How you going to pay for it Trump?
How, huh how?.
They are citizens you moron.
Posted on 08/28/2015 3:03:00 PM PDT by betty boop
How would your post read any different if you were in favor of it?
Maybe the President can't but apparently the Vice President can or do you not remember the imposition of fees on cable/internet companies disguised as user fees to assure low cost internet to the masses. Al Gore proposed and imposed them.
Neither is the word "Is."
And who would know better than Thomas Jefferson? :)
Not at all. My comment was not pro or anti, just a recognition that the statement quoted did not support an argument against birthright citizenship.
That's interesting, but irrelevant in this discussion. Thomas Jefferson was not involved in drafting the 14th amendment, and he was not the source of the quote, so how he would have defined the term makes no difference in how the text is interpreted.
Of course Thomas Jefferson was not involved in drafting the 14th amendment: He died July 4, 1826.
However, John P. Foley, in The Jefferson Cyclopedia: A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson, (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1900; p. 32), directly quotes Jefferson as writing, "Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power." The drafting of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment commenced in 1866, a mere 20 years after Jefferson's death.
It appears eminently reasonable to infer that Sen. Jacob Howard (R–MI) had Jefferson's maxim in mind, when he initiated debate on a resolution that would become the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment in 1866. In defining citizenship by birth, Howard explained:
“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, 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."Sen Trumbull, sponsor of the 1866 Act, offered his definition of "subject to the jurisdiction":
"What do we mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."How Jefferson defined the term "alien" does indeed make a difference, if his understanding was reflected in the thinking of the Framers of the 14th. And the case is clear to me that it was.
Take the case of the Indian tribes. At the time of ratification, the Indian tribes were considered to be sovereign nations, owing allegiance to their respective tribe, not to the United States. Therefore, they were excluded from U.S. citizenship — on the basis of their alien status. The Citizenship Clause could not be applied to them, for they were regarded as "subjects of a foreign power."
Sen. Trumbull clarifies this:
“It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’”This was the understanding at the time the 14th Amendment was framed and ratified. (It matters not at all that American Indians received U.S. citizenship by statute, not by express operation of the 14th Amendment, in 1924.)
Jon Feere, in the CIS study I keep citing, has this to say (p. 8f):
If the question of “jurisdiction” boils down to one of allegiance, and under U.S. jurisprudence allegiance is a voluntary association, on what basis can a newborn child be found to have chosen an allegiance to his parent’s country over allegiance to the United States, or vice versa? It was understood by the authors of the 14th Amendment that jurisdiction as to the child would be imputed from the status of the parents.I'll just leave it there for now. Do your homework, CA Conservative!
Sen. Reverdy Johnson (D-Md.) explained that parents must be “subject to the authority” of the United States if their children born here are to be classified as having acquired the status of U.S. citizen:
“Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power…shall be considered as citizens of the United States. … [T]he amendment says that citizenship may depend on birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.” (emphasis added)Are illegal aliens subject to the authority of the United States? Not in the way contemplated by authors of the 14th Amendment. As explained earlier, the authors of the 14th Amendment explained that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States means not owing allegiance to anybody else.
Oooooopsie, make that "40 years."
Yes, and legal and constitutional scholars relied heavily heavily on the words of Jefferson. His legacy presence was never far even 80 years after his death.
Sorry, but you are still making two assumptions, at least one of which is disputed by the text of the quote in question. The first assumption is that the author of the quote had the same definition of aliens in mind as that of Jefferson. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't - there doesn't seem to be any definitive way of showing that. And the reason I said Jefferson's definition is irrelevant is because when interpreting any law that is ambiguous, the courts look at the legislative history and at the contemporaneous comments of the drafters of the law to provide context. They don't go back to statements of men long dead at the time the law was drafted unless the author of the law specifically references such as a source or authority for the law.
The second assumption is that, even if the author has Jefferson's definition of aliens in mind that it would somehow change that statement to mean 3 different groups, rather than one group. The structure of the sentence still reflects an intent for the term "aliens" to modify or clarify the term "foreigners". Actually, your argument that the term "aliens" refers to a particular class of foreigners supports the idea that the author only intended to restrict birthright citizenship to the class that he referenced, namely the families of ambassadors and foreign ministers. So this argument still does not support the idea that you are making.
Now I have heard others make better arguments about the intent of the drafters of the 14th that would argue against birthright citizenship. My only point is that focusing on this one quote undermines the argument, rather than supports it.
The author of the 14th amendment used the meaning that Jefferson stated. That was well-researched and presented by constitutional scholar and lawyer Mark Levin.
