Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Birthright Citizenship -- A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment
Fox News ^ | January 14, 2011 | Hans A. von Spakovsky

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: 14thamendment; 2016election; aliens; anchorbabies; birthright; citizenship; deport; election2016; tedcruz; texas; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-230 next last
To: xzins
Correctly interpreted, the 14th Amendment is just cause to remove every Muslim in the United States and ship them to the Muslim nation of their choice,at their expense, regardless of their natural born status in the United States.

It will never happen of course, because our "leaders" are either too dam! stupid to recognize Islam for what it is, or are too concerned about the politics, or both.

21 posted on 08/18/2015 6:59:24 AM PDT by jimbug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins; Liz; AuntB; La Lydia; sickoflibs; stephenjohnbanker; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; ...

Read all the article...


22 posted on 08/18/2015 6:59:27 AM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spaulding; Red Steel; DoodleDawg; STE=Q

A new thread that might be of interest ping....

Birthright Citizenship — A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3326031/posts


23 posted on 08/18/2015 7:00:41 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron ("Medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism" Vladimir Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol; xzins
The 14th is very clear about birthright citizenship. I dont agree with it but to change it, it will require a change to the 14th amendment.

Baloney. Illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are INVADERS. Since when did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend to extend birthright citizenship to the children of INVADERS?

When has ANY COUNTRY IN HISTORY done that?

24 posted on 08/18/2015 7:01:18 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (Resistance to Tyrants is obedience to God)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: xzins

If Trump adds to his immigration policy to STRIP all anchor babies of citizenship, there would be no reason to have a primary. I’ll work on his campaign.


25 posted on 08/18/2015 7:01:58 AM PDT by Salvavida (The restoration of the U.S.A. starts with filling the pews at every Bible-believing church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud

Where do you get that?


26 posted on 08/18/2015 7:02:00 AM PDT by Ray76 (When a gov't leads it's people down a path of destruction resistance is not only a right but a duty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: wmfights; nathanbedford

We can deport them no matter the age of the child. The child cannot ask access for family members until the child is 18 years old. It’s not likely the parents will leave the child behind.

We get back to e-verify, however, the refusal of jobs to those here illegally and the conviction of their employers for illegal hiring.

NathanBedford has ideas on extending e-verify to make it effective. That is probably a policy that would be easier to sell. Americans are up in arms about their jobs going to illegals and legals alike. Let’s ensure legal status and current visas. Violators will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.


27 posted on 08/18/2015 7:02:18 AM PDT by xzins (Don't let others pay your share; reject Freep-a-Fare! Donate-https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: eyeamok

Oh...I HEAR you, my FRiend!

We should repeal the IRS too! :-)


28 posted on 08/18/2015 7:03:07 AM PDT by left that other site (You shall know the Truth, and The Truth Shall Set You Free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Sorry you are incorrect.

Illegal aliens ARE SUBJECT to the Jurisdiction of Congress. If you don’t believe that, then ask yourself if an illegal alien breaks a federal law, are they arrested, charged, prosecuted, and convicted by the federal government?

They do not become invaders until they take up arms against the US.


29 posted on 08/18/2015 7:03:56 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; wmfights

My sense is that Congress can acknowledge the ‘subject to’ clause of the 14th by passing legislation ending birthright citizens that includes a removal of the legislation from judicial review. In this case, it is a disagreement over the meaning of a clause, and the Founders ensured that the courts were NOT the final word on such disagreements. They gave Congress the power to restrict the reach of the Courts.


30 posted on 08/18/2015 7:05:58 AM PDT by xzins (Don't let others pay your share; reject Freep-a-Fare! Donate-https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol; P-Marlowe

You need to read the entire article at the link. It deals with the jurisdiction issue.


31 posted on 08/18/2015 7:07:53 AM PDT by xzins (Don't let others pay your share; reject Freep-a-Fare! Donate-https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: xzins
But that isn't what the Ark case said. Not at all.

Here is the concluding paragraph of the decision of the court in Ark v. United States:

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/169/649.html

The court clearly state that although Ark was born of non-citizen parents who were citizens of China at the time of his birth, and owed allegiance to China, he was still a CITIZEN of the United States at birth.

If the author of this opinion piece actually read the court's decision, then he lied in order to prove his point.

32 posted on 08/18/2015 7:09:38 AM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius (www.wilsonharpbooks.com - Sign up for my new release e-mail and get my first novel for free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
Mexico still teaches that the American Southwest (over which they had very limited control for a mere 27 years, 1821-1848) rightfully belongs to Mexico and actively encourages colonization via illegal immigration.

That makes them a de facto invading army. And just as children born of diplomats are specifically excluded from birthright citizenship, so are children born of invading armies.

33 posted on 08/18/2015 7:10:25 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
You are overlooking in your own quote: but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States,

They had permanent residency, so they had legal status.

34 posted on 08/18/2015 7:13:53 AM PDT by xzins (Don't let others pay your share; reject Freep-a-Fare! Donate-https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: xzins
But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual. The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

So if non-citizens are not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. and their children cannot become citizens at birth then what is the status of the child in question? The obvious implication is that they are not a citizen. So if they continue to live in the U.S. but never go through the naturalization process then wouldn't that mean that their children could not be citizens either?

35 posted on 08/18/2015 7:14:46 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
From your WKA quote:

...but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business...

Meaning the parents were here legally!

36 posted on 08/18/2015 7:17:08 AM PDT by Las Vegas Ron ("Medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism" Vladimir Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I did read the article and the author’s opinion does not agree or align with current legal precedence and jurisprudence. But that is his opinion and he is allowed to espouse his opinion.

The author asserts a false straw man to prove his point. The author asserts: 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.

The fact is that the 14th creates two conditions. The first is birth or naturalization and the second is the subject to the jurisdiction clause. The subject to the jurisdiction does in fact mean the geographic boundaries of the United States, it Territories and any other land subject to the laws of Congress. This does in fact mean that a person born while in the US is in fact a citizen under the 14th.

If one does not like that standard, then change the standard to require a US citizen parent or whatever requirement you want to put in place. Do not try to dance on the head of a pin and change the meaning of words. That is a tactic of the left and is unbecoming of conservatives.


37 posted on 08/18/2015 7:18:32 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

That’s the implication. That is why e-verify, controlled borders, visas, coasts, ports, etc. is so crucial.

E-Verify will criminalize any employer...and rightfully so, since they’ll be committing fraud in any number of ways — social security, pay, reporting, health benefits, ID, etc.


38 posted on 08/18/2015 7:18:43 AM PDT by xzins (Don't let others pay your share; reject Freep-a-Fare! Donate-https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana; Impy; NFHale; Liz
That was my understanding of the subject too.

It was Grahamnesty in 2010 who claimed that we need to change the US constitution for this, on a Sunday show. Clearly he was up to no good, given his track record.

"But now at least one prominent Republican lawmaker wants to change the 14th Amendment to the Constitution which grants American citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil.

Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake,” Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told Fox News last week. “We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen.”
Republicans Eye Change to Birthright Citizenship (WASHINGTON, August 3, 2010)

39 posted on 08/18/2015 7:19:16 AM PDT by sickoflibs (King Obama : 'The debate is over. The tme for talk is over. Just follow my commands you serfs""')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: taxcontrol

The authors of the 14th Amend disagree

“Not owing allegiance to anybody else” Bingham

“jurisdiction, as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States” Sen. Howard


40 posted on 08/18/2015 7:21:38 AM PDT by Ray76 (When a gov't leads it's people down a path of destruction resistance is not only a right but a duty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-230 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson