Posted on 04/12/2013 8:22:32 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp
L.A. County Cites 16 ‘Maternity Hotels’ Serving Asian Visitors
LA Times reports the following:
Following a flurry of complaints, Los Angeles County inspectors have cited 16 “maternity hotel” owners for illegally operating boardinghouses in residential zones.No major health or safety issues were found at the hotels, where women from Asia stay to give birth to U.S. citizen babies. But some of the facilities, which were in Rowland Heights or Hacienda Heights, were cited for building and fire code violations, according to a report released Thursday.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
That it is a widespread misconception is exactly true. That it is was the constitutional Delegates intention to use this standard as the basis for American citizenship is contradicted by quite a lot of evidence, Madison's commentary on State citizenship not withstanding.
I don't think the Founders would be too happy with birth tourism, but I also don't think they saw it coming. And I know they didn't put anything in the Constitution to prevent it.
The problem with this issue is that so many people "KNOW" things which aren't true. Your perspective is simply the product of endless repetition by lawyers for the last century and a half. Documentation which comes from the Founding period indicates this modern notion is incorrect, and that citizenship was not simply a matter of being born on a specific side of a border.
When Madison and others are referring to being "born here", they are not referring to just physical borders, but borders which establish someone as a member of a community. They excluded Indians, and they excluded slaves, they also excluded the children of British Loyalists. The problem with modern interpretation is that they are looking at things too simplistically.
I would be in favor of changing the Constitution to shut down this industry, but that's what it will take.
There is no need to change it. There is only a need to stop interpreting it incorrectly.
Supporting your assertion is a Swiss writer who died before the Declaration of Independence was written. Supporting mine? The Father of our Constitution.
I’m pretty comfortable is saying that it’s not Madison who’s interpreting the document incorrectly.
L.A. County Cites 16 ‘Maternity Hotels’ Serving Asian Visitors
John Adams’ French-English Pocket Dictionary was authored by Nugent,who translated the 1797 Law of Nations.
Not sure if this helps.
So you believe that by NBC the Framers meant, ‘a child born to two foreign parents, dropped in the US on a short maternity stay & then taken back to be raised by its parents in its true home/place/foreign culture/foreign tradition. You honestly believe that is what the Framers meant?
If your answer is yes, then nothing anyone can say will ever penetrate the miasma. The idea that this is what the Framers had in mind is psychotic. No better word for it—full bore psychosis.
Mayor of New York v. v. Miln, 36 U.S. (1937)
Justice Barbour, writing for the Court, stated:
“That the state of New York possessed power to pass this
law, before the adoption of the constitution of the United States, might probably be taken as a truism,
without the necessity of proof.
But as it may tend to present it in a clearer point of view, we will quote a few passages from a standard writer upon public law,
showing the origin and character of this power. Vattel, book 2, ch. 7, § 94.-‘The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory, either to foreigners in general, or in particular cases, or to certain persons, or for certain particular purposes, according as he may
think it advantageous to the state.’
Ibid. ch. 8, § 100.-‘Since the lord of the territory may, whenever he thinks proper, forbid its being entered, he has, no doubt, a power to annex what conditions he pleases, to
the permission to enter.’
The power then of New York to pass this law having undeniably existed at the formation of the constitution, the simple inquiry is, whether by that instrument is was taken from the states, and granted to congress; for if it were not, it yet remains with them.” Id. at 132.
“Reason is indeed the main source from which the law of nations is deduced” Madison
http://lawreview.richmond.edu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/reinstein-462-master.pdf
“The law of nations (Vattel) empowered the Washington administration, through the Take Care Clause” Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution.
You left out a bunch of people. Aristotle, James Monroe, James Madison, Chief Justice Marshall, Justice Washington, Dr. David Ramsey, Chief Justice Waite, The entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 1808, With supporting commentary from George Washington, John Adams, Four Congressmen in the Debates on the 14th amendment, and a whole lot more people besides. I believe it's safe to say that you really have no idea how many people are supporting "my" assertion. It's more accurate to say that "I" am supporting Theirs.