As betty boop says, do your homework.
The public is not yet fully aware of how the left has bamboozled them in creating a loophole for immigration attorneys to expand their business.
It will all come to a head over the next year and will result in overwhelming support for legislation to clarify exceptions under the 14th amendment. And the public is not going to be taking much more crap from Justice Kennedy and the other black robed subversives. Trump will knock them out with the FDR playbook if necessary.
Senator Howard mentions three classes: aliens, foreigners, and families of ambassadors. Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power; foreigners are overseas people temporarily in the country, as in tourists; ambassadors and ministers accredited to the U.S. government who are in the country to represent the interests of the foreign power that sent them are obviously "aliens" within Thomas Jefferson's meaning.
As were also the Indian tribes, who were regarded as giving their primary allegiance to their tribal governments — which meant they could not or would not give their primary allegiance to the United States.
The children of all four groups were considered ineligible for U.S. citizenship under the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment at the time of its framing. It all boils down to the matter of allegiance to the United States.
The terms "alien" and "foreigner" are not simply synonyms. Each term has its own particular meaning. TJ's definition of "alien" is specific, exact; "foreigners" is more of a catch-all, generic term. But you conflate them.
Consider this observation from Jon Feere:
Although, as a result of federal statutory law, all native-born Indians are regarded as citizens today, at the time of the 14th Amendment Indian tribes were treated as foreign powers, and members of the tribe were presumed to owe their first allegiance to the tribe. [Thus they are "aliens" within TJ's meaning, and not simply "foreigners."] There was no need to refer specifically to Indian tribes in the Amendment because it simply stood to reason that, for an Indian, mere presence in the United States could not be treated as a transfer of allegiance from his tribe to the United States. Query whether, in the 21st century, it stands to reason that a French tourist who gives premature birth to a child during a two-week visit to Disney World should, by virtue of her presence in Orlando, be regarded as having forsaken her allegiance to France.This French lady is a "foreigner."
The fact that she is also an "alien" within Jefferson's meaning is irrelevant given this state of facts: A mere visit to Disneyland does not even raise the issue of a consensual transfer of allegiance from France to the United States.
Your reading of this issue appears to be rather shallow and devoid of simple common sense. Just because Thomas Jefferson was not alive at the time the 14th Amendment was drafted does not mean that his influence on these deliberations was not deeply felt. (And you cannot demonstrate that it was not.)
What you seem to be doing, dear CA Conservative, with your line of argument, is "creating a loophole for immigration attorneys to expand their business," as Hostage put it. These types are in the business of torturing texts to make them say whatever it is they want them to say. This "textual approach" completely obscures the underlying meaning and rationale of the 14th Amendment.
God knows we have enough of that sort of thing already.
Hostage, I haven't seen Mark Levin's work regarding this. Got a link for me?
CITIZEN....
A Citizen of ONE place and NOT of another place is Natural law.. easy to discover and not hard to understand..
UNLESS you change what the “WORD” citizen means..
Citizens are human, not dead, and member of a particular society and culture..
AND NOT members of a different society and culture, dead, or not human..
This is TRUE no matter who says otherwise..
Changeing the “WORD” citizen to something ELSE as stated above is aggression to your culture, society, nationality, and political well being..
And should met with armed resistance, to THIS ENEMY, must be arrested prosecuted and either HUNG or Shot.. or other wise removed from appeal to the Citizens..
I totally agree with you, dear brother 'pipe!
Thank you for your outstanding insights!
HUGS!!!
It was a presentation on one of his radio shows and I believe a transcript is available. But it was a Monday I believe after Donald Trump announced and released his immigration reform overview which raised the subject of birthright citizenship as an issue for the campaign. It was not a new subject to Mark and other constitutional scholars but it was made anew by Donald Trump so Mark led with it on his show.
In Mark’s show he called out the specific words of the author of the 14th Amendment and talked about the exact definitions and meanings as stated by the author himself and it was clear that it was Jefferson’s same meaning and intent with respect to aliens, allegiance, citizenship. And there were many other issues at core and at the periphery that Mark discussed that were all tied back to the author of the 14th Amendment. It was a rock solid exposition by Mark Levin that showed without doubt whaT the 14th Amendment applied to and from where it derived.
If I can find the broadcast or its transcript I will post a link. I am tied up today so it’s not a priority at the moment sorry.
Liberals are desperate to make Illegals real voters in US elections.
They’ve aborted over 50 million of their potential voters.
Thanks for the BEEP!
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.