[BuckeyeTexan]

Download a PDF of the article here.

[moehoward]

Bumperoonie

[skeeter]

Its a race to end the madness now, one we may already have lost.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Ping to a well balanced background primer on this issue.

[humblegunner]

Every year, 300,000 to 400,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the United States.

Dang, that's a lot.

Maybe a quick fix would be to declare those hospitals as embassies or something, and the rightful territories of Mexico.

Cost maybe a couple hundred bucks for a nice metal plaque.

[ConservativeMind]

Some more help for your Constitutional insight.

[Mike Darancette]

Where does an illegal alien reside?

[Tennessee Nana]

“Stupid People of America !!! If You Ain’t Mad, You Ain’t Payin’ Attention!”

Terry Anderson

[JimRed]

Bump for later- that’s a long one.

[TBP]

http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-congress-can-end-birthright-citizenship-without-amending-the-constitution/

These classes of people, even if born here, are NOT American citizens under the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952:

a child born on American soil to a:

(1) foreign ambassador,
(2) head of state,
(3) foreign military prisoner

So what prevents Congress from simply adding another class of people to the list?

[txrefugee]

Ann Coulter’s article on the 14th Amendment yesterday was an eye opener.In 1982, Justice Brennan, the old Leftist Supreme Court Justice, put the idea of illegal aliens’ children being given citizenship into A FOOTNOTE in one of his options. For 100 years, no illegal aliens had birthright citizenship, until he came up with this idea. The framers of the amendment specifically stated it would not apply to foreigners, not even the children of diplomats born while in the USA.

So again, the American people have been lied to concerning this history, and this blatant fraud has cost the states hundreds of billions of tax dollars on anchor babies.

[Up Yours Marxists]

So, for the most part, countries with automatic birthright citizenship are socialist moonbat and/or 3rd world cesspools.

Got it.

[Red Steel]

Covers a lot good post.

The 1866 Act drew the line by excluding persons “subject to any foreign power,”

Which is synonymous with "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" written in the 14th Amendment.

[mlo]

"But such an interpretation creates a redundancy in the 14th Amendment, as all people born in the United States are subject to the laws of the land. Accepting the premise that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” simply means being “subject to police power” turns a critical and carefully-written portion of the Citizenship Clause into a redundancy."

This is not true. What the author misses is that there are certain people who really aren't subject to the law of the land, and it's these people who the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase is meant to address.

Those people are diplomats and occupying soldiers. Diplomats with immunity are not subject to US law, occupying soldiers operate under the laws of war and are not subject to civil laws. Use of the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase is identifying these people, saying their children will not be citizens. There is no contradiction.

This construct was not new. At the time of adoption of the 14th this was the traditional way it worked. We inherited our rules from England, which operated the same way. The 14th only codified it in the Constitution to make it explicit with regard to ex-slaves. England did not change birthright citizenship until 1983.

[Jim W N]

To be honest, I don’t really care what the rest of the world does. When we do the right thing, the world generally follows anyway, but even if they don’t we are free to go our own way. But the rest of the world usually follows.

Our guide for federal action should as it always should be, the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended and court cases that have applied in good faith the Constitution.

If it is still unclear, then the Constitution does clearly say that Congress has the power to uniformly set laws for naturalization (Art I,Sec 8,C l4). No need for a Constitutional amendment as I see it, just Congress deciding how to handle this issue.

[semimojo]

These advocates also argue that “subject to the jurisdiction” simply means being susceptible to police authority (i.e. being required to follow laws and pay fines for violations). But such an interpretation creates a redundancy in the 14th Amendment, as all people born in the United States are subject to the laws of the land. Accepting the premise that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” simply means being “subject to police power” turns a critical and carefully-written portion of the Citizenship Clause into a redundancy.

This is a lie on the part of the author. Most of "these advocates" agree that diplomats and at the time members of the soverign Indian nations weren't fully subject to the jurisdiction of the US. When you can't even discuss the other side's arguments honestly it means you're lame.

[betty boop]

"[S]trict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means." — Thomas Jefferson

Or, as Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson put it in 1949, "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

"Birthright citizenry" may be de facto law in the minds of many legal scholars, on the basis of a very superficial reading of the Fourteen Amendment, and Supreme Court rulings based on such a superficial reading. But that doesn't necessarily make it de jure law....

It's 'way past time for Congress to clarify this situation, or risk the destruction of our nation and way of life.

Strong leadership in the Executive may be essential in this regard.