How many other countries do this?
The only way to clear this mess up once and for all is to pass a very clear, unambiguous 28th Amendment to the Constitution.
Otherwise 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' will be debated and whipsawed by administration after administration, judge after judge, SCOTUS after SCOTUS for purely partisan political reasons.
No other countries do it that I have heard of. And the 14th Amendment is clear as day.
“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.”
When did they start enforcing the “anchor baby” make it across the goal line concept? It sure wasn’t back then.
The plaintiffs have no standing for these lawsuits. At all.
An important paragraph from Eastman:
“Nevertheless, despite the original meaning of the Constitution’s text, its initial interpretation by the Supreme Court, and its compatibility with the social compact “consent of the governed” political theory of the Declaration, our government agencies have for more than a half-century, without any formal amendment, court decision, or official authoritative pronouncement, been acting as though birth alone is sufficient to confer citizenship”
Trump’s EO does nothing more then what the “government agencies” (State mainly) have been doing: clarifying the 14th based on their own interpretation.
We’ve covered this before on this board. The EO in question simply lays out rules for those agencies based on prior court rulings with clearer specifics that are relevant to updates in Congressional law since 1924: the McCarran-Walter Act, for example. That act specifically made student and tourist visa holders clearly non-immigrant. Thus, there is no allegiance imputed; and thus, clearly “not subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
When a fossilized old Bolshevik from Seattle bloviates that it’s “Unconstitutional!” you have to ask...did he say that when the State department just made it all up on their own?
In Perkins v. Elg, 99 F. 2d 408, Court of Appeals, Dist. of Columbia Circuit 1938, the Court of Appeals noted as part of the basis for their decision that...
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890, 1898 [the Court found that] [W]hen the Constitution was adopted, the people of the United States were the citizens of the several States for whom and for whose posterity the government was established. Each of them was a citizen of the United States at the adoption of the Constitution, and all free persons thereafter born within one of the several States became by birth citizens of the State and of the United States.
It appears the Court of Appeals in Elg (1939) agrees with Ark (1898) decison.
(Both Marie Elizabeth Elg and Wong Kim Ark were born on U.S. soil to parents who were here legally but not U.S. citizens. )
Again, the Constitution is properly applied as written and ORIGINALLY UNDERSTOOD and intended. What matters is what the ratifiers of the Constitution considered an NBC was. The Supreme Court decisions based on the good-faith and sound finding of original understanding of NBC in the Constitution is, therefore, legal precedent concerning NBC. Thus, Vivek should be considered an NBC.
Some argue that the term "NBC" is not specifically used in Ark or Elg, but these cases revolve around citizenship based on birth on U.S. soil, which is exactly what NBC is. An NBC is a citizen automatically because he was born on U.S. soil. He is “naturally” and automatically a citizen needing no further processing to become a U.S. citizen. He becomes a citizen under “natural” (birth) circumstances, exactly as Elg, Ark
Just one question. If an alien drops an anchor baby, and that baby is a US citizen by birth by golly, why do the aliens get to take the baby when they leave?
Why? Why is it so important to those states that children of illegals be citizens?
A Reagan judge enjoined Trump’s citizenship EO. He is a federalist judge, not a conservative. There is a difference.
It is very simple really - if neither parent is a USA citizen, the spawn is not a USA citizen.
Illegal aliens are not subject too
In fact they blatantly ignore American laws
Being subject to means a person respects and adheres to American laws
Illegal aliens are not subject too
In fact they blatantly ignore American laws
Being subject to means a person respects and adheres to American laws
First really clear explanation I have seen on this topic.
This was posted yesterday:
“If my wife and I fly to Paris and she has a baby there I and she in no way would believe that the child has any connection to France. To think otherwise about American Law requires fantastical thinking. Birthright citizenship phrasing is Orwellian. Lose the phrase. It’s ridiculous.”
So if the question is are the parents subject to Jury Duty, for non US citizens the answer is no in red states. Which would imply not subject to jurisdiction.
An intelligent and honest SCOTUS will agree that the 14th Amendment does not say any aho that lands on U.S. soil is an American.
There is no shortage of attorneys who believe as Eastman does - Alan Dershowitz - Jonathan Turley - Greg Jarrett - for three of the best!
The way birthright citizenship is practiced at present...
-A baby born aboard an airliner merely passing over US territory might be considered a citizen.
-A baby born in a clinic built up against the Mexican side of the yet-to-be-completed border wall might be considered a citizen since the wall is, in most areas, a few feet inside US territory...
The insanity of our situation is clear.... these absurd possibilities and many others will be detailed before the supreme court.
This was meant for the protection of black slaves after the CW. Democrats held that these newly minted citizens would vote republican since Lincoln was a republican thus democrats were afraid of the amendment.
In the writings made at the time of passage of the fourteenth amendment can be found the true intent of the writers and those who voted for the amendment. They held that it was not meant for those illegally in the country and said such in plain language.
This will be shut down by the courts.