Posted on 08/18/2015 6:39:22 AM PDT by xzins
Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.
The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second conditional phrase is conveniently misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.
Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
But that is not what that phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.
Federal law offers them no help either. U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The State Department has interpreted that statute to provide passports to anyone regardless of whether their parents are here illegally ... birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.
We are only one of a very small number of countries that provides birthright citizenship, and we do so based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. Congress should clarify the law according to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment and reverse this practice.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
That is sadly true.
So what? We still have complete jurisdiction over that person. In fact, it could be argued that we have more control, as you described.
Speaking of obtuse, quoting Bouvier while pretending not to understand what I mean by a practical distinction is rich.
Federal law says the same thing, the only reason theses people are being treated like US citizens is because the excursive branch has chosen to do so.
Trump alone can reverse this.
In his first two segments tonight, Mark Levin could have been reading directly from C_O’s article.
Listen: http://www.stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=2591&c=10771&f=4733593
Yes, they both could be wrong and you right, but I wouldn’t take that bet.
He even addressed your concerns about people who are in the country being subject to our laws but not subjects. It can be seen in the synopsis at the daily recap of today’s show.
“The argument that an illegal alien can step into the United States, claim legal and political jurisdiction, and confer citizenship to their child is insane. People claiming to be Constitutional experts saying that the 14th Amendment allows birthright citizenship are dead wrong. The 14th Amendment didn’t even give citizenship to Native Americans, why would it give citizenship to illegal aliens?
The Constitution is on our side in a second way: Article 1 Section 8, which grants plenary power to Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.
We’re tired of being told someone can come into our country illegally, claim citizenship, and we’re told there’s nothing we can do about it. We have policies that promote illegal aliens and illegal alien children more than the American citizen and American child – we’re committing national suicide.” (http://www.marklevinshow.com/2015/08/18/august-18-2015/)
"Arguably, illegals aliens are the functional equivalent of the children of an invading army, which WKA specifically mentioned as NOT being citizens by birth."
I've said similar. In the main body of the Constitution, in Article IV it requires that FedGov "... to protect the states from invasion and violence ..." and I note that it does NOT specify invaders need be carrying muskets. Indeed an invader can very easily be carrying their baby, a time-bomb for the American taxpayer.
The main strategy we should press for is the creation of a strong negative feedback to kickstart Self-Deportation. This is now in the embryonic stages thanks to Trump announcing a plan.
Next stage is a clear disincentive to remain here and motivate them into going home. The absolute best possible idea would be to announce intentions for a Congressional law and then an Amendment push for the following simple language ... "No person that enters the USA illegally shall ever be granted citizenship under any circumstances for life with no exceptions". Simple with no wiggle room! This would ignite an exodus. Stand back. The only ones that would stay would be those that never planned on becoming citizens. They are the ones that get targeted and deported.
So many idiots on Fox News including the idiot-in-chielf O'Reilly himself insisting that the 14th means what he says even though he didn't know what it really says at all. Clueless beyond words.
"The above is directly from the Ark case. That is clear as crystal."
C'mon, you just left a /SARC tag off right?
No-one can be this thick. Not after the extensive research in the Barry birth era. Not after the past two days of everybody including Mark Levin painstakingly detailing the 14th Amendment.
Trying to shoehorn Mexican anchor babies through the door using the 14th Amendment that was specifically passed to guarantee black slaves and their children citizenship after a massively bloody Civil War is nothing short of evil.
It's like lawyers exploiting alleged technicalities to get murderers and rapists off the hook.
"Unfortunately, the author is incorrect in his conclusion. The definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is long-settled law."
No /SARC detected there so ...
In real life NO law is settled, so clearly it is you who is incorrect.
Since all these citizenship cases wind up in front of a judge or justice they are by definition not settled.
Since Congress enacts statutory changes to laws including Constitutional citizenship they are by definition not settled either.
Since the several States have the Constitutional guaranteed ability to ratify Amendments all these "laws" are by definition not settled.
Since the several States have the Constitutional guaranteed ability to call another Convention all these "laws" are by definition not settled.
