So, Seth, my daughter was born at Landstuhl US Army Region Medical Center in Germany. Does that make her a German?
Can we get on that sweet, all butter, no guns, European welfare train?
No. Do you know why?
BECAUSE NO COUNTRY OTHER THAN THE USA HAS BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP FOR FOREIGNERS/NON-CITIZENS. NONE!
There is surprisingly little germane to the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase. Like the 2A militia reference, it was apparently so commonly understood at the time that it needed no debate. Such as there was revolved mostly on whether or not Indians on reservations subject to tribal law were covered.
Relevant discussion begins on p.44 of the linked document. Some excerpts:
Sen Howard, who introduced the amendment to the floor understood it not to include children of foreigners. In fact, he understood it not to include Indians on reservations as the reservations were quasi-foreign states.
Sen. Trumbull asserts: "What do we mean by "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?" Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Sen. Johnson observes: "Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power — for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us — shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of theUnited States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States."
I suggest these senators - who originally debated passage of the amendment - wouyld say Lipsky's full of it.
The part of the 14th Amendment that is debated is the statement in section 1 shown below.
Amendment XIV
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.
Those who favor citizenship for children born on U.S. soil to an illegal immigrant mother will say that the baby is a subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., meaning they are subjected to the laws of the U.S.. And therefore they are U.S. citizens in accordance with the Constitution as written.
However, when you look at original intent at the time the amendment was written and ratified (1868), no one could have expected mass illegal immigration into the U.S. for the sole purpose of having a child on U.S. soil so the child would become a U.S. citizen.
There were no social welfare programs and no education and healthcare systems in place so the authors of the amendment could not foresee the possible anchor baby issue.
If the originators of the 14th Amendment could have foreseen the anchor baby issue I am certain they would have added clarification to the amendment in order to protect U.S. taxpayers from having to pay for the children of illegal immigrants, people who violate U.S. immigration laws to enter the U.S..
“Trump is dead wrong about birthright citizenship”
Too bad, ball-gargler. He’s the chief executive. The reason why we have elections. It doesn’t matter what you think...
Either we have laws which we follow or we become lawless ....ruled by people instead.
Paul Ryan is wrong. The Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment, does not mandate that these people are citizens, because they are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States government. There are no laws or even court decisions saying that we have to grant them citizenship. So yes, Trump has the right to refuse them citizenship.
I agree with Trump that these 370,000/year children of illegal aliens have no right or privilege to citizenship. They and their parents should have to go through the application process provided by law.
Seth Lipsky SUCKS! Sorry just had to post that!!
I wonder if lipsky is a bolshevik or menshevik.
Let’s assume the drafters of the 14th Amendment were not morons. They had a choice between:
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,”
and
2. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
They chose and ratified the first version. The only logical interpretation is that the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to have a restrictive meaning. The children of parents with foreign citizenship and no legal residency are constrained by our laws but are subject to the jurisdiction of their parents’ home government, not that of the United States. President Trump is completely right about the fiction of “birthright citizenship”.
Saying "dead wrong" implies that many others have not held that "birth-right" citizenship for aliens is plain wrong and a misreading of law, the Constitution, and the 14th amendment meant to protect former slaves and indigenous tribal americans against Democrats in the post Civil War south.
re: “Trump is dead wrong about birthright citizenship”
AND the 1860’s never happened.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
As usual Trump is right!
Just because previous administrations did not enforce the law doesn’t mean Trump shouldn’t as well. If they want birthright citizenship, then pass an amendment.
He’s doing the Executive Order in ORDER to force the issue before the Supreme Court.
God. How hard is this all to figure out?
Who is this twerp?
I believe Trump is right but I don’t think it will fly as an EO. I understand one of Trump’s goals here is to bring the discussion into the forefront, but also know to watch what the left hand is doing as the debate ensues.
I think the President wants this to go to the Supreme Court.
This is a lie. It is not difficult to research.
In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.
If citizenship was denied to an American Indian because of divided allegiance, how can it be granted to babies born of illegal aliens, or Chinese “tourist baby hotels” in California?
Re: Post #64
Later there was a law passed that specifically granted American Indians citizenship (someone else can research that).
But before that law, this case proved that the 14th Amendment was not sufficient to grant even Native Americans birthright citizenship.
These Supreme Court precedents were law from the 1800’s till the 1960’s, and are now of course conveniently ignored by today’s media mouthpieces and liberal judges.
“I endorsed him (and voted for him) and agree with most of his major policies, including enforcing our immigration laws.
“
Yeah, right. Like anyone writing for the NYT would admit that.
It needs to be talked about openly and in real terms of cost and effect, reality and tossed aside as a human rights issue as the citizens of the United States have human rights too. Our leaders need to serve the citizens and not foreign interests and non-citizen women coming to the US to have an “anchor baby” is not in the interest of the citizen residents of this nation. Rules change and this one needs to change, not to be mean, but to be fair to our own people (of all ethnicity).
A cat having kittens in the pantry doesn’t make them biscuits.