Posted on 08/23/2015 10:22:02 AM PDT by Rockitz
Myths about birthright citizenship—promoted by liberals, embraced by establishment Republicans, and repeated by mainstream media pundits without critical examination—have been debunked by experts spanning the political spectrum. But none of those people are being given A-list treatment by major media outlets to respond.
Instead, the voices given the biggest public platforms are commentators who lack any professional credentials on the topic, who breezily assure viewers that “of course everyone knows” that the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on everyone born in this country. And when the media occasionally puts on an opposition guest to provide a veneer of balanced reporting, they put on well-meaning individuals who are clearly not well grounded on this issue, who cannot make a compelling case and can’t answer hard questions.
But there are a plethora of legal experts who can field those questions. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause declares: “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.”
Breitbart News first explained that the debate of who becomes an American citizen by virtue of being born on U.S. soil turns on the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” And we later explained in greater detail how the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause over time supports the original meaning of that clause, a clause which does not extend citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. This is the third installment in this series of reports.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Breitbart News first explained that the debate of who becomes an American citizen by virtue of being born on U.S. soil turns on the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
What “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof” Really Means:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2139082/posts
MORE:
Using native Americans as a reference to show that “born on soil” does not always confer “natural born Citizen” status:
“After the Civil War when citizenship rights were extended through the Fourteenth Amendment to ex-slaves and to ‘{All} persons BORN or naturalized in the United States,’ that Amendment still excluded individual Indians from citizenship rights and excluded them from being counted towards figuring congressional representation unless they paid taxes. This demonstrates that Congress still considered Indians to be citizens of OTHER sovereign governments even in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.” (emphases mine)
http://www.flashpointmag.com/amindus.htm
STE=Q
O’Reilly can’t learn anything because he knows it all!
Thank you. I appreciate your response. It makes sense that would have been the starting point.
It also gives me a couple of other areas to research. :)
Whoever was the supposed ‘constitutional expert’ on with Judge Jeannine on the same show as the Trump interview, he said this: The phrase ‘and subject to the jurisdiction of’ excludes only people like foreign diplomats and a few other people who are not subject to our laws. His position was that illegal aliens, however illegal they might be, are subject to the jurisdiction of our laws.
The explanation that the original intent was to mean all those who are not citizens of another country (and babies born here whose parents are not citizens of another country) makes much more sense to me.
It does seem that congress has the power to overturn the Brennan interpretation with specific legislation and approval by a conservative president. Would love to see it but I'm afraid SCOTUS might find some way to them rule that legislation "unconstitutional." Especially with John Roberts at the helm. He's the new Earl Warren.
IMHO, Roberts does what he does because Obunga has something on him. That would end with Trump. Unless Obunga still has reach into the SCOTUS even after he’s out of office.
Ever hear of “Indians?” Ever hear of “Indian casinos?” Why have those casinos been able to operate operate “against the law?” Simple - the “Indians” were born in the United States, but they are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”In a similar way, foreign nationals (from Mexico or anywhere else) who enter the US against the law, and who are legally required to turn themselves in and leave America rather than colonizing it, are not “subject to the laws thereof.” They do not subject themselves to the laws of the US. Their very presence is illegal - they cannot be in the country and simultaneously claim to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US. That is inherently untrue.
At most it requires a mere act of Congress - not a constitutional amendment - to clarify that the government of the US does not accept the colonizing the US.
Upon due consideration I would like to repeat. SCOTUS does NOT set immigration law. Brennan’s footnote does not carry any legal authority. If he had spoken it rather than written it, it would have carried no more authority than flatulence in a hurricane. Of course, commie lib Brennan would steal any authority we permit him to get away with. In this case, it will not be permitted.
I’m confident Pres. Trump will make that clear at the proper time.
SCOTUS has ruled that the Indian NATIONS, are dependent Nations (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Peters) 1 (1831)). In Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Cherokee Nation was sovereign. Thus lands of the different Indian nations could not fall within state jurisdiction. By the way, if you are on Indian tribal lands and you break their laws, you will be arrested by tribal police and prosecuted in tribal court in most cases.
The SCOTUS Dred Scott decision (1857) comes along and rules that blacks can’t be citizens. Congress decides to over turn this decision (note the parallel to what you are recommending) with the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was further “enhanced” to prevent further congress from overturning the Civil Rights Act (parallel to what I am saying will happen ‘cause the Dems never give up) they passed the 14th Amendment. At the time of the amendment’s passage, three Senators, including Trumbull,[52] the author of the Civil Rights Act, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment would confer citizenship on such children at birth. Others, including the author of the citizenship clause put forward other interpretations. However, neither interpretation hold the weight of law. In the US, SCOTUS rules on the meaning and impact of laws.
