Posted on 03/02/2005 9:38:45 AM PST by Happy2BMe
Following that logic, illegal aliens can commit crimes with impunity since the courts would have no jurisdiction over their crimes.
No, not according to the story. It says that only children of citizens or resident aliens would be citizens. Since tourists don't have residency - they're expected to leave within a certain time frame - their children born here would not qualify.
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):
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.
In the 18th century, there was no such thing as an "illegal." If you showed up in the US, you got to stay. There was also no central registry of citizens, so you were basically a citizen when you got here.
E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/6042.htm
I have been saying this for a long time and about time people got on board. Why should a child born in this Country to "anyone" not a citizen have a United States citizenship? I don't draw the line at just illegals -- I say all children born of foreign parents should not be automatic US citizens.
Doesn't say that. It says "born", doesn't say anything about the parents having to fulfill a bureaucratic process.
Not so quick. It doesn't say "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States." What it says is "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." There is some constitutional scholarship that says that children of illegals are just like the children of foreign diplomats and should not automatically be given citizenship.
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This 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.Senator Howard recognized three classes of people to whom the 14th Amendment citizenship clause would not apply: foreigners (tourists here temporarily), aliens (those here illegally but who have no intention of leaving), and foreign diplomats (here legally and in a special protected status who will leave upon the expiration of their term).
Senator Jacob Howard, Co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
And in Section 5 "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." cedes control of interpreting the provisions of the Amendment back to Congress who can pass a law stipulating that the children of illegal aliens are not to be granted citizenship.
Chile and Argentina are quite nice. Great climate, great wine and beautiful women.
Good argument, Constitutional props to you...
Thank you for your addition to Chief Justice Miller's Majority Opinion from the Slaughterhouse Cases referenced above.
Are you referring to the short phrase in
Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power .....
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,....?
If so that is not applicable to Citizenship obtained by birth in the US.
The law says what its says. Doing a Vdare.com and bringing up a 19th century court case doesn't change the fact that the wording implies and has since been interpreted to mean all born within the boundaries of the USA are citizens. My grandparents were born in this country to non-naturalized immigrants, but were citizens nonetheless due to the 14th amendment.
BTTT.
That's nice, but he should have specified that in the LANGUAGE of the amendment when it sent for ratification.
It's so sad when that happens isn't it.
If you are within US borders, you do not get to decide whether you are subject to US law.
The bill should be retroactive to at least 1980.
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.