme Court and nine people will look at the legal language, and weigh all the precedent and then they will make an arbitrary decision that makes them feel good about themselves.
You heard it here first. Those who will decide in favor of birthright citizenship for children of illegals will be:
Kagan
Sotomayor ( just look at the family name )
Breyer
Ginsburg
Kennedy ( Mr. Gay Marriage himself )
Roberts ( Mr. Obamacare himself ).
RESULT: 6-3
Our candidates should spend at least an hour reading these articles so that they can respond to the likes of Kelly or Ramos:
AND
The best part of all of this is that it is now FRONT AND CENTER as a National issue.
And it is not just blowing away the timid, but outing the traitors: Baby Bush spends his whole campaign bloviating for illegal aliens and their non-existent right to call their children Americans, as if they had the right to make that designation.
We won’t even talk about the Rats. We KNOW where their loyalties lie without asking.
Lotta people here say “well, Iraq and Iran are real issues, this is just peripheral”.
Nonsense. It is the central issue: Who is an American?
And who will rule us? The children of Mexico, or eventually our children?
Yup.
And the court won’t even have to read the 14th Amendment. Why bother? Who cares about the wording? The decision can be written before the hearing is held.
clearly the framers did not have this definition of natural born citizen in mind when they added that requirement as it offers no protection whatsoever.
You know, the statement “At some point, a court case will come before the Supreme Court...” makes it sound like the 14th Amendment hasn’t been before the Supreme Court already. In fact, it went before the Supreme Court in 1898 (US vs. Wong Kim Ark). The Court ruled that a child born in the United States was a citizen, regardless of the nationality of his or her parents. That’s been the law in this country for the last 117 years.
Since the statements of Senators Howard and Trumball are in the congressional record, I think that Congress was wrong not to impeach and remove from the bench the activist justices who essentially rewrote both Section 1 of the 14th Amendment and the congressional record to establish anchor baby citizenship from the bench.
Thomas Jefferson had put it this way …
"The true key for the construction of everything doubtful in a law is the intention of the law-makers. This is most safely gathered from the words, but may be sought also in extraneous circumstances provided they do not contradict the express words of the law." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1808.
If you had ever read the Wong Kim Ark case, you would know that it had nothing whatsoever to do with children born in the US to parents who were here illegally, and therefore is not precedent. You also ignore previous precedent in support of the actual intent and plain meaning of the 14th amendment.
The Wong Kim Ark case did extend birthright citizenship to children of foreigners who are legally domiciled in the United States (as were the parents of Wong Kim Ark), but anyone in the United States contrary to law cannot establish a legal domicile here.
You’re going to have to try again, and good luck to you; there IS NO case on point.
Thank you for showing us the foundation stone.Who is an American?
Forgive my shouting. This needs to be said.
Here’s the perfect opportunity for you to educate yourself:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3330074/posts
“Team Cuda” is a troll.
Review its posting history (http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:teamcuda/index?brevity=full;tab=comments) to verify:
** Anchor babies are good!
** Homosexuals are A-OK! Especially in the Boy Scouts!
** Wind farms are great!
** Planned Parenthood babykilling is OK, and it’s deceitful and immoral to catch them in the act with undercover videos!
What you WON’T find in “Team Cuda”’s posting history is support of any conservative position whatsoever.
I pray its days here are numbered. We don’t need this disruptive crap.
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.