Supreme Court To Hear Birthright Citizenship Case

Project USA, Time-Out Project, Issue 180: February 17, 2004 ^ | February 17, 2004 | Project USA email alert

[CIBvet]

Are the Supremes awake to this continuing massive invasion of Illegals ?

[CIBvet]

Anchor Babies be gone PING.

[CIBvet]

Ping the Anchor Baby scam.

[CIBvet]

Ping the Anchor Baby scam outta here.

[Carry_Okie]

The correct answer to anchor babies is in the US Constitution, as written. The Slaughterhouse Cases are the first Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment on record. The author of the majority opinion is a contemporary of those who drafted and debated the Amendment. The following text is from the majority opinion (about 3/4 of the way down the linked source page):

http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=[group+f_slavery!3A]/doc/{@6621}/hit_headings/words=4

Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) (USSC+)
Opinions
MILLER, J., Opinion of the Court

"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."

The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

[CIBvet]

The Supremes are being tested with Anchor Babies.

[CIBvet]

Anchor Baby ping.

[CIBvet]

Anchor Baby scam be gone.

[Jack Black]

You say: There is nothing in the Constitution, in Federal law, or in case law anywhere that mandates U.S. citizenship by virtue of being born on U.S. soil.

and...

the pervasive myth that the U.S. Constitution grants birthright citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil is simply that: a myth.

The US Constitution says:

Amendment XIV
(1868)
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You argument rests upon the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". The customary interpretation rests upon a simple reading of the entire sentence.

To claim there is NO BASIS and it is a MYTH is a big over statement, in my opinion.

In the case in question the fellow from Saudi Arabia is certainly "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" by virtue of the fact that he is being tried by the US government.

I support the Constitution, even when it is inconvennient. I also would support repealing parts of the 14th Ammendment.

[Viking2002]

(The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, often wrongly cited as the Constitutional requirement for birthright citizenship, was enacted in order to guarantee recently freed slaves the rights of citizenship. It was never intended, as the quote above by one of the Amendment's authors makes clear, to grant birthright citizenship to the offspring of tourists, illegal aliens, and temporary workers.)

Yup. This is definitely a part of the Constitution that was originally conceived to guarantee liberty, but is now being used as a crutch and loophole for every shiftless parasite that doesn't want to take responsibility for the mess their own country is in. So, they come here, make babies, and pick our pockets for sustinence. Well, I, for one, am tired of being the feeding teat for the sick, lame, lazy, and dangerous, when my own family is left wanting.

[Amerigomag]

Don't hold your breath.

Even under the original intent of the 14th, "under the control of", this case probably meets that threshold since the defendant's parents were legally residing in the US and therefore were "under US control".

[Reaganwuzthebest]

"[The Fourteenth Amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

As with the Second Amendment and the right of individuals to bear arms the authors of the 14th Amendment made their intentions clear in their writings. Automatic citizenship was never meant to include children of illegals. Let's see if this Supreme Court gets it.

[Verginius Rufus]

The Supreme Court opinion in the Slaughterhouse cases is very interesting.

Where do you draw the line? It looks like it should allow denial of U.S. citizenship to the children of illegal aliens or Asian tourists, but what about legal immigrants who are intending to become citizens but haven't been in the U.S. long enough to complete the process?

During the heyday of European immigration to the U.S. in the decades before 1921, there were a lot of children born to immigrants who grew up as Americans. Many of them gave their lives for the United States in WWI or WWII, or served honorably before producing hordes of monolingual third-generation Americans. Is the citizenship status of people born in the U.S. to legal immigrants to be questioned?

[supercat]

As with the Second Amendment and the right of individuals to bear arms the authors of the 14th Amendment made their intentions clear in their writings. Automatic citizenship was never meant to include children of illegals. Let's see if this Supreme Court gets it.

What matters is not what the authors said elsewhere that they meant, but what they actually wrote in the Constitution. Though in the case of illegal immigrants a case could be made that if they were subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., they'd have already been deported.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

Though in the case of illegal immigrants a case could be made that if they were subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., they'd have already been deported.

Yes but there is no legislative or Court mandate to recognize the children of illegals as automatic citizens, the Supreme Court has so far only ruled on those born to legal immigrants.

The "subject to jurisdiction" clause left it up to Congress to determine who would qualify, since illegals are not US citizens they can be excluded. If that wasn't the case why in 1924 did Congress write special legislation to make Native Americans subject to inclusion of the 14th Amendment? Prior to that their kids were not automatic citizens.

[coloradan]

Can you give an example of someone who is born in the US, but who is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment must have had something in mind to write it the way they did.

[VRWC_minion]

In the case in question the fellow from Saudi Arabia is certainly "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" by virtue of the fact that he is being tried by the US government.

I think the point is that he is not being tried by the US government.

[Freedom4US]

The simple answer, though, is on page 4 of the passport. "Loss of citizenship"; such as taking an oath of allegience to a foreign government.

If State wasn't infested with weenies (seemingly), all those rat bas%#rds would have their citizenship revoked, and all this sophistry could be swept aside. The only time I hear the word "citizen" anymore anyway is with stories like these. As a practical matter we're all "residents" or "occupants" if you read the press. Don't want to offend the illegals, you know.

[VRWC_minion]

Can you give an example of someone who is born in the US, but who is not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?

someone who renounces citizenship and resides elsewhere. For me the issue is not jurisdiction because I think unlike the place of birth, jurisdiction is changeable. I think the issue is at then end of the sentence which requires "residence". Its clear that a child born here while its parents are visiting isn't in any sense a resident.

[sourcery]

The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment must have had something in mind to write it the way they did.

They had in mind the following: members of American Indian Tribes, while on tribal land, provided the Tribe had status as an independent, sovereign nation; persons in the US under diplomatic immunity. Those are the only persons within the country's borders who were not (at the time the Ammendment was written) legally obligated to subject themselves to Federal sovereignty over their persons. Such persons, if brought before a Federal magistrate, could rightfully argue that the court had no jurisdiction over them.