Supporting mine? The Father of our Constitution.
No he isn't. He's pointing out that in absence of positive law, Common law is the default. He says so in his previous commentary.
It were to be wished, that we had some law adduced more precisely defining the qualities of a citizen or an alien; particular laws of this kind, have obtained in some of the states; if such a law existed in South-Carolina, it might have prevented this question from ever coming before us; but since this has not been the case, let us settle some general principles before we proceed to the presumptive proof arising from public measures under the law, which tend to give support to the inference drawn from such principles.
.
I’m pretty comfortable is saying that it’s not Madison who’s interpreting the document incorrectly.
You're pretty comfortable in saying it because you have been misinformed, and don't know what you are talking about. Madison is NOT interpreting the US Constitution. The constitution of that time said nothing regarding what constitutes a citizen. Madison even says that states can make their own laws to decide what the requirements for citizenship are. If you are going to argue with people who've researched this, you ought to get your facts straight before you pop off.
So answer me this smart guy, if being born here was the only requirement to be a citizen, why did they bother creating the 14th amendment?
Not sure if this helps.
Don't see it as significant one way or the other, but good to know anyway. More relevant is the fact that John Adams LIVED with Charles W.F. Dumas for months while he was soliciting European support for the American War effort.
John Adams actually lived in the house of the guy who PUBLISHED "Droit des Gens", and who sent the books to Benjamin Franklin. The notion that Adams and Dumas would not have discussed the book of Vattel that Dumas published and which the Continental Congress was ravenously devouring is just too much of stretch of probability.
John Quincy Adams also stayed with Charles Dumas when he visited the Hauge. Dumas was in fact, an Agent of the US Government, and paid by the Continental Congress.
Actually, you have to be crazy to imagine that the Founders, who lived in an era in which it took an arduous and dangerous journey of weeks if not months to reach the United States, ever considered the possibility of “birth tourism.”
The argument is this: Birth tourism is a bad thing. (So far, I think pretty much everyone will agree on that.)
The Founding Fathers did not “intend” birth tourism (I think we can pretty much all agree on that as well.)
THEREFORE (and here’s where it gets tricky)
either:
a) The Founding Fathers could not possibly have intended children born on US soil of non-citizen (immigrant) parents to be natural born citizens, OR
b) Even if they did intend children of non-citizen (immigrant) parents to be natural born citizens, we should today “reinterpret” their words as if they hadn’t, because we don’t like the consequences of that, OR
c) IF they had known that 225 years in the future, we would have jet airplanes and birth tourism, then they WOULD HAVE established a rule that persons born on US soil had to have citizen parents as well in order to be eligible to the Presidency. Therefore, we should assume that they did create such a rule, or interpret the Constitution as if they did.
The first option, a, is an obvious fallacy. Even assuming that they didn’t want birth tourism, it doesn’t follow that the Framers of the Constitution regarded the children born here of resident non-citizens as not being natural born US citizens. And virtually all of our history, law and early legal quotes strongly indicate against the idea.
The second option, b, is simply a position that the Constitution ought to mean whatever we want it to mean, or whatever we think it’s “good” that it means. This is a liberal, “living Constitution” approach. It is NOT a conservative approach, that values and conserves the Constitution AS IT WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN.
In fact, it’s not surprising to see the author of this piece, Mara Zebest, a liberal, a Democrat and a disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporter with a grudge against the current President, take this “living Constitution” view. What is surprising is to see some supposed conservatives doing it.
c) is the best argument of the three: That IF the Founding Fathers, writing in 1787, had known that we would have jet airplanes and birth tourism in the year 2013, then they WOULD HAVE established a rule that persons born on US soil had to have citizen parents as well in order to be eligible to the Presidency.
However, this idea fails for much the same reason that item b) does.
