Posted on 08/19/2015 11:44:28 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Nationally syndicated radio talk show host Mark Levin cleared up any confusion as to the Constitutionality of “birthright citizenship” on his program Tuesday saying, the idea that “the Constitution embraces birthright citizenship … is completely false.”
“Birthright citizenship,” declared Mark Levin. “I have discussed this a few times in my radio career – I think 2009. Maybe it was 2010. I think once or twice since then. And unfortunately, I had to watch on TV, while I was in California, some so-called experts tell us – and former Bush appointees, and a former superior court judge in New Jersey tell us – that the Constitution embraces birthright citizenship, and there’s not a damn thing we can do about it. Well that, of course, is completely false.”
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Birthright citizen ship only occurs when a parent is under the jurisdiction (legal jurisdiction, ie citizen) when the child is born.
Or at least that is HOW/WHY the 14th was written.
PING
Exactly....but the left, RINOs, MSM, and their ilk want the law written for THEIR conveniences...not America’s....
This isn’t just about illegal aliens - ‘birthright citizenship’ shouldn’t be conferred upon the children of legal non immigrant aliens either.
Below is an expanded argument showing why denying citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is fully consistent with the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. There is actual constitutional analysis going on here. That is rare these days. Link at the bottom.
[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.
Slavery...the mistake that keeps on giving.
“This isn’t just about illegal aliens - ‘birthright citizenship’ shouldn’t be conferred upon the children of legal non immigrant aliens either.”
CORRECT
I’ve seen some adamant FReepers posting that the 14th amendment applies to illegals crossing the border and giving birth. I never did think that was the intention, and I am very happy that it is being discussed. Some of these liberals that are are feverishly defending the wording of the 14th conveniently ignore the wording of the 2nd.
Amen!
That’d what my professors taught me in 60s. When did it change and why?
A legal immigrant also falls under the jurisdiction.
Interesting tidbit: Jindal’s parents were NOT here on immigrant visas when he was born, and he was never naturalized, either. In other words, Jindal is a citizen of India, not the United States.
So then according to Levin Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio are not citizens at all, much less natural born citizens?
No, a legal immigrant is still a foreigner or alien, and their children not eligible for birthright citizenship. At least so far as Levin is concerned.
It’s the law.
They’re not NBCs that’s for sure.
Part of the problem is that there are two conflicting
Supreme court rulings. One in 1884 and one in 1896 (I think) with the latter causing the problem. The latter one also said the Congress couldn’t change their ruling by statute. Congress is the final arbiter of immigration, plane and simple. They don’t even need the President. They dictate the rules. They have allowed their power to be diminished in this area. Time to reassert themselves. Congress can also put items out of the Supreme Court’s hands. I did not say that well, but you get the idea.
yes.....you’re finally seeing the light
Mark Levin: Congress can end birthright citizenship without amending the Constitution
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.