[RC one]

It's a 1500+ word article that had to be excerpted down to 300 words but I think the point is clear and irrefutable. The fourteenth amendment does not confer legal citizenship to anchor babies let alone their parents. So why did Megyn Kelly and Chris Christie perpetuate the lie that "it's in the constitution" tonight? it's not. It never has been and the only way it ever will be is with a constitutional amendment. We don't need the constitutional amendment-they do.

[TBP]

But the amnesty crowd doesn’t care.

[umgud]

I agree with you on this, but any way you cut it, the constitution is not a suicide pact.

[Red Steel]

So why did Megyn Kelly and Chris Christie perpetuate the lie that "it's in the constitution" tonight? it's not. It never has been and the only way it ever will be is with a constitutional amendment. We don't need the constitutional amendment-they do.

Playing ignorant as usual and it's been going on for a long time.

[Tennessee Nana]

Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means.” Only U.S. citizens owe “complete allegiance” to the United States. Everyone present in the United States is subject to its laws (and hence its “jurisdiction” in a general sense), but only citizens can be drafted or prosecuted for treason...

[aquila48]

“but only citizens can be drafted “

That doesn’t seem correct...

from Wikipedia:

“The Selective Service (and the draft) in the United States is not limited to citizens. Howard Stringer, for example, was drafted six weeks after arriving from his native Britain in 1965.[102][103] Today, non-citizen males of appropriate age in the United States, who are permanent residents (holders of green cards), seasonal agricultural workers not holding an H-2A Visa, refugees, parolees, asylees, and illegal immigrants, are required to register with the Selective Service System.[104] Refusal to do so is grounds for denial of a future citizenship application. In addition, immigrants who seek to naturalize as citizens must, as part of the Oath of Citizenship, swear to the following:

... that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law;[105]

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website also states however:

However since 1975, USCIS has allowed the oath to be taken without the clauses: “. . .that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by law....”

Non-citizens who serve in the United States military enjoy several naturalization benefits which are unavailable to non-citizens who do not, such as a waiver of application fees.[106] Permanent resident aliens who die while serving in the U.S. Armed Forces may be naturalized posthumously, which may be beneficial to surviving family members.[107]”

[DiogenesLamp]

You are a complete coward if you do not respond to this.

[aquila48]

“What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof’? Not owing allegiance to anyone else.”

But the US allow dual citizenship. Doesn’t that mean a split allegiance?

From Wikipedia:

“Based on the U.S. Department of State regulation on dual citizenship (7 FAM 1162), the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that dual citizenship is a “status long recognized in the law” and that “a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both. The mere fact he asserts the rights of one citizenship does not, without more, mean that he renounces the other”, Kawakita v. U.S., 343 U.S. 717 (1952). In Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a naturalized U.S. citizen has the right to return to his native country and to resume his former citizenship, and also to remain a U.S. citizen even if he never returns to the United States.”

[River Hawk]

the anchor baby loophole is an insane policy. It wasn’t intended by the 14th amendment. But even if it were, it would be an insane policy and should be changed.

[PubliusMM]

Ping

[Democratic-Republican]

Great article. Thanks for posting.

Too bad all the nitwits on FOXey News except for Hannity are beyond any help on this simple issue. O’Reilly, Napolitano, Megyn Motormouth, Gutfeld, Perino, and the rest are so mindless that I’m amazed they can remember to breathe.

[nathanbedford]

In order to prevail in doing away with birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, the following must be won:

1. A nearly century long practice, at least the modern practice, of automatically issuing birth certificates to children born in the United States of non-diplomat (and evidently even in some cases involving children of diplomats) parents must be overturned.

2. The conventional wisdom defining the critical phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction" to mean something other than, subject to the laws of the United States. (This is the Yoo interpretation of the meaning of the phrase) must be overturned.

3. The meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" must turn on some principle other than accident of geography and that almost certainly means determining the "allegiance" of the parents of the child.