If we adopt this approach and attitude toward the United States Constitution, we can just as easily argue that SURELY the Founding Fathers WOULD HAVE wanted ALL Americans to have health care. Surely the Founding Fathers WOULD HAVE wanted young women to be free from the burden of having a child through an unplanned pregnancy. Surely they WOULD HAVE wanted us to take care of everyone who needs taking care of, and WOULD HAVE wanted all American children to be safe from the fear of guns.
The fact is, you can justify just about any rewrite of the Constitution that anybody would like, by playing the game of “the Founders WOULD HAVE wanted this.”
None of these is the proper approach for anyone who actually values and respects the Constitution.
That approach is not to ask, “What WOULD the Framers have wanted?” That approach is to ask, “WHAT DID THEY ACTUALLY SPECIFY?”
And on this point, history is clear. At least, it’s clear to everyone except for the birthers, who desperately want the Framers to have specified that it takes two citizen parents plus birth on US soil to make a natural born citizen.
Every early legal authority of any note at all indicates that the rule for “natural born citizen” was exactly the same as the rule for “natural born subject,” the phrase that it replaced in our laws, except for the difference between “citizen” and “subject.”
... has nothing to do with the meaning of "natural born citizen" whatsoever;
James Monroe, James Madison
...said no such thing;
Chief Justice Marshall, Justice Washington,
...quoted Vattel, but not in regard to citizenship;
Dr. David Ramsey
...was no authority on citizenship, as shown by the fact his claims regarding citizenship were voted down 36 to 1 by our first House of Representatives, led by Madison;
Chief Justice Waite
...was quoted by the US Supreme Court as having NOT been committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from being born citizens;
The entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 1808
...said absolutely no such thing;
George Washington
...who never stated citizen parents were required, and was a dual citizen with France WHILE serving as President;
John Adams
...who likewise never said any such thing;
Four Congressmen in the Debates on the 14th amendment,
...who have been egregiously misquoted, who never intended to exclude anyone but Indians and the historical exceptions from being born citizens, and who stated in the US Senate that the only people (other than Indians) born on US soil who weren't citizens were the historical exceptions (e.g., the children of ambassadors)
...and who also equated "born a citizen" with "natural born citizen;"
and a whole lot more people besides.
...like Herb Titus, who gives his opinion without citing any authority at all.
I believe it's safe to say that you really have no idea how many people are supporting "my" assertion.
Highball may or may not, but I have a good idea.
We have David Ramsay, who was voted down 36 to 1.
We have Samuel Roberts, and obscure judge from Pennsylvania, who presided over several counties, and who is directly contradicted by far more authoritative sources.
We have Alexander Porter Morse, who seems to contradict himself, and in one part of his book seems to clearly contradict your claims.
We have one of the Justices in the awful Dred Scott case, although he wasn't citing Vattel to say that children of non-citizens were not natural born citizens; he was citing Vattel to establish that Mr. Scott was "property" and not a "person," and another Justice on the Court clearly contradicted the birther claim.
And of course we have a bunch of modern birthers, post 2008.
There MIGHT be a few more, but in the whole of American history, that's at least getting pretty close to the entire list of people of any note who really, truly did claim what DL says is the gospel truth.
And the short list is contradicted by every OTHER authority in US history. James Madison, William Rawle, Zephaniah Swift, St. George Tucker, those who knew and worked with the Founding Fathers, every early translator and commentator who had anything to say on the subject of Presidential eligibility, an HONEST reading of the debates in Congress after the US Civil War, the United States Supreme Court, authors of hundreds of textbooks and other commentaries on the Constitution throughout history, more recent Justices such as Sandra Day O'Connor, genuine conservative authorities such as the Heritage Foundation, National Review, Mark Levin, on and on and on the list goes.
b) Even if they did intend children of non-citizen (immigrant) parents to be natural born citizens, we should today “reinterpret” their words as if they hadn’t, because we don’t like the consequences of that, OR
c) IF they had known that 225 years in the future, we would have jet airplanes and birth tourism, then they WOULD HAVE established a rule that persons born on US soil had to have citizen parents as well in order to be eligible to the Presidency. Therefore, we should assume that they did create such a rule, or interpret the Constitution as if they did.
