Posted on 02/24/2017 8:11:58 AM PST by Ancesthntr
This is incorrect. I am aware that this is the common wisdom on the 14th amendment, but it does not jive with History. The earlier legislation intended to address citizenship for freed slaves, made it much clearer that the children of temporary foreign visitors were not intended to be made into citizens.
My tagline is a statement by John Bingham, the author of the 14th amendment. He made it clear in congressional debates that there was no intention of granting citizenship to the children of aliens who were born in this country.
No it doesn't. I've argued this issue for years, and the 14th amendment was never intended to support this interpretation. The primary author of the 14th amendment makes it very clear in the congressional debates that this amendment is not intended to apply to the children of foreign transients.
Yes it does. So have I.
"The primary author of the 14th amendment makes it very clear in the congressional debates that this amendment is not intended to apply to the children of foreign transients."
The words of a congressman's speech do not override the text of the law itself. It is much more reasonable to think that someone giving a speech wasn't precise with his words than it is to think the words in the amendment don't mean what they actually say. It's that text that matters.
The words in the amendment are carefully chosen. The terms there weren't made up for the purpose, they had pre-existing meaning and were chosen for that meaning. It means precisely what it says. Anyone born in the US, under the jurisdiction of our law, is a citizen.
No, they clarify it. There is no contradiction with the text, provided you don't read the text in a bone headed manner. Subject to the jurisdiction means "the complete jurisdiction" as was pointed out in the debates on the 14th.
It is much more reasonable to think that someone giving a speech wasn't precise with his words than it is to think the words in the amendment don't mean what they actually say.
Bingham clarifies his understanding of citizenship law in several places in the congressional record. He does so in 1862, again in 1866 and once again in 1868.
There is no contradiction with the text if you understand the meaning in the same manner as John Bingham understood the meaning.
The words in the amendment are carefully chosen.
No they weren't. They were re-written several times before they arrived at the present form, because the author of that section (Trumbull I think) had trouble wrapping his head around the concept of "temporary allegiance." He says so. His earlier drafts were a lot clearer in regards to his intent than the final product.
""The senator from Missouri and myself desire to arrive at the same point precisely, and that is to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States. We cannot make a citizen of the child of a foreign minister who is temporarily residing here. There is a difficulty in framing the amendment so as to make citizens of all the people born in the United States, and who owe allegiance to it. I thought that might, perhaps, be the best form in which to put the amendment at one time, 'that all persons born in the United States, and owing allegiance thereto, are hereby declared to be citizens;' but, upon investigation, it was found that a sort of allegiance was due to the country from persons temporarily residing in it whom we would have no right to make citizens, and that that form would not answer. Then it was suggested that we should make citizens of all persons born in the United States not subject to any foreign power or tribal authority. The objection to that was, that there were Indians not subject to tribal authority, who yet were wild and untamed in their habits, who had by some means or other become separated from their tribes, and were not under the laws of any civilized community, and of whom the authorities of the United States took no jurisdiction. . . . Then it was proposed to adopt the amendment as it now stands,—that all persons born in the United States, not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, shall be citizens." Senator TrumbullIf someone hadn't warped his mind with that abstract "temporary allegiance" stuff, we would have ended up with a much more sensible verbiage.
It means precisely what it says. Anyone born in the US, under the jurisdiction of our law, is a citizen.
And in context, under jurisdiction of our law meant under our total jurisdiction, as in the manner of a slave who never had any allegiance to any other authority.
Do not forget that this amendment's *ONLY* purpose was to secure citizen rights for slaves. They used the word "jurisdiction" as applying to slaves because they could not think of a more delicate way to put it. That it accidentally snared the children of foreigners was not at all it's intent, and certainly not the intent of the states which ratified it.
“
So your plan is to give a bunch of people diplomatic immunity so that they don’t have to obey the law? Don’t think that’s such a great plan.”
“Section 1. 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.”
