Replies

You think I'm a troll? Rich indeed. Quoting Jefferson, who was not at the Constitutional Convention (he was Minister to France, as you know) but was clearly active at the founding, is more like it. However, two things. Just because Jefferson believed that there should be a "wall of separation" between church and state does not mean that the First Amendment provides any such requirement (in fact, the primary purpose of the Establishment Clause was to protect states with established churches from having Congress de-establish them, which is why the amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . . ."), and just because Jefferson believed something about the Natural-Born Citizen Clause does not necessarily make it so. Second, I think Jefferson was correct in the sense that under federal law at the time of the founding, only persons whose father (mothers didn't count) was a U.S. citizen were U.S. citizens at birth, and thus "natural-born citizens." Like most nations, the U.S. had jus sanguinis at the time, and it was perfectly natural for Jefferson to say that only those that were natural-born citizens at the time could become president, since he was writing about the immediate future. But citizenship laws have changed over time, and the U.S. later adopted jus soli, meaning that, with few exceptions (about which I'll speak later), persons born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens at birth---one may not like the law, but it is the law. The laws also changed to allow the foreign-born children of U.S. mothers to be a citizen at birth as well if the mother met certain past residency requirements. These laws changed what it means to be a "natural-born citizen," just as later practices have changed what it means to be a member of "the militia" under the Second Amendment (it used to be all able-bodied white men (see Dred Scott), then all able-bodied men irrespective of race, and now "the militia" would also include women). In other words, the principle remains the same: only U.S. citizens at birth can become president. In Jefferson's time, only persons whose father was a U.S. citizen were U.S. citizens at birth, so "natural-born citizens" correctly was limited to persons whose father was a U.S. citizen. But with changes in law, paternal jus sanguinis has been replaced with the American state of law in which almost all persons born in the U.S., and most foreign-born children of U.S. citizens (irrespective of whether the U.S. citizen is the father or the mother), are U.S. citizens at birth. This changed the definition of who is a U.S. citizen at birth, and thus a person born in Chicago with a Polish father and an American mother would be a natural-born citizen today (but not in 1789) while an English-born child of a red-blooded American that moved abroad as a child and an Englishwoman would not be a natural-born citizen today (but would have been in 1789). The principle stays the same, but the law changes. I assume that you have read the 1988 Yale Law Journal on the subject, but just in case, here's a link: http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf. I will now address the issue of "anchor babies," since it seems to permeate this thread. The term "anchor baby" refers to a child born in the U.S. both of whose parents are foreigners with no permanent right to reside in the U.S.; when the "anchor baby" turns 18, he has the right to live in the U.S. and claim his parents as immediate family, thus giving them legal U.S. residency at such time. You can count me among the group of legal scholars (not to say that I'm a law professor or anything) that believe that when Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says that "all persons born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the U.S. and the state in which they reside" that the term "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes from the recognition of citizenship not only the children of ambassadors (which is what, incorrectly in my opinion, courts have so limited the exclusion) but also the children of foreigners with no permanent right to reside in the U.S. I think that it is incorrect to interpret the 14th Amendment to grant U.S. citizenship to the children of two foreign college students even if the baby is born in the U.S., much less to the children of two tourists or of two illegal aliens. However, when I say that such clause in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted, I mean that Congress should be allowed to change U.S. citizenship laws so that the U.S.-born children both of whose parents are illegal aliens, or have tourist visas, or have student visas, etc., are not deemed to be U.S. citizens at birth. However, it does not mean that federal laws extending birthright citizenship to such babies are unconstitutional, and so long as federal law provides citizenship at birth to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens will be citizens at birth. The citizenship of all of those "anchor babies" is water under the bridge, and what we have to do to fix the problem prospectively is to have Congress (i) change the law so that only babies with at least one parent that is either a U.S. citizen or a U.S. permanent resident can obtain U.S. citizenship by virtue of their birth in the U.S. and (ii) change the law so that "anchor babies" can't automatically bring their parents to the U.S. once they turn 18. BTW, I first wrote about this on FR several years ago, and if you have the time to go through my thousands of posts you will find that I wrote then pretty much what I wrote now about how to solve the "anchor baby" problem. And that's my take on the two, tangentially related, subjects of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause and the Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof Clause. It is your right to disagree with me, and to tell me I'm wrong and show me exactly why you think that I'm wrong. But calling a fellow FReeper a "DU troll" or a "phantom" is beyond the pale.