Wrong on all three counts. Amazing ability you have there.
(a) You are wrong on this one because you inserted the words "non-citizen (immigrant) parents". The founders WANTED immigrants, and the children of naturalized immigrants were accepted as citizens. The issue is ILLEGAL immigrants and transient aliens.
(b) You are wrong on your second point because there is no need to re-interpret their words. A more accurate description would be to identify and expunge all of the incorrectly introduced British influence in American law. (Thanks a lot Rawle.) Beyond that, you still used the words "non-citizen (immigrant) parents". Again, the founders WANTED immigrants. The issue being discussed is ILLEGAL immigrants and transient aliens.
(c) You are wrong on your third point because you attempt to redefine the issue as the founders not anticipating modern inventions. That is an attempt to deflect the real point. The founders were well aware of the desirability of skilled or wealthy immigrants over that of people they didn't want or need, and they debated the topic quite a bit. In terms simple enough for you to understand, the founders understood full well the notion of restricting immigration and citizenship. They just chose not to do so in the early days of the Republic.
I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your "analysis". From past experience I can count on anything written by you to be just so much crap.
But see here, if your theory of citizenship by being born here was correct, and there never has been an alternative theory, how could the court have made such an egregious mistake?
If everybody in the world knew that the only criteria for citizenship was being born here, how is it possible that the Majority of the justices of the Supreme court did not know this?
This particular mistake was so outrageous, so counter to the spirit of both the Constitution and the United States that the founding document had to be clarified to strike their error from our nation.
How did the 14th amendment clarify anything? It makes no mention of color. It doesn't say "hereafter all black people born in the United States will be citizens." It merely asserts what you guys claim was always the law. Why would we need an amendment to "clarify" what you guys claim was already existing law?
Now it's my turn: when we push for a Human Life Amendment, is that admitting that Roe v. Wade was correctly decided in full accordance with the Constitution? Or is it the people trying to overcome one of the Court's terrible, terrible mistakes? If the latter, then the 14th Amendment has nothing to do with this conversation.
A human life amendment is merely an attempt to work around a politicized court. We would be perfectly happy with the court reversing itself on Roe, which it didn't do. It simply declared "Stare Decisis."
But this is a very different issue from asserting that "the law has always said that being born here makes you a citizen, so we need to amend the constitution to say that being born here makes you a citizen."
If Rawle's understanding of the constitution was correct, it would not have been possible for a court to get it wrong, nor would an amendment have been needed to re-state what was supposed to be already existing law.
The creation of the 14th amendment is proof positive that what it says WAS NOT EXISTING LAW. If it were, there would have been no need to create the 14th amendment.
Says you. The founders were well read for the times. I've seen them quote Aristotle. Have no doubt he was influential on their thinking. You seem to forget, at this time in history EVERY nation but England used the Jus Sanguinus rule, and throughout history as well.
...said no such thing;
Again, says you. The Evidence says otherwise. You just don't like it, so you refuse to accept it.
...quoted Vattel, but not in regard to citizenship;
That is a lie with which you attempt to deflect the truth. Both Justice Marshall AND Justice Washington specifically quote Vattel on Citizenship. Justice Marshall goes so far as to say that Vattel is the BEST authority on the subject.
...was no authority on citizenship, as shown by the fact his claims regarding citizenship were voted down 36 to 1 by our first House of Representatives, led by Madison;
And this is misstating the case. The issue wasn't whether or not Mr. Smith was a citizen, the issue was whether or not Mr. Smith had been a citizen for the required number of years to serve as a representative. Ramsey had argued that Smith had been in England during the Revolution, and remained a British Citizen until he came back.
One of a diminishing community of colonials in exile, Smith repeatedly postponed returning to South Carolina. His failure to appear to take a mandated oath of allegiance to the state, his older brother's Loyalist ties, and his own implicit indifference to the course of the Revolution seriously imperiled his status at home. After a full year of delays that included a shipwreck off the coast of England, he arrived in Charleston in November 1783. Smith relied on influential family connections to overcome the serious social and political liability of having remained in England throughout the war....
