Media Ignores Constitutional Experts Debunking Birthright Citizenship

Breitbart.com ^ | 23 Aug 2015 | by Ken Klukowski

[Rockitz]

Myths about birthright citizenship—promoted by liberals, embraced by establishment Republicans, and repeated by mainstream media pundits without critical examination—have been debunked by experts spanning the political spectrum. But none of those people are being given A-list treatment by major media outlets to respond.

Instead, the voices given the biggest public platforms are commentators who lack any professional credentials on the topic, who breezily assure viewers that “of course everyone knows” that the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on everyone born in this country. And when the media occasionally puts on an opposition guest to provide a veneer of balanced reporting, they put on well-meaning individuals who are clearly not well grounded on this issue, who cannot make a compelling case and can’t answer hard questions.

But there are a plethora of legal experts who can field those questions. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause declares: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Breitbart News first explained that the debate of who becomes an American citizen by virtue of being born on U.S. soil turns on the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” And we later explained in greater detail how the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause over time supports the original meaning of that clause, a clause which does not extend citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. This is the third installment in this series of reports.

[berdie]

I like Levin and consider him to be extremely intelligent and learned. I also think BRC is a crock.

However, I have listened to him intently since this subject came up (again). During one of his broadcasts this week a caller brought up a hypothetical situation and jurisdiction. His answer was of course, everyone in this country is under US jurisdiction. It was like he caught himself...shouted the caller down and hung up.

Levin believes in original intent. I do too, but that is not the atmosphere in today’s world.

[semimojo]

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.

Naturalization and birth are two different paths to citizenship. Congress has authority over the rules for naturalization, but the Constitution lays out the rules for citizenship by birth.

[Red Steel]

Any law passed by Congress to prevent illegal birthright citizenship wouldn't likely be ex post facto since that's prohibited by Article 1.

His answer was of course, everyone in this country is under US jurisdiction. It was like he caught himself...shouted the caller down and hung up.

There's 'territorial jurisdiction' that is to follow laws of the country, and then there is citizenship jurisdiction of aliens and US citizens alike. Mexican citizens who have babies inside the United States are still Mexican nationals as they have jus sanguinis citizenship of their home country. The 14th Amendment's 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' is speaking completely about citizenship.

[hinckley buzzard]

An opinion in a footnote, or even in the body of an opinion where it is not a part of the core finding, is considered "dicta," ie just "what he said," and not to be considered a basis for precedent or of probative value. IOW, a footnote is legally nothing, nada, nichts.

[berdie]

Could be. I think the court process could be long and lengthy.

I have friends, legal ones, that got their US citizenship. They are still citizens of Mexico. They hold dual citizenship and can travel overseas with a US or Mexican passport.

[hinckley buzzard]

Five justices can turn this whole issue on its head. Elections have consequences. Stop the lying shyster bullshit about how we have to have an Article V convention or repeal of the 14th amendment.

[Red Steel]

Actually through much of the 20th century the US have deported mothers and babies back to their home countries.

It’s government policy or discretion, and it is a very low priority for the Obama administration to deport, especially families. There is no positive US law to compel government to prevent “birthright” citizenship.

[Godebert]

"But the MSM including Fox are not allowing people to hear the other side. It is a conspiracy of omission."

Same thing happened regarding the true meaning of natural born Citizen.

Note the reference to Natural Law in the first sentence of our Declaration of Independence.

It is crystal clear that the Founding Fathers used the Natural Law definition of 'natural born Citizen' when they wrote Article II. By invoking "The Laws of Nature and Nature's God" the 56 signers of the Declaration incorporated a legal standard of freedom into the forms of government that would follow.

President John Quincy Adams, writing in 1839, looked back at the founding period and recognized the true meaning of the Declaration's reliance on the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." He observed that the American people's "charter was the Declaration of Independence. Their rights, the natural rights of mankind. Their government, such as should be instituted by the people, under the solemn mutual pledges of perpetual union, founded on the self-evident truth's proclaimed in the Declaration."

The Constitution, Vattel, and “Natural Born Citizen”: What Our Framers Knew

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Terms Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same

"The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776."....David Ramsay, 1789.

A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring Character & Privileges of Citizen of U.S.-by David Ramsay-1789

The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (1758)

The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God: The True Foundation of American Law

Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Volume 20 - Use of The Law of Nations by the Constitutional Convention

The Biggest Cover-up in American History

[berdie]

Your last sentence says it all.

[Godebert]

" I trust the People, an Article V Convention, and the States a whole lot more than I do the Supreme Court or the Congress. "

The same people who elected the Usurper........twice.

[Red Steel]

Your last sentence says it all.

The last time Congress tried to pass law(s) against "birthright" citizenship was 10 years ago in 2005. And legal to be executed under the 14th Amendment, Section 5, and US Const., Article 1, Section 8.

"GOP mulls ending birthright citizenship "

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1515559/posts

"House Conservatives Want End to Birthright Citizenship"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3326867/posts

[kabar]

So is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?

[kabar]

The last time Congress tried to pass law(s) against "birthright" citizenship was 10 years ago in 2005.

No every year for a decade there have been bills proposing the elimination of birthright citizenship. Currently, there is one in the Senate sponsored by Vitter and one in the House by Steve King, HR 140

[Red Steel]

I should have said the last serious attempt that I know of that came fairly close to getting somewhere.

Thanks for the info. I’ll look over Steve King’s bill.

[Repeal 16-17]

The same people who elected the Usurper........twice.

The people who voted for the Liberal Messiah have no love for this country. I was referring to the People, as in those Americans who love this country and want to fight for its survival.

[Godebert]

"So is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?"

Was he born in the country to Citizen parents? The answer is NO.

[taxcontrol]

First off, telling the truth is not lying. You really should invest in an education and a dictionary to tell the difference.

Second, rather than reverting to name calling, refute my points (which are):

1) The Uniparty currently in power in Washington has no desire to change the current situation.
2) SCOTUS has previously ruled that birthright citizenship is the law and is unlikely to overturn that precidence
3) Any act of Congress can be overturned by another act of Congress
4) If you want to END birthright citizenship, as in prevent further acts of Congress from reinstating birthright citizenship, the ONLY WAY allowed by the Constitution is an amendment to the Constitution. Namely a repeal or replace of the 14th.
5) One possible means of executing number 4 would be an Article V convention.

[taxcontrol]

I’m sorry, I must have missed which article and section of the Constitution defines citizenship. Please cite the specific section of the Constitution were citizenship is defined.

[taxcontrol]

Rules for naturalization includes the rules for who needs to be naturalized and the rules for those who do not need to be naturalized and who are by conditions of their birth, citizens.

[semimojo]

I’m sorry, I must have missed which article and section of the Constitution defines citizenship. Please cite the specific section of the Constitution were citizenship is defined.

When I said "lays out the rules for" I meant rules for who is a citizen by birth, which of course is done in the 14th. I'm not aware of any definition of what citizenship "is", either in the Constitution or in statute.

I'll grant that Congress can and has also granted birthright citizenship in certain cases, but that's not the same thing as naturalization.