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 ...
On income earned in the US, yes.
If someone is required by US law to file a tax return our ability to enforce that law isn't affected by their citizenship status. It may be affected by geography, but that's true for citizens and non-citizens alike.
Again, can you give me an example of a law that we can enforce against citizens but not illegal aliens?
What is the legal recourse of the IRS against this illegal alien Mexican working in Germany?
The 2nd year in Germany, with income in Germany, a US citizen is required to file a tax report with the IRS.
In his 2nd year in Germany, is this former illegal alien Mexican required to file a tax report with the IRS?
The courts have thwarted legislative attempts to weaken the 2nd. Your interpretation would eliminate that safeguard.
I’m giving you an example. A US citizen overseas must file tax reports with the IRS. A Mexican who was in the US illegally has no requirement to file with the US IRS.
Why the difference? Answer: because the US citizen is ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the US government.
The illegal Mexican is not.
“Again, can you give me an example of a law that we can enforce against citizens but not illegal aliens?”
Draft laws.
How about “immigration laws”? Successful evasion of our immigration laws are what makes the person an illegal immigrant.
So, it has gone back and forth. What would the ruling have been from the courts if there had been one more liberal appointee on the Supreme Court during DC vs Heller?
Among other citations: In 1948, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter conceded: "Congress need not give this Court any appellate power; it may withdraw appellate jurisdiction once conferred."[24]
And in Art 3, Section 2: In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
So, someone had to be made the top dog, and the Founders made Congress the final authority. And it makes sense. What legislation can do, legislation can pretty quickly undo. What courts do, given life tenure, can take generations to undo.
The words "in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall in the well known case of The Exchange and as the equivalent of the words "within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States," and the converse of the words "out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States" as habitually used in the naturalization acts. This presumption is confirmed by the use of the word "jurisdiction" in the last clause of the same section of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids any State to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It is impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the opening sentence, as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."
If congress has made such a law, fine (although I'm not sure that's the case). My point is that our laws are enforced on citizens and non-citizens alike. There may be differences in the laws, but both categories are fully subject to the relevant law.
evasion ≠ not subject to
So why have a constitution if all we're really talking about is a voting majority in both houses?
The Constitution is ABOUT voting majorities. In fact, the ‘filibuster’ is an abuse of a system that was designed to be really fluid.
No, I made it from a law dictionary contemporary with the drafting of the legislation, not "authority."
Just because we don't like the implications of an amendment doesn't change the plain meaning of the words.
Your "plain meaning" of the term "subject" has become at this point entirely-subjective.
I was referring to his argument, not yours.
Regarding Bouvier, the definition distinguishes between the nouns 'subject' and 'citizen', but both can be subject to the same laws.
There you go twisting it again.
Waste of time.
“evasion [not equal to] not subject to”
Please try reading what the WKA decision said was the basis of citizenship by birth:
“The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.”
Notice the qualifiers:
“in amity” - “friendship; peaceful harmony”? If someone enters my house illegally, without my permission, are they in peaceful harmony with me? If someone is violating the law of the United States by entering and living here illegally, in what sense are they in “peaceful harmony”?
Ligaility suggests someone “owing primary allegiance and service to a feudal lord”. Do illegal aliens owe primary allegiance and service to the USA? “PRIMARY”! Not some allegiance, but their PRIMARY allegiance - to someone they are disobeying every single second?
Are their children born in “obedience” to the King - or, in the case of the USA, to the Republic? How can they be in obedience if they are here in disobedience?
“Faith” suggests “the obligation of loyalty or fidelity”. Does someone here illegally have the obligation of loyalty and fidelity to the USA?
And please note: That is “The fundamental principle...”. It is the underlying basis of all that follows. If you want to know the truth that supports the rest, look at the fundamental principle.
The English basis for citizenship by birth ASSUMES the person is present with the permission of the King. Some present with permission, but not under the King, such as ambassadors, are exempt. And so are invading armies, which are present against the King’s wishes.
Under English law, the closest approximation to an illegal alien is a member of an invading army - someone present against the wishes of the government. Or spies. People who are present although the King would imprison them or throw them out if he could.
Under the jurisdiction does not mean “can be arrested”. It requires more than that. It requires the person be here “in amity”. In friendship. In peaceful harmony with the government. A TOURIST can make that claim. An illegal alien cannot.
I’ll add this: If conservatives were as aggressive about applying the Constitution to LIMIT things as liberals are in using it to overrule common sense, this country would be different. The liberals make up things like a right to privacy and ‘self-dignity’ to pretend the Constitution says something. We need to stop accepting their premises, and stuff the words down their throats. It is excruciatingly obvious that someone here illegally is NOT here “in amity”, in obedience, in good faith. One cannot be acting under the authority of a law one flouts.
It is also obvious that Justice Kennedy, and probably Justice Roberts, would never, EVER go against their liberal friends and party-goers, and rule in accordance with the plain meaning of the Constitution. Realistically, it would be a 6:3 or maybe even a 7:2 decision giving illegal immigrants citizenship. Maybe 5:4 making everyone in the world a citizen based on their human dignity and desire for privacy.
But damn it! We need to fight! We need to reject Rubio and others who want nothing more than to role over and give the country away with nothing more aggressive than a whimper!
the solution is simple, extremely simple..... deport the mothers immediately
I’m glad you’re tiring of being “subjected” to this. :-)
I honestly don't know what you're argument is. You point to a definition of 'subject' vs 'citizen', but how is that relevant? Are you seriously saying that only subjects can be subject to the jurisdiction of the government?
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.