Two days before the polls opened on 24 November, Ramsay publicly disputed Smith's eligibility under the Constitution's seven year citizenship requirement.
Chief Justice Waite
...was quoted by the US Supreme Court as having NOT been committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from being born citizens;
Here you go again, attempting to obfuscate what he said. What he said was that there was no doubt whatsoever that people who were born here to citizen parents are "natural born citizens", but there were doubts about people who were simply born here. He also said that the 14th amendment did not create any natural born citizens.
The entire Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in 1808
...said absolutely no such thing;
They most certainly did. It was THEIR WORK which Samuel Roberts utilized to write his book, and he gives them credit in the book for having compiled the statutes which were in force in Pennsylvania. The fact that they intentionally left out that British Common law statute you so dearly love was INTENTIONAL!
...who never stated citizen parents were required, and was a dual citizen with France WHILE serving as President;
Every time you repeat that "Washington and Jefferson were dual citizens" crap, I think to myself "this man is a F***** idiot, and not worth arguing with. Why you seem to think that means something is utterly beyond me.
Four Congressmen in the Debates on the 14th amendment,
...who have been egregiously misquoted,
And this part is ABSOLUTELY TRUE. They have been egregiously misquoted by YOU! You intentionally LIED and I use that word with careful aforethought, YOU LIED about what John Bingham said. You did so intentionally, and with specific knowledge that what you were saying was a lie.
John Bingham explicitly explained his meaning when he said:
All other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens
So the question remains, Why do you lie about this? Why do you continue to misrepresent what these men said and intended? That you continue to lie about this ought to tell people that nothing you say can be trusted. You have your own reasons for wanting to claim what you are arguing, but telling the truth is not one of them.
...like Herb Titus, who gives his opinion without citing any authority at all.
You mean constitutional law professor Dr. Herb Titus? Or Dr. Rice, President of Notre Dame? Or all the many others as well?
We have David Ramsay, who was voted down 36 to 1.
More proof that you are not only a liar, but an idiot. You keep thinking that truth is the product of a vote.(Which you even misstate what the vote was about.) Again, you are expressing the "Argumentum ad numerum" otherwise known as "Argumentum ad populum."
We have Samuel Roberts, and obscure judge from Pennsylvania, who presided over several counties, and who is directly contradicted by far more authoritative sources.
Trained by William Lewis, a Constitutional Delegate. (And someone who Worked Opposite Rawle in many cases.) Roberts' book simply expounds on the conclusions of the Pennsylvania Supreme court. It was a widely used and highly regarded legal text in Pennsylvania, and so popular that they reprinted it again in 1847. Were it wrong, surely someone would have pointed it out in the intervening 30 years.
I'm not going to bother with the rest of your crap. It's the same crap you always sling. A point by point refutation is wasted on you, because you are known to lie to make your points, and you will certainly ignore any valid criticism of your silly arguments.
It is YOU who has very little to work with. Other than subsequent court decisions far removed from the actual people who would know what they are talking about, you've got almost nothing.
Not only that, it is YOUR idiot interpretation that has given us the obvious absurdity of Anchor babies and "birth tourists." Once again, your argument requires us to believe the founders were morons. No, the founders were geniuses, it is you people who distort their intentions that are the morons.
It is axiomatically prohibited. The founders would never have believed people so foolish as to need this spelled out so explicitly. Just as they didn't specify what "arms" meant in the second amendment, they didn't feel the need to point out the obvious. Transient Aliens are automatically excluded from consideration.
Even John Bingham, as many times as he discussed the issue in the debates of the 14th amendment, only one time did he feel the need to specifically clarify that the children had to be born of parents having no other allegiances. The rest of the time he just used the short-form version "born here."
This notion is so obvious, that it never occurred to previous lawmakers that subsequent generations would be so stupid as to need this spelled out for them.
You’re right. It is obvious.
Obvious to the Father of our Constitution that anyone born within our borders is a citizen. Anyone.
Keep digging, though.
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.