FYI!
Great great analysis and summary! Wow!
Will keep this one as solid reference material!
> “Mexico receives billions of dollars a year in payments from their out-of-the-country population, which is probably a main support of subsistence and lifestyle for a great many of its citizen/nationals living within its geographic borders.”
And Donald Trump will use a substantial portion of those remittance payments to fund the building of the Trump Wall!
It really comes down to this following question. If you are 8 1/2 months pregnant, run across the border and give birth in a U.S. hospital, is the baby a U.S. citizen?
Well, the 14th Amendment says this.
Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Some people say that, if any woman is 8 1/2 months pregnant and has a baby in the U.S., that baby is automatically a U.S. citizen. Some people say that this is partially true. The key part of Section 1 is this, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,”.
This is what history tells us about it. The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War in order to overrule the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. The precise purpose of the amendment was to stop sleazy Southern states from denying citizenship rights to newly freed slaves — many of whom had roots in this country longer than a lot of white people.
This is what the original author (Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan) co-author of the 14th Amendment (1866) expressly said what it means. “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians — because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.
For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)
And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)
Brennan’s authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, THE Clement L. Bouve — the one you’ve heard so much about over the years.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge — just some guy who wrote a book.
So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author’s intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.
On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement — who, I’m guessing, was too cheap to hire an American housekeeper.
The Constitutional discussion is necessary, but there is a U.S.C. Title Code on the matter, as well.
It was a topic of discussion within the last 30 days on FR.
Its quite common in countries all over Latin America that people who can, will protect themselves in several ways.
Buy at least some property in the US, maybe a condo or something.
Have a bank account in the US.
And when mom is about to give birth, fly her to the US so that the baby is a US citizen. The child may never live as an American, but they’ll keep the blue passport in a safety deposit box for the day that things go badly and they have to go. If you wait until you need a place to go, to start looking for a place to go, you’ve waited too long. And in a politicized economy as most of these are, you need to think ahead. An unlucky change of government can leave you in an untenable position.
That, and a lot of countries are so dangerous for people who have money that they need a place where they can walk the streets without having to worry about kidnappings. You may notice that many Latin entertainers and actors have homes here though they don’t advertise it.
I know people who have had to leave their home country; some arrive and get a lawyer and start working the system. The ones whose parents thought ahead, though, walk through the front door without any problems.
You have WAY more faith in this court than I do. They likely haven't ruled because they have not needed to. Jus soli has already carried the day. If Texas were, for example, to be refusing to issue birth certificates to children of illegals, I would expect a federal judge (at the behest of the Obama DOJ) to order Texas to do so. The argument being what you have stated that Congress decides who is a citizen and they have not stated otherwise. If it were to go to the Supreme Court the "wise Latina" would issue the order agreeing the horse has already left the barn. Boehner would just cry about the poor children.
Your points are well reasoned and well presented. I do not disagree with the issues raised. I just have no faith in this Court or Congress to do the right thing and I am not yet convinced that Trump would either (nor even Cruz and I support him).
It's not just this nation Betty.....there's a grand shift occurring Internationally overall....and it's a co=operative effort.....evidence of is the huge immigration of nations now...it's not something unplanned....anymore than what we have seen Obama do on our borders....they're shifting the worlds populations.
Here’s another one for you two. Jump right in. Let the rest of Free Republic know what you think.
AMEN - carefully researched, well written and presented so anyone can understand the issue.
Time to get a rope, or lots of ropes.
Bump!
Time to get rid of such folks, time to remove them from public office.It’s time to bring in new national leadership, who understand and love the United States of America, “warts and all.”We aren’t a “perfect union.” But we have ever strived towards that end.Let’s keep on doing that. Let’s make America great again.
America CAN NEVER be great again UNTIL the democrat party is exposed and some LIVING members punished for the most heinous crimes against the American people for more than a hundred years..
AND........ the republicans that have been complicit with them..
THEN we can start over.. clean and fresh.. until then America will never be great..
for sure Donald will never do it, I wonder what HE thinks a Great America is like..
Probably he thinks CANADA is great.. he loves their health care..
as do most RINOs..
A qualifying clause modifies, or explains, the main clause. For example,
The president was re-elected, although with a reduced majority.
The clause, ‘although with a reduced majority’ explains the main clause, ‘the president was re-elected’. Qualifying clauses are generally placed as close as possible to the words which they modify. Here’s another example:
He died in the village where he was born. (Here the qualifying clause ‘where he was born’ modifies the noun “village”.)
Qualifying clauses are a necessary part of writing to convey meaning and clarity.
Nice job, betty boop.
PING
Great article. Bookmarked.