Measure would target birthright citizenship

Associated Press with Sign On San Diego ^ | December 3, 2007 | Paul Davenport

[yorkie]

Please read the rest of the article. I did not click ‘excerpt’. Sorry.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Unfortunately, I have a feeling this law would run afoul of the 14th amendment, as it (the amendment) is currently written.

[trumandogz]

It would be overturned by the Court.

[mysterio]

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.

Sorry. It's pretty clear that anyone born in the country is a citizen. Change the Constitution with an amendment. We've had enough legislative end runs around it already.

And I'm for closed borders.

[yorkie]

"Unfortunately, I have a feeling this law would run afoul of the 14th amendment, as it (the amendment) is currently written."

I was under the assumption that there was some debate regarding the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

[PeterPrinciple]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Let’s take it through the process.......................

[End Times Sentinel]

subject to the jurisdiction thereof

I fear you might be right, but could one argue that an illegal isn't subject to the jurisdiction thereof by definition?

I'm way out of my league with legaleese so I'll leave it for others to decide.

[Joe Boucher]

At this point we couldn’t get two thirds to agree the sun comes up in the east.

[NonValueAdded]

It would bring it before the court again. Ultimately a Constitutional Amendment will be necessary - and is long overdue.

[Lurking Libertarian]

I was under the assumption that there was some debate regarding the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court has, several times, held that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to everyone born on U.S. soil except for children of foreign diplomats (who, having diplomatic immunity, are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.).

[robomatik]

50 cals. at the border would make any arguement in the future a forgone conclusion. those already here would be a different matter.

[mysterio]

I don't see any wiggle room whatsoever in interpretation of the 14th.

If you want to combat illegal immigration, there is one sure-fire way to do it. You fine businesses and corporations that hire illegals $10,000 per day per illegal whether they were aware that the worker was illegal or not. You'd see the problem solved nearly instantly.

[Sybeck1]

Maybe it should be a felony for an illegal alien to give birth in America.

[texastoo]

Sounds good to me. However, with 50 or more Mexican consulates in the US maybe Mexico will fight for their citizens. Ya think? Otherwise, we are assisting Mexico in genocide.

[jamese777]

“subject to the jurisdiction thereof
I fear you might be right, but could one argue that an illegal isn’t subject to the jurisdiction thereof by definition?

I’m way out of my league with legaleese so I’ll leave it for others to decide.”

---

Only aliens (legal or illegal) who have official diplomatic immunity aren’t “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
We prosecute illegal aliens for crimes committed in the US. They are subject to state and federal jurisdiction. Deportation of illegals is a jurisdictional issue since its illegal to be in the US without a visa (or a MasterCard! ;-)

[hunter112]

What business is it of the US Supreme Court to tell the states the conditions under which they may issue birth certificates? Already the various states collect information on birth parents to put in these certificates, why shouldn’t “Citizen of:” not be one of them?

[Anonymous Rex]

The first step towards properly defining the 14th by way of a new amendment, I like it.

[Jubal Harshaw]

The meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” has been extensively debated. In fact, it was extensively debated by the very people who wrote the amendment. There are records of those debates which indicate that the amendment was not intended to apply to American Indians, (who hadn’t illegally crossed US borders). In fact, American Indians didn’t get birthright citizenship until the Dawes acts, independent of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment was also deemed by it’s writers as not applicable to diplomats (who were legally in the country, and had diplomatic immunity besides).

The writers of the amendment did not specifically mention illegal aliens, but it’s pretty clear that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to include only those who were part of a given states society. More particularly, it’s clear that the writers of the amendment intended it to apply to former slaves and their children. Illegal aliens simply are not covered by that amendment.

[jude24]

I was under the assumption that there was some debate regarding the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Only on the blogs.