Do you think "birthright" citizenship should be looked at? Or, is that topic off limits because it just fine the way it is and if anyone does dare take a stance against it, be they labeled with the oh so dreaded "birther" label?
I cannot talk about birthers or their movement. As far as anchor babies, those I can talk about. Note in the Eastman article where he talks about “Fuller”-—Fuller wrote the dissent in Wong Kim Ark. One can not rationally read Wong without coming to the conclusion that the settle law is:
1. jus soli applies 2. those born here, and not subject to the exceptions, are natural born citizens as opposed to “naturalized” citizens. Period. Real simple.
The fact that Eastman likes to cite the dissent in Wong, is obvious. If he relies on the majority opinion, then the law is certain and it will take 1. a constitutional amendment to overturn it. 2. A decision by SCOTUS to overturn it.
Eastman does like either option.
1.A “conservative” court is going to affirm Wong, because it will rely on the intent of the framers which is clear, despite the efforts of certain unnamed persons to obfuscate the issue.
2.A “liberal” court isn’t going to deprive anchor babies of their citizenship. So, here, even if you have a “liberal, activist” court, they are going to affirm Wong based on the intent of the framers.
3. A constitutional amendment will be difficult to get, and take years. Any amendment which attempts to over turn the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, and a SCOTUS decision, while attacking the core of the Democratic party is going to have an uphill battle.
What Eastman needs is an “activist conservative” Court, and IMHO, they do not make such things.
Plus, to overturn the law, and pass an Amendment, you first have to admit that Wong is the law and it says what it says. Which don’t seem to be happening at the moment. Do you agree “birthright” citizen means that if one is born here, then one is a citizen, and a natural born citizen?
As far as the immigration problem, there is a real easy answer. Build the durn fence and enforce the law. Its what should have been done long ago.
parsy, who says “Read Wong all the way thru a couple of times.”
parsy
I hate to start cutting and pasting because others, who don’t have a clue to analyze a legal opinion, will start cutting and pasting stuff from the dissent in Wong, or from the Wong Court’s discussion of the gov’t’s case in Wong, and then this little thread will get big and dumb about things other than anchor babies and Wong, but:
I. In construing any act of legislation, whether a statute enacted by the legislature or a constitution established by the people as the supreme law of the land, regard is to be had not only to all parts of the act itself, and of any former act of the same lawmaking power of which the act in question is an amendment, but also to the condition and to the history [p654] of the law as previously existing, and in the light of which the new act must be read and interpreted.
The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words “citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States.” By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been “seven years a citizen of the United States,” and every Senator to have been “nine years a citizen of the United States.” and “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.” The Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring that
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,
also declares that
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.
And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that
the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.
The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. [p655]
So, you see, while the Wong Court set out on the Wong issue, to get there it had to determine what these terms meant. And it did. So all the “I don’t like anchor babies” people have to find a way to wiggle around Wong.
parsy, who hopes this helps.