Second, I think Jefferson was correct in the sense that under federal law at the time of the founding, only persons whose father (mothers didn't count) was a U.S. citizen were U.S. citizens at birth, and thus "natural-born citizens." Like most nations, the U.S. had jus sanguinis at the time, and it was perfectly natural for Jefferson to say that only those that were natural-born citizens at the time could become president, since he was writing about the immediate future. But citizenship laws have changed over time, and the U.S. later adopted jus soli, meaning that, with few exceptions (about which I'll speak later), persons born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens at birth---one may not like the law, but it is the law. The laws also changed to allow the foreign-born children of U.S. mothers to be a citizen at birth as well if the mother met certain past residency requirements. These laws changed what it means to be a "natural-born citizen," just as later practices have changed what it means to be a member of "the militia" under the Second Amendment (it used to be all able-bodied white men (see Dred Scott), then all able-bodied men irrespective of race, and now "the militia" would also include women).

In other words, the principle remains the same: only U.S. citizens at birth can become president. In Jefferson's time, only persons whose father was a U.S. citizen were U.S. citizens at birth, so "natural-born citizens" correctly was limited to persons whose father was a U.S. citizen. But with changes in law, paternal jus sanguinis has been replaced with the American state of law in which almost all persons born in the U.S., and most foreign-born children of U.S. citizens (irrespective of whether the U.S. citizen is the father or the mother), are U.S. citizens at birth. This changed the definition of who is a U.S. citizen at birth, and thus a person born in Chicago with a Polish father and an American mother would be a natural-born citizen today (but not in 1789) while an English-born child of a red-blooded American that moved abroad as a child and an Englishwoman would not be a natural-born citizen today (but would have been in 1789). The principle stays the same, but the law changes. I assume that you have read the 1988 Yale Law Journal on the subject, but just in case, here's a link: http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/pryor_note.pdf.

I will now address the issue of "anchor babies," since it seems to permeate this thread. The term "anchor baby" refers to a child born in the U.S. both of whose parents are foreigners with no permanent right to reside in the U.S.; when the "anchor baby" turns 18, he has the right to live in the U.S. and claim his parents as immediate family, thus giving them legal U.S. residency at such time. You can count me among the group of legal scholars (not to say that I'm a law professor or anything) that believe that when Section 1 of the 14th Amendment says that "all persons born in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the U.S. and the state in which they reside" that the term "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes from the recognition of citizenship not only the children of ambassadors (which is what, incorrectly in my opinion, courts have so limited the exclusion) but also the children of foreigners with no permanent right to reside in the U.S. I think that it is incorrect to interpret the 14th Amendment to grant U.S. citizenship to the children of two foreign college students even if the baby is born in the U.S., much less to the children of two tourists or of two illegal aliens. However, when I say that such clause in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted, I mean that Congress should be allowed to change U.S. citizenship laws so that the U.S.-born children both of whose parents are illegal aliens, or have tourist visas, or have student visas, etc., are not deemed to be U.S. citizens at birth. It does not mean that federal laws extending birthright citizenship to such babies are unconstitutional, and so long as federal law provides citizenship at birth to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens will be citizens at birth.

The citizenship of all of those "anchor babies" is water under the bridge, and what we have to do to fix the problem prospectively is to have Congress (i) change the law so that only babies with at least one parent that is either a U.S. citizen or a U.S. permanent resident can obtain U.S. citizenship by virtue of their birth in the U.S. and (ii) change the law so that "anchor babies" can't automatically bring their parents to the U.S. once they turn 18. BTW, I first wrote about this on FR several years ago, and if you have the time to go through my thousands of posts you will find that I wrote then pretty much what I wrote now about how to solve the "anchor baby" problem. And that's my take on the two, tangentially related, subjects of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause and the Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof Clause. It is your right to disagree with me, and to tell me I'm wrong and show me exactly why you think that I'm wrong. But calling a fellow FReeper a "DU troll" or a "phantom" is beyond the pale.