Since the ultimate authority, the people themselves have the God-given right and duty to dissolve this farce in toto when all else fails and start anew, well, wait for it, all these "laws" are by definition NOT settled.
If you mean that Marshall decided those five words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are settled, well, you know that is incorrect. Besides the fact that his opinions all preceded the 14th Amendment by decades, your beliefs would require the mad assumption that the authors of the 14th Amendment never heard of John Marshall and his opinion. Dude, even wikipedia got this one right ...
"During debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, he argued for including the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Howard said:
[The 14th amendment] 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 person."
Furthermore there are even larger once-"settled" elephants in the room - Plessy, just for example.
So you, Barry Hussein Obama, Jorge Ramos, The FOXey News and RNC (R)epublicrats and a few corrupt judges who mis-used the CRYSTAL CLEAR LANGUAGE and ignored the original intent VERIFIED BY THE AUTHOR should be the arbiters here? Not Levin and the rest of the rational world? Hmmm. Who to believe.
Or perhaps you were just being argumentative or contrarian. Problem with that is that it merely promotes the status quo. Who would do that on purpose? Your handle implies Texas so I have to ask, when they finally succeed in turning Texas from "red" to "blue" will you finally wake up then? That *will* be for all practical purposes the end of the electoral road. Forever.
Your post #97 of 1874 in the NYT is astounding regarding the 14th amendment. All should read it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3326031/posts?page=97#97
If I read the part about children born to parents not citizens and not officially residing in the United States, they can receive citizenship, if upon reaching majority, within 6 months filing for citizenship OR undergoing normal naturalization.
This clearly indicates that anchor babies do not have citizenship without:
1. Actually residing in the US (so totally shuts out birth tourism)
2. Actually making application at majority (18 or 21?), since this is where they lived, to the Department of State for citizenship or naturalization processes. This takes care of the ‘dream children’ but requires coming out of the shadows.
Fascinating article. Thanks.
Because deportation is a physical removal.
When you live as an American citizen in a foreign country, you are subject to filing an income report with the IRS.
Is an illegal alien from Mexico working illegally in the US, who then goes to Germany, subject to filing an income report with the IRS?
They are by the Constitution the final arbiters of the meaning of the Constitution. The power of Congress to exclude the courts is pretty clear in the Constitution.
And throughout that paragraph by Marshall is the assumption that these people's sovereign is their foreign sovereign and that they are merely 'amenable' to the jurisdiction of a country being visited and not SUBJECTS of that country they are visiting.
From the paragraph itself: if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country.
Obama has pretty much proven that the president sets the tone in how immigration law actually gets implemented.
Excellent post, Sulla. Also, Great catch from the mouth of Mark Levin.
As much as I respect C_O and Levin, if you're going to make this an argument from authority I'll side with every court that's had to rule on the issue.
"The 14th Amendment didn’t even give citizenship to Native Americans, why would it give citizenship to illegal aliens?"
At the time Indians were deemed not to be fully subject to US jurisdiction because the Indian nations governed themselves and dealt with the federal government via treaty. Not the case with resident foreigners.
“The argument that an illegal alien can step into the United States, claim legal and political jurisdiction, and confer citizenship to their child is insane."
Just because we don't like the implications of an amendment doesn't change the plain meaning of the words. Torturing logic to make the constitution say what we want it to isn't a conservative approach.
I don't know the law in this case and it might depend on the nation of residence claimed by the worker, but if the law says so, yes. Is there some reason to think non-citizens aren't subject to our laws?
So congress could pass a law that says the 2nd amendment only applies to state militias, state that the courts have no jurisdiction in the matter, and it's settled? I don't like the implications of your interpretation.
There is no jurisdiction over non-US citizens working in foreign countries. Therefore, they are not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’.
Because they aren’t SUBJECTS of the US in the first place.
Again you are in error.
Those with diplomatic immunity are not required to follow the laws of local country. They are not subject to the jurisdiction of Congress.
Who has tried more to remove 2nd amendment rights....the courts or the Congress?
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.