It seems quite clear to me, based on the text above, that someone who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is not a citizen of the United States just because they were born within our territory. For example, and this was specifically included in the debates leading up to the 14th Amendment’s passage by Congress, the child of a foreign diplomat and his foreign wife would not be a US citizen just because that child was born here. Why? Because that person was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. By the way, I am not merely speculating - this is settled law, and my Constitutional Law professor told all of us future lawyers this on numerous occasions.
Again, it would be nice to actually understand what someone is talking about before criticizing them. Try it sometime, you might like it.
Your interpretation is simply not correct.
By having the Congress state in a bill, which would be signed into law by the President, that the United States has no jurisdiction over someone for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress would not be saying that we can’t clap them in jail for committing a crime, it would only be saying that this person would not meet the eligibility requirements for US citizenship. If you care to take a look at the actual text of the 14th Amendment, the very first sentence of Section 1 indicates that someone born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, is a citizen of a country and the state in which they reside. Eliminate jurisdiction over them for this purpose only) and you have eliminated their birthright citizenship. That is the whole point.
When I become dictator, all Grammar Nazis will be shot.
I could not disagree with you more strongly. In case you had not noticed, entry into this country by farners is front and center, and has been at least since Trump issued his executive order temporarily banning travelers from seven countries. The real, underlying, issue here is immigration. Frankly, the single most insidious form of immigration is having some woman who is eight and a half months pregnant step off a plane or cross our border and drop a baby. That baby then automatically becomes a US citizen, and you can’t kick mama and daddy out. As a bonus, we get to pay for the birth and any medical care that the child needs thereafter, along with probable welfare benefits at least until that kid is 18 years of age. Then, once they are here, their relatives can apply to live in this country. Entire villages in foreign countries have virtually uprooted themselves and come to the land of free food and shelter because of this travesty.
That this particular piece of proposed legislation is not front and center, doesn’t mean that the issue itself isn’t. You would have to be blind to miss the fact that Birthright citizenship is among the biggest issues out there. However, the media simply will not discuss it, because the issue is inconvenient to their general political point of view.
FYI, you might wish to read Ann Coulter’s book, “Adios, America,” to gain a better understanding of the many and varied issues surrounding immigration. This is not an issue for some obscure blogs, it is an issue that has been mainstream for quite some time.
One or both parents should have to be a citizen, or at the very least permanent legal residents, in order for a new child to be considered a US citizen from birth. I never said anything about both parents needing to have such status.
You might want to read Mexifornia by VDH
>>When I become dictator, all Grammar Nazis will be shot.<<
I know, the first ones against the wall...
It is "settled" insofar as people have incorporated an incorrect understanding into law, and then repeatedly taught this incorrect understanding to others.
The intention of the 14th was to insure that former slaves and their children would be "citizens." Little to no thought was given to the idea of making citizens out of transient aliens or illegals.
Even in Wong Kim Ark, the central tenet was that an alien must be domiciled in the US.
Tell me which candidate for any office has made this a major talking point?
I was disagreeing with the notion that this is front and center. Should it be? Yes. Is it? No
I understood it quite well.
“Section 1. 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.”
It seems quite clear to me, based on the text above, that someone who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is not a citizen of the United States just because they were born within our territory. For example, and this was specifically included in the debates leading up to the 14th Amendment’s passage by Congress, the child of a foreign diplomat and his foreign wife would not be a US citizen just because that child was born here. Why? Because that person was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. By the way, I am not merely speculating - this is settled law, and my Constitutional Law professor told all of us future lawyers this on numerous occasions.
Which is all completely in agreement with what I said, so I'm puzzled what you think wasn't understood. Did you mean to disagree with me somehow?
You point out that people not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are not citizens by birth. My comment assumed this very thing. The proposal to which I was responding was the idea of applying it to the children of illegal aliens, not just diplomats.
"Again, it would be nice to actually understand what someone is talking about before criticizing them. Try it sometime, you might like it."
Back at ya.
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.