Posted on 08/18/2015 3:22:38 PM PDT by cotton1706
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. - US Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1
(Excerpt) Read more at law.cornell.edu ...
*sigh*
Can you be under several jurisdictions at the same time? Of course you can. You can be under the jurisdiction of the country you are visiting AND under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Jurisdiction does not mean citizenship. Jurisdiction is one of the requirements for citizenship spelled out in the Constitution.
This is getting ridiculous.
There are good arguments for this, but those arguments have been tried at the Supreme Court (Inglis, Ark, and others) and have not convinced the majority of the Court in any case.
The easiest, quickest and most solid way to fix this is simply to amend the Constitution. Just add the phrase “and whose mother is legally a permanent resident of the United States,” to the 14th amendment.
That’s all that is needed.
Making up crap and blustering about in the insane arguments and conjectures that dominate these discussions is ridiculous.
This is why the Amendment needs to amended — to specify that he children of illegals are an exception to the birthright citizenship provisions. And do away with any and all uncertainty.
Because the way it reads now — is that citizenship is automatic regardless of whether or not the parents are illegals.
I love it that the conversation has evolved to this. Good jump Mr. Trump.
I love it that the conversation has evolved to this. Good job Mr. Trump.
B U M P
It has more to do with deliberate misinterpretation and refusal to accept the English Language as written and defined, see cases involving the 2nd Amendment, or the Interstate Commerce Clause for some of the most egregious bastardization of the meaning of words and sentence structure.
If the baby is under the jurisdiction of the country of the parent the they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. Remarkably straightforward, actually.
The Germans were executed as spies, not soldiers.
Correct.
Entering the country illegally is an AFFIRMATION by the immigrant that they are NOT under US Jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction is a two-way street.
There you go, they are enemy combatants.
“The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.”
Why did they say “in amity” - “friendship; peaceful harmony”? If someone enters my house illegally, without my permission, are they in peaceful harmony with me?
When Rome sent people into England illegally in the 1500s, with the intent to overthrow Queen Elizabeth, were they in amity and under the jurisdiction of the Queen?
Ligaility suggests someone “owing primary allegiance and service to a feudal lord”. Do illegal aliens owe primary allegiance and service to the USA? Can we draft them?
Are their children born in “obedience” to the King - or, in the case of the USA, to the Republic? How can they be in obedience if they are here in disobedience?
“Faith” suggests “the obligation of loyalty or fidelity”. Does someone here illegally have the obligation of loyalty and fidelity to the USA?
In what sense, then, is someone born here to an illegal alien born to someone who meets the tests spelled out by the Supreme Court for being “under the jurisdiction”?
They’re just setting themselves up for more disappointment in this latest Unicorn hunt. ;’)
Actual constitutional analysis going on here. That is rare these days.
The law itself:
Under current immigration law—found at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)—a baby born on American soil to a (1) foreign ambassador, (2) head of state, or (3) foreign military prisoner is not an American citizen.
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides: “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.”
The Civil Rights Act [1866] included a definition for national citizenship, to guarantee that former slaves would forever be free of the infamous Dred Scott decision which declared black people were not American citizens. That provision read, “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”
That was the original meaning of the jurisdiction language in the Fourteenth Amendment. A person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States is a person who is “not subject to any foreign power”—that is, a person who was entirely native to the United States, not the citizen or subject of any foreign government.
Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution, Congress has absolute power to make laws for immigration and for granting citizenship to foreigners. Congress’s current INA is far more generous than the Constitution requires.
In case law:
In 1884, the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins noted that the language of the Civil Rights Act was condensed and rephrased in the Fourteenth Amendment and that courts can therefore look to the Civil Rights Act to understand better the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that if a person is a foreign citizen, then their children are likewise not constitutionally under the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore not entitled to citizenship. In fact, the Court specifically then added that this rule is why the children of foreign ambassadors are not American citizens.
That is why Congress can specify that the children of foreign diplomats and foreign soldiers are not Americans by birth. They’re not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Congress’s INA does not grant them citizenship; federal law never has.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/18/constitution-doesnt-mandate-birthright-citizenship/
Children of those illegally in the United States are NOT subject to its jurisdiction.
*******************************************************************************************************
I agree.
Pregnant Chinese mothers who arrive in the US to deliver their babies are CHINESE SUBJECTS and subject to Chinese jurisdiction not American subjects. The same thing applies to the illegals...they are SUBJECTS and citizens of whatever cesspool country they come from and are NOT American subjects.
Yep, Levin took Napolitano to task on his show.
The 14A is anything but clear. It is the worst written amendment ever but I don’t think we need another amendment.
Take a look at the Breibart argument on post #53.
Are their children born in “obedience” to the King - or, in the case of the USA, to the Republic? How can they be in obedience if they are here in disobedience?
___________________________________________
:)
Yes, Congress can simply pass a law (once a good conservative such as Ted Cruz has been sworn in). That is IF the despicable Mitch McConnell allows it to pass the Senate. He has a million excuses for why he can’t pass laws that are for the good of the country ...other than those good for the ‘RATS or the GOPe campaign contributors and lobbyists.
I don’t think Congress has to pass a law because as the Breibart article explains, based on a reasonable argument applying the Constitutional as written and originally intended and understood along with well-reasoned case law, denying citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is fully consistent with the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment.
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.