Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison

Center for Immigration Studies ^ | August 2010 | John Feere

[Electric Graffiti]

Mark is really on fire.

I tried to catch him on Hannity but missed the interview.....

BTW, Ted Baxter aka Bill Oreilly is doubling down on his stance that the 14th makes anchor babies citizens. He dared people to prove him wrong. Baxter is really losing it....LMAO.

[Red Steel]

I noticed that OReilly started pontificating over one line (*stare decisis not cited) in an INS 1985 case, and like he really knew it all along.

Many of those SCOTUS justices are up there in ages. The next president if Conservative may have the chance remake the court to rewrite their errors.

If Trump becomes president, I bet he’s going to redo the Ted Kennedy 1965 Immigration Act.

*gratuitous conflation of US v. WKA I suppose.

[TBP]

“[S]ubject to the jurisdiction thereof” would not be necessary had the framers of the amendment intended to grant birthright citizenship. Had they intended that, they could simply have written that all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States. That they did not tells us something.

The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means “owing allegiance thereto” — which illegal aliens don’t. Their presence is by definition outside our laws and they still owe and retain allegiance to whatever rotten little satrapy they came from.

So of course they can be denied birthright citizenship without amending the Constitution. And they should be.

[mlo]

"The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means “owing allegiance thereto”..."

There's no need or justification to make the words into something else. It means exactly what it says, "subject to the jurisdiction". People that are subject to the law, and not people who are not.

[DiogenesLamp]

Wow...wow. Mark Levin just redeemed himself entirely. He had on a guest speaker that downed the leftist’s canard of common law. Mark said those who want children of aliens to be citizens need to amend the Constitution....not the other way around. I thought he had you on for a minute there ;)

I'm a bit confused as to your meaning here. Are you saying i'm putting forth the leftest canard of common law? Because I assure you it is the very opposite. I agree with Mark Levin's new found respect for the "Birther" position, and it's good to see he's finally joined us where we were seven years ago instead of constantly attacking us as not knowing what we are talking about.

Yes, if you want automatic citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, you would have to amend the constitution to grant it, not the other way around.

I likewise believe that anyone getting citizenship from the 14th amendment, is not the same as a "natural born" citizen.

[TBP]

Illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” because they owe allegiance elsewhere, just as Indians were not covered by the jurisdiction clause until Congress passed a statute making them part of it.

[TBP]

Illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” because they owe allegiance elsewhere, just as Indians were not covered by the jurisdiction clause until Congress passed a statute making them part of it.

[TBP]

People that are subject to the law, and not people who are not.

Then there is no need for it. If the framers of the amendment had intended to make everyone born here a citizen, they would have done so, and the jurisdiction clause would not be there.

[betty boop]

I’m trying to approach this from a literalist point of view to arrive at the “birthright advocates’” position on the ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ question.

I strongly doubt the literalist position will give you much purchase on this problem. Literalists read everything "literally." Which is an approach to solving problems without regard to any overarching context. All questions have only "binary" answers: Yes/No; true/false; 1/0.

So Literalists glom onto the "all persons born or naturalized in the United States...are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." And totally ignore the the highly significant qualifier: "and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" part in the Article XIV, Section 1 definition of "citizen."

I think Thomas Jefferson may have had something similar in mind, when he observed that it would be "absurd to sacrifice the ends to the means," when by so doing "would be to lose the law [the means] itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them [the ends]."

In short, Jefferson does not forget the human moral "context": The "end" or purpose of American government is to secure the liberties of the people, and defend them against all enemies foreign and domestic. The Constitution is the primary tool for doing this.

I gather what TJ was suggesting was a possible future scenario in which the Constitution would be habitually construed as mere words on paper. His main concern seems to be about what happens to the Law, when the upholders and principal defenders of that very Law — the very People who whole-heartedly consent to live under it, who give their allegiance to it — are wiped off the map — by mere execution of "law"???

I hear a lot of people nowadays, screaming that "birthright citizenship" is lawfully enshrined forever under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. [Dubious to me.]

But still, one does want to ask about the qualifier, "and subject to the jurisdiction of...."

My sense is (FWIW) the clarification of this language does not depend on a constitutional amendment. The U.S. Congress can lawfully take care of it.

What I have in mind is a bill in the House of Representatives that, if passed, would proceed to the Senate for its vote. We'll call this bill "the Sense of Congress" ON THE ISSUE AT HAND [ birthright citizenry] — that If passed by simple majority in both houses, would be sent to the Supreme Court.

And methinks the Supreme Court would have to take notice of it: Article III, Section 2, clearly states that Congress has the power to regulate what kinds of cases the SCOTUS hears, and also what kinds of rules pertain to the deliberation of such cases:

"...the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.