Posted on 12/12/2024 8:24:15 AM PST by SeekAndFind
It’s about time this was settled - Trump will issue an EO, it will be challenged, appealed and hopefully added to the SC docket fairly quickly. If the current SC, stacked with Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito and three Trump appointees can’t make the right ruling on birthright citizenship, at least the issue will be settled.
I would think the case of American Indians being excluded birthright citizenship might also be argued. It took an Act of Congress in the ‘20s.
That should be addressed wholeheartedly.
This is exactly why the phrase, "... and subject to the jurisdiction..." was included. In my reading of history, they weren't all that concerned about illegal immigration back then. Yes, they had proper channels for legal immigration but it wasn't a widespread, news-making problem then. This phrase was included so that foreign dignitaries, foreign merchants, and even simple tourists didn't have children with automatic citizenship simply because of the location of their birth.
The 14th amendment rules out citizenship by birth of illegal immigrants.
Kind of like the “shall not be infringed” wording of the 2nd amendment. Liberals like to sniff around that wording as if the sniffing around makes its plain meaning controversial and less clear.
So....should be noted on birth certificate and SS card...and original SS card should be used for car license.
I don't see it.
Illegal aliens are ILLEGAL and not citizens. They are not protected by our Constitution.
The whole anchor baby logic is extremely circular.
My birth certificate does not have a SS number. Of course, that thing is 73 years old.
I’d hate to have to dig out my SS card for a car license. And I think it says it’s not to be used for identification purposes.
RE: Illegal aliens are ILLEGAL and not citizens.
Nobody is arguing that.
The issue is and always has been — WHAT HAPPENS TO BABIES BORN ON US SOIL WHOSE PARENTS ( OR MOTHER ) IS HERE ILLEGALLY?
Anyone who is subject to several jurisdictions simultaneously cannot decide who's jurisdiction awards citizenship to the child, so the legal tenets of "domicile" and "domicile of origin" would rule.
For example, if I am an American citizen who is living in England, I am subject to the jurisdiction of UK law, but I'm also subject to the United States Internal Revenue Service's requirement that I file an IRS form 1040 each year that I'm abroad. That makes me subject to both the UK and USA jurisdictions.
People here on a non-immigrant visa (student visas [e.g., F-1, M-1], temporary work visas [e.g., L-1, H-1B, H-2b], tourist visas [B-2]) swear an oath that they have a primary residence in a foreign country that they have no intention of abandoning. That is the definition of "domicile." They have a domicile in their home country that they must still pay property taxes on, possibly collect rents on, possibly pay rent on, must keep up appearances on, pay utilities on, etc. They are subject to their home country's laws on income, debts, and property while in the United States. That makes them subject to multiple jurisdictions simultaneously.
Furthermore, a person with domicile in a foreign country who gives birth in the United States would be ruled by "domicile of origin," meaning that their newborn child assumes the citizenship of their parent's domicile.
This is all it would take, with no new laws passed, no new amendments to the constitution, just an interpretation from the Supreme Court that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means subject to the *sole* jurisdiction thereof, and other long-standing legal principles take over.
-PJ
-PJ
Of course.
I don't consider that "settled." If they don't rule correctly, and as evidence and common sense require, then this problem will seethe, and continue to do damage to the nation.
It must be settled correctly, or it isn't settled. It will remain as a gaping wound on our national existence.
Attempts would have to be made to fix this through the amendment process, which is very unlikely to happen.
It will be a disaster for the nation unless illegals and visitors are prevented from creating new "citizens."
So the question is: Who is NOT “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?
Answer: It excludes children born to foreign diplomats, and foreign armies (invaders).
If the SCOTUS defines foreign nationals in the country illegally (a.k.a. “illegal aliens”) as “invaders”, they can be denied birthright citizenship.
True...The cards should be changed...it took 200 years before we had self sticking stamps.
I say the question is: Who is not subject to *multiple* jurisdictions at the same time? Only people subject to the *sole* jurisdiction of the United States can produce citizen babies.
Have a non-immigrant visa? No citizen baby.
Have two passports? No citizen baby.
Here illegally? No citizen baby.
-PJ
They should be deported just like their parents.
You wouldn’t want to separate a family would you.
Agree. All valid legal reasons to deny birthright citizenship.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.