Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Lurking Libertarian; advance_copy; OneTimeLurker
the 14th Amendment says that if you're born here, you're a citizen. Don't like it, amend the Constitution.

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 Jacob Howard, Co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
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).

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.

128 posted on 03/02/2005 11:01:09 AM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: FreedomCalls

Good argument, Constitutional props to you...


130 posted on 03/02/2005 11:04:16 AM PST by advance_copy (Stand for life, or nothing at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies ]

To: FreedomCalls
That argument was rejected by the Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, back in 1880 or so, which held that anyone born here was a citizen except for children of foreign diplomats.
134 posted on 03/02/2005 11:09:52 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies ]

To: FreedomCalls

That's nice, but he should have specified that in the LANGUAGE of the amendment when it sent for ratification.


136 posted on 03/02/2005 11:10:56 AM PST by Clemenza (Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms: The Other Holy Trinity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies ]

To: FreedomCalls

Very good point.


170 posted on 03/02/2005 12:41:18 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies ]

To: FreedomCalls
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.

There is no honest scholarship that says that children of illega are just like the children of diplomats. An illegal is subject to our laws. If he breaks a law, he'll be tried and punished like everyone else, he's subject to our laws. A diplomat however, enjoys broad immunity to our laws.

195 posted on 03/02/2005 4:25:37 PM PST by Melas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson