Replies

That is ABSOLUTELY right, and the logic came from an Amicus Curiae brief by Ed Meese and John Eastman in the Hamdi case. Means Vitter is getting GOOD advice on the issue, because that is the thing to zero in on. There should be a massive groundswell to support him.

I agree. The pertinents clause in the 14A specifies: "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."

Note that first use of "and" - that is what Vitter is pointing out. The 14A clearly states that being here isn't enough - you also ("and") have to be" subject to the jurisdiction thereof." But BY DEFINITION, someone here ILLEGALLY is NOT "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, in the sense that their illegal status means that they have rejected the jurisidiction (acceptance of the laws) of the US by the WAY they arrived - illegally.

Go, Vitter, go!

That's close. To be "subject to the jurisdiction of" means you have to be incorporated into the nation in some way, within the laws of that nation. It doesn't mean simply being on that nation's soil, because visitors are here temporarily and they are certainly bound by the laws.

Think of what it means to be a "Subject" of the King. It means that within his domain of people, you are considered one of them. You claim nationality to his group, and that nation lives on his territory. Thus you are under his jurisdiction as one of his nationals. This travels with you too (this is a key point).

Since in the United States the People are Sovereign, the equation is inverted in terms of who is in charge. But the meaning is the same: a "Subject" is one who is subject to nation and its rules: this travels with you. You're a member of a club - and that little blue passport is your proof.

So that is where the redundancy came in. The first line established territorial jurisdiction, the second defined national jurisdiction - or just simply nationality.

You can read the brief here: Hamdi Merits Brief and a discussion of the whole thing here: Excerpt from View From The Right.

The Wong Kim Ark case was used to legitimize illegal alien birthright citizenship by the State Department, but it has never actually been brought to court in this context. Ark dealt with the children of lawful resident aliens, not unlawful. The extension of this right to unlawful residents is a breathtaking leap wholly unwarranted, although some of the reasoning in Ark could lead to such a conclusion.

But it makes no sense. In any logical construction, no nation would extend the right to make citizens to aliens in the country illegally - that right is reserved to the nation itself.

But this is what we have been doing: letting the illegals decide who the future Americans will be by blessing their children with citizenship.

When did we vote to let people who aren't in the club decide who the people in the club would be?