Posted on 08/18/2015 6:59:52 PM PDT by GilGil
Mark Levin has done a whole show today on birthright citizenship. This would be the 8/18/2015 show. He made it very clear that birthright citizenship is not in the constitution or protected under the constitution for foreigners. He went into the history of who has the right to citizenship as defined in the jurisdiction clause of the 14th amendment . He also goes into the fact that congress has the right to define who gets citizenship under article 1,section 8. This discussion is very very specific and shows that this mess is a failure of congress to act and nothing more.
It is an outstanding briefing if you are all confused.
Bfl
bttt
It is very clear especially if you read the comments by the authors of the 14th amendment. They explicitly prohibit foreigners from such protection or benefit.
You are correct and so is Levin.
Right, because, like I said, Mexico's law regarding Mexican citizenship has no bearing on US citizenship.
Immigration claimed he was an alien ineligible for re-entry into the United State due to the Chinese exclusion act passed after his birth.
So immigration was not only claiming he didn't have citizenship but was ineligible to return to the country based on an act passed long after he was born.
This is a huge difference from an illegal alien bypassing normal immigration procedures to drop an anchor baby.
Please explain how it is that a foreigner can be granted citizenship without being naturalized first? Amnesty is a form of naturalization afterall.
You want to get in on this and look who is here.
PING
Sorry! Since you are the expert then take the time to educate and us under which laws you base your disagreements. Here is a better one for you. Listen to the Levin show and systematically refute everything he says or what you do not agree with. Are you willing to take that level of effort? That would be very helpful and very useful.
That would be an excellent start and you would all educate on just how much you know and it would attest to your credibility.
When I listen to Levin or Hugh Hewitt what I like about them is that they discuss the law and how it applies. If you want to establish yourself as the expert you’ll have to work for it. Listen to Levin and show how you disagree and why and under what laws.
I would love that!
That would be useful.
The rest is totally BS!
I think the laws are now seat of the pants. Whatever rule applies at the time is law. I guess.
While I’m not in favor of birthright citizenship, it appears to me that the Supreme Court has interpreted the jurisdictional issue to exclude only ambassadors or others directly assigned to be in the U.S. by a foreign government, and that all others born here are automatically granted U.S. citizenship.
Since the Court decides what the current Constitution says, it would seem to me that it would require a Constitutional Amendment to change the current situation.
As for Trump, he wouldn’t know the Constitution if it bit him in the butt. Remember, he’s held more Dem policy positions than GOP positions in the past. To claim that he’s got a good read on the Constitution on this issue is ridiculous, especially since the Supreme Court has already ruled opposite to his view. Not only does he say what people want to hear, but it’s even worse. People are now hearing what they want to hear even if Trump hasn’t actually said it. He’s espoused several different positions on PP in the last two weeks and his supporters just pick the one they like. Makes being a politician easy.
Correct!
“... because the relevant person for 14th Amendment purposes is not the illegal alien him/herself, but rather the U.S.-born child. Levin may be correct that the illegal intentionally rejects U.S. jurisdiction, but the question of whether the child is subject to U.S. jurisdiction is far less clear. “
Incorrect. If it was correct, the children of ambassadors and of an invading army would be citizens by birth. They are not because THEIR PARENTS were not under the jurisdiction, or, in the words of Wong Kim Ark:
“predicable of aliens in amity” - in amity, ie, in mutual friendship with...
“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.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
Here is the shortened version for anyone who wishes to email it to anyone:
Mark Levin: Congress can end birthright citizenship without amending the Constitution
Listen to the show and the case Levin is making about article 1, section 8 and tee authority of congress. You might learn something.
Thought I’d repeat it, since it seem highly relevant:
“...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.”
“...the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation...”
Sounds about right to me!
Mark Levin says the congress has the power to go over the heads of the Supreme court in this matter!
You disagree with him because you can’t comprehend the fact that birthright citizenship is a creation of the Supreme Court rather than having been instituted by the 14th Amendment which it wasn’t. Levin quoted the man who wrote the specific provolision. He laid out exactly who it covered and who it didn’t. It did not cover foreign nationals or their children born here. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
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.