4. The legislative history and the case law prior to the Supreme Court's determination in the case of United States versus Wong Kim Ark (1898) is reasonably clear that "domicile" is the determining factor in determining allegiance which, in turn determines jurisdiction. The court held that legally domiciled parents qualified their children for citizenship at birth. It did not speak with respect to parents who were illegally domiciled. If a court decides the matter, it must decide that illegal domicile is not domicile for the purposes of fourteenth amendment jurisdiction.

5. The legislative history and the case law prior to 1898 and the Plyler v. Doe (1982)case seem to hold that domicile even unlawfully achieved qualifies to render the birth child "subject to the jurisdiction." And therefore birthright citizenship ensues.

6. If there is no legislation attempting to redefine domicile as applied to illegal immigrants and their children, the court will have to depart from the common understanding of domicile and declare that illegal domiciles do not qualify as being subject to the jurisdiction under the meaning of the fourteenth amendment.

7. If Congress by legislation authorized by the provisions of article 1 section 8 granting Congress plenary power over "naturalization" or under provisions of the fourteenth amendment empowering Congress to enforce the provisions of the amendment against the states, the court must rule whether Congress has the power to define the scope of "domicile."

8. The holding of the Wong case is that Congress does not have the power by treaty (in that case with the nation of China respecting the naturalization of Chinese people) to change the provisions of the fourteenth amendment which create birthright in children born in America of legal immigrants. In order to prevail, this doctrine would have to be distinguished as applied to illegal immigrants to hold that Congress, which is without the power to amend the fourteenth amendment as it applies to legal immigrants, in fact has that power when applied to illegal immigrants. The dicta in the Plyler v. Doe (1982) case suggests the contrary of this proposition.

In assessing the probabilities of depriving children of illegal immigrants of birthright citizenship, the following should be considered: A) an executive order instructing the State Department not to issue passports etc. B) Congressional statute purporting to redefine domicile for illegal immigrants from the current conventional understanding. In assessing these probabilities one should understand that the four leftist Justices will certainly vote to retain automatic birthright citizenship based on geography. Even if they do not, they are almost certain to vote to declare that domicile is the same for illegal immigrants as for legal immigrants meaning that birthright citizenship will ensue. The votes of Justices Kennedy and Roberts are uncertain at best, but since race is involved it is not unreasonable to believe that they will be politically correct. The probabilities of succeeding in the Supreme Court are, therefore, not great.

Ted Cruz is correct but not complete. Conservatives should proceed with legislation and, assuming a victory on the national ticket, should also proceed with an executive order as described. All avenues should be pursued. Finally, by Article V a constitutional amendment should be advanced right now without reference to the federal Congress.

[CSM]

Exactly right and thank you for posting.

I’d add to the article that the authors of the 14th later clarified that it was not even intended for the “tribal peoples.” They understood that the Indians had their allegiences alligned with their Tribe, so they were not eligible to be considered “natural born citizen.”

Congress passed legislation later to change that. This issue resides wholly with Congress. The Constitution actually gives them the broadest possible power for this issue. It is actually “planary,” meaning “fully.” The Executive branch and Judicial branch is meaningless with regards to this issue.

[tanknetter]

Keep in mind that the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment was somewhat more complex than that.

There was a groups of opponants who did so based on their belief that it would convey exactly the kind of general and broad birthright citizenship Progressives claim it does.

And there was a group of supporters who did so for precisely that reason: they were from California and saw great political opportunity in having the children of Chinese immigrants automatically conferred with citizenship upon birth.

Not that I disagree with the premise of a limited interpretation, mind you. Just that the matter isnt as cut and dried as some on both sides of the argument would gave you believe.

[jetson]

After listening to Levine the other day something dawned on me. The law passed by our congress gave the American Indian's certain rights due to the fact that they are a nation within themselves and we strongly stand behind the ruling by allowing privileges to the tribes such as gambling casinos and other goodies. Then why is the anchor baby law treated with such carelessness? The law is spelled out with very much the same language as the American Indian laws so why so much confusion? The anchor baby law does not apply to any race other than the negro race after the civil war.