Good post to bring up the important distinction between the legal terms ‘residence’ and ‘domicile’. Distinguishing between these two legal terms is key to understanding the entire issue.
And jog my memory, how did this topic even become the thing everyone is arguing about? I seem to not remember much argument about anchor babies until Mr Trump forced it into the discussion in a big way.
Go Trump.
The Chinese exception, for the children born of Chinese laborers here on a very limited work permit (not a visa), is not applicable when the parents of the children born here have neither a work permit or a visa to be within the borders of the United States or any of its territories. Therefore, the jurisdiction clause, which WOULD apply for the children of the Chinese laborers, cannot be similarly applied for invaders without documentation, who are not immigrating, so much as they are colonizing. And I am not aware that the US Code or the Constitution has any provisions for parts of what is US territory to be colonized by citizens or subjects of foreign governments.
Not unless they come with armed force to secure that claim, and defeat the US military, and surrender of the territory in dispute.
That has not happened for a long, long time in US history. If ever.
So if Mexico goes to war with the United States, and manages the military conquest of most of the American Southwest, forcing the US military, and the US government, to surrender, one of the terms of peace is the ceding of the disputed territory to the victorious government.
Does NOBODY understand “Game of War”?
If you Google Leo D’Onofrio, Esq. you can read some very well researched and scholarly writing about citizenship from 2007. He submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court re Obama’s citizenship.
And good article sir. As always, you bring a touch of class to the argument.
And good article sir. As always, you bring a touch of class to the argument.
This is the last statement of the conclusion. What they're basically saying is that for illegals who come over just to give birth, get a bc and then go back to Mexico...no citizenship should or need be granted. But any other category of immigrant...including illegals who managed to rent an apt or trailer or a tent in a vacant lot, would have established a domicile and their offspring would then be eligible for citizenship.
That's not nearly broad enough for me, but I would accept it as a first step.
That was informative. Thanks
I will like to see the look on their farces when we end anchor babies for all those Mexican/Central American IQ-70 scam artists. The party will be over!! God willing that Donald Trump gets elected!
Not enough time during the day to study a 46-page in-depth article, but a browse thru, I found cause to search for the legal definition of domicile or parental domicile, which I did not find within.
I wonder if using it for the topic, though, is kind of grey.... if a domicile can be argued to be where one sleeps or “lives” or pays a utility bill, then even motel-born criminaliens could have legal citizen babies.
Excellent read.
Short version. Illegals would need to provide proof of residency going back 5 years for the anchor baby to be considered a citizen.
I read the whole thing. That splat noise you heard was my brain exploding.
Ok there are some ways according to the article to deal with the problem, but not much and nothing to stop illegal immigration or much of anything to stop anchor babies. Am I reading this correctly?
At this point, the wall (?), more restrictive visas, actually enforcing current law? My thoughts are take away the goodies for illegals. Don’t allow establishment of domicile unless in the country legally, everity so only citizens of legal residents can work, resulting in self deportation.
Legal papers make me feel like I’m reading Shakespeare and I just zone out. Had to go back and re-read some passages.
Seems to me our country is doomed, right?
The Scrotus can't make anyone a citizen.
The Constitution Article 1 section 8 clause 4 gives Congress plenary power to institute a uniform rule of naturalization. The 14th Amendment reaffirms Congress plenary power in clause 5.
The power of naturalization ie who is to become a citizen of the U.S. is an ENUMERATED power GIVEN SOLEY TO CONGRESS BY THE CONSTITUTION
So when SCROTUS wants to pipe up and write law from the bench as they did in Wong Kim Ark. Congress should have impeached the dirty black-robed farks.
Thanks for playing
I think he makes a decent case that WKA doesn't preclude an argument that domicile is also a requirement (in addition to birth and jurisdiction). I think the likelihood of this argument prevailing, however, is small.
I can just hear Scalia saying, "Wait a minute, the amendment defines exactly two requirements for citizenship and now you want us, un-elected judges, to add a third, domicile?"
Also, I think the author's exploration of the prominence of domicile in citizenship law cuts both ways. Clearly domicile was a top-of-mind issue at the time yet the authors and ratifiers chose not to include it.
Finally, the author states:
As conventionally understood, the jurisdictional element excludes only three categories of individuals: (1) children of ambassadors or other foreign diplomatic representatives, (2) children of foreign invading armies, and (3) children of members of Indian tribes. Notably, each of these categories of excluded persons is defined based on some characteristic of their parentage.
That's just wrong. We know nothing about the parentage of invading soldiers. What the three categories do have in common is that our interaction with them at the time was governed by mutually-agreed treaty or laws of war, not US laws.
later
Thank you for this article and one of the best threads on the subject I have read on FR.