Posted on 11/30/2007 3:59:11 PM PST by calcowgirl
This article is full of half-truths and misleading suppositions.
I'll point one of the more glaring ones:Prior to the 14th amendment citizens of the United States were strictly defined as citizens of the States.
Prior to the 14th Amendment, the federal government through Congress had the power to determine naturalization under Article I, Section 8, paragraph 4.
Citizenship was not "strictly defined" by the States, but was subject to federal legislation from the very beginning.
I don’t doubt the good senator made such a stupid statement. That is, jurisdiction means not owing allegiance to another country. What poppycock. They should have put that in the damn amendment instead of jurisdiction.
How about the list of people that are not subject to the 14th admendment?
If your argument was correct, that list would be empty.
Are you for the anchor baby provision? Are you for illegal aliens getting amnesty?
Just trying to get where you’re coming from - if your argument is based on bias or on the current liberal interpretation of the 14th admendment. Actually, both of those include a bias, but the former is more blatant.
“There are many people today who choose to wear blinders when interpreting the 14th Amendment and then there are those who understand the ralationship between the authors of the 14th Amendment and the history that was taking place right before their eyes.”
“To be sure, the legislative history of the 14th Amendment, as well as the 13th, 15th and 16th amendments reflect that the term ‘persons’ more often than not meant citizen and that it also meant a deliberate elevation of the black people from their former self re slaves and property….to full human ‘persons’ and subsequently ‘citizens’ of the United States.”
“No one has yet been able to show me a Court decision based on a law passed by the Congress of the United States that clearly states that children born of Illegal Alien parents are Citizens of the United States. Past practice, as is the case and the argument used to bestow citizenship on anchor babies by the ignorant and the revisionist history buffs of today….is not in the Constitution, or provided for by any law passed by the Congress or supported by any Court decision that was based upon any law passed by Congress. Let’s remember the makeup of our system of government. The Legislative Branch makes the laws….the Executive enforces the laws….and the Judiciary interprets the laws….and the laws flow from our Constitution and when they become laws are codified. SHOW ME THE ANCHOR BABY LAW THAT DOES WHAT ONLY THE IGNORANT AND THE REVISIONIST CLAIM….GIVES AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP TO THE CHILDREN OF ILLEGAL ALIEN PARENTS. SHOW ME THE LAW!!!”
-snip-
“I know one thing for certain. Our founding Fathers did not sacrifice life, limb, family and fortune to ensure that the representatives of the people could undo the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Rule of Law in order to reward illegal actions and behavior.”
“They certainly did not intend that our most treasured national possession… CITIZENSHIP… was going to be tossed around as though it were a carnival prize at a side show.”
http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html?go
Yes, I know the arguement. The same arguement made in the Supreme Court over United States v. Wong Kim Ark...asserting Jus soli (ie the principle that a person acquires citizenship in a nation by virtue of his birth in that
nation or its territorial possessions).
Basically asserting common law.
The exception the court made was with Indians, hostile enemies, and diplomats. Nonewithstanding the fact that in this case, Chinese aliens were subject to the jurisdiction of the Chinese emperor under US and Chinese treaties.
The court basically hodge-podged together something, even though it was a contradiction. Either the treaties apply or they don’t...and I guess in terms of the court they don’t....therefore you can read the Constitution as...
You are a citizen because the US supreme court choses to ignore treaties (and the jurisdiction they pronounce).
“Citizenship was not “strictly defined” by the States, but was subject to federal legislation from the very beginning.”
www.factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/CRS-Citizenship-Report.pdf
One should note that the determination of U.S. citizenship by naturalization also depended on state laws prior to the enactment of the first federal naturalization act. The election of Albert Gallatin to the U.S. Senate in 1793 was successfully challenged on the grounds that he had not been a U.S. citizen for nine years as required by the Constitution.
He claimed that he had become a citizen of either Virginia or Massachusetts at least nine years before his election. But a majority of the Senate, upon an examination of the Virginia and Massachusetts citizenship laws, decided that Gallatin had not satisfied the residency of either state prior to moving to Pennsylvania, where he ultimately settled and was elected to Congress. He had not been resident in Pennsylvania for nine years prior to election. This example also illustrates the pre-Constitution position that U.S. citizenship could not exist without state citizenship, which some legal scholars continued to espouse until the Civil War. Although Gallatin had resided in the United States
for thirteen years, he had not satisfied all the requirements for citizenship in the states where
he had resided nine years before election. Gallatin tried to argue, inter alia, that U.S. citizenship was not dependent on state citizenship laws which had existed before
independence because U.S. citizenship depended on allegiance to the new nation and even persons who had been natural-born citizens of the states were not considered citizens of the
United States if they had not shown allegiance to the new government and nation.
Absence of owing any allegiance to any other foreign powerAnd talk about smokescreens! Suggesting that subject all foreign nationals except by prior arrangement full under the subject to the jurisdiction clause would render it a nullity. You (assuming you are a US citizen) are still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while you are in Mexico. A Mexican citizen is not.
ML/NJ
There are LOTS of Constitutional Law experts who believe the 14th amendment has been misinterpreted and misapplied by the courts.
It is not part of the Constitution.
According to a very knowledgeable talk show host here in Iowa, you are wrong. The Constitution does not grant citizenship to anyone born here.
Not at all.
The persons currently resident in the US who are not subject to US jurisdiction and are not therefore birthright citizens even if they are born in the US are people whose parents are here in a diplomatic or consular capacity - because such personnel are, according to federal law, effectively foreign sovereigns (i.e. standing in lieu of a foreign sovereign) they are not under US jurisdiction.
Illegals cannot claim official status as foreign sovereigns unless they are recognized by the US government and their own government as such.
That sounds like a vague buzzphrase.
Are you for illegal aliens getting amnesty?
I would support a plan wherein illegals who have engaged in any criminal activity besides crossing the border to be immediately deported and their DNA taken to prevent them from reentering US soil. A plan which would require all illegals here who have not engaged in further criminal activity and who have no criminal record in their home country to confess to a crime, receive probation, be assessed with and required to pay back taxes within a certain period, not be allowed to begin naturalization until after their probationary period and have their DNA put on file as well.
Also there should be a review to see if these remaining resident aliens should be expelled for any reason.
And obviously we need to do something about border security to prevent the same problem from cropping up again, as well as a hard cutoff date.
If you wish to converse, have the courtesy to address my arguments directly in your own words.
The Constitution became operative in 1789 and his naturalization period should have begun in 1784.
Therefore the Constitution was not the law of the land in 1784, and the only law that applied in 1784 in matters of naturalization was state law.
Congress had no authority to make ex post facto laws.
Yawn.
Absence of owing any allegiance to any other foreign power
As I pointed out above, foreign nationals who are merely tourists with no intention of establishing residency are still fully under the jurisdiction of US law.
Suggesting that subject all foreign nationals except by prior arrangement full under the subject to the jurisdiction clause would render it a nullity.
This is especially ironic in reference to the first sentence of your post. Can you restate this in English, please? Because it isn't now.
Again, I understand that you are incapable of forming your own arguments. But keep reminding me if you wish.
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.