Now SCOTUS has ruled that the 14th means anyone born in the boundaries of the US on US soil, is a US citizen. To change this all that has to be done is passing an act of Congress (like the civil rights act of 1866). Which WONT happen as long as the Uniparty is in power. And it will only take a mere act of Congress to reverse that policy if it ever gets put in place. It is also quite possible that SCOTUS will try and rule that the act is unconstitutional.
So to get rid of automatic birth right citizenship AND TO MAKE SURE IT STICKS, you need an amendment change (just exactly why they passed the 14th in the first place).
The supreme court can’t make anyone a citizen you ignorant fark.
The Constitution Article 1 section 8 clause 4 gives Congress plenary power to institute a uniform rule of naturalization. The 14th Amendment reaffirms Congress plenary power in clause 5.
The power of naturalization ie who is to become a citizen of the U.S. is an ENUMERATED power GIVEN SOLEY TO CONGRESS BY THE CONSTITUTION
So when SCROTUS wants to pipe up and write law from the bench as they did in Wong Kim Ark. Congress should have impeached the dirty black-robed farks.
Now, pull till ya hear a pop.
Please try to keep up and stop the name calling.
No one (well at least I have not) has ever said that SCOTUS has made anyone a citizen. SCOTUS has ruled that the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution provides for birthright citizenship. Congress’s enumerated powers are limited by the amendments to the constitution. Those powers have to be viewed together. For example, Congress has the power to “...To establish Post Offices and post Roads”. Congress also has the power to “...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers,...”
That being said Congress can not create a law that ALSO violates one of the amendments. For example should Congress pass a law that states that a person who is caught with the post in their possession may be sent to jail without trial - that law would be unconstitutional.
And by like measure, while Congress does have the enumerated power of naturalization, that power must also be exercised within the limits of the REST OF THE CONSTITUTION INCLUDING THE AMENDMENTS.
Thus ruling on how the 14th must be applied to citizenship is within the powers of SCOTUS. it is no different than applying the 1st amendment or the 5th amendment, etc to other acts of Congress.
From the full Plyler v. Doe decision [Link] is excerpted its holding:
Held: A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.Here's Brennen's infamous footnote is #10 [Link]:
Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. . . ." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it wasBut in the checking the full US v. Wong Kim Ark decision [Link] you'll find that Brennen ignored the following excerpt from Gray's conclusion:"impossible to construe the words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words 'within its jurisdiction,' in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons 'within the jurisdiction' of one of the States of the Union are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'"
Id. at 169 U. S. 687.
Justice Gray concluded that
"[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."
Id. at 169 U. S. 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912). {Red highlight added}
Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. {Red highlight added}
Brennen’s footnote is not worth a bucket of spit.
I honestly don’t know. I’ll leave it to the legal beagles of Trump’s administration to smoke out.
Meanwhile, I would hold still if a Freeper with an honest legal mind and no axe to grind would give his or her view. I’ve heard Mark Levin’s verdict that birthright citizenship is a crock. I lean that way.
Not according to SCOTUS. In City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), the Court ruled that Congress's enforcement power only means that Congress can enforce the 14A as interpreted by SCOTUS.
Repealing the 14th Amendment would mean the Bill of Rights would no longer apply to the States. That would lead to Blue States arresting all Conservatives, because the States would no longer have to comply with the 1st Amendment.
SCOTUS does not have the last word. The Constitution in its plain wording does, but Congress has to assert that, which it won’t. The Constitution gives Congress sole power to make the rules for citizenship. The 14th, which is so righteously cited doesn’t even address the issue at hand.
If they arrested these ILLEGALS before they enter the hospitals to have their spawn then we wouldn’t have to worry about the 14th.
The Congress has the sole power to determine the rules for naturalization, not citizenship. In Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), the Supreme Court shot down a federal law that said a person lost his citizenship if he voted in a foreign election. The Court held that the Citizenship Clause, not federal immigration laws, governed the case.
We have to think beyond anchor babies. Does anybody trust the Congress with plenary power to determine citizenship? I don't trust the Congress with the power to take away citizenship. Imagine what Pelosi, Reid, and the Liberal Messiah would have done with such authority.
This issue should be resolved via a Constitutional amendment. I trust the People, an Article V Convention, and the States a whole lot more than I do the Supreme Court or the Congress.
But I have been looking at this material all afternoon trying to figure out what the best approach to get rid of birthright citizenship would be. (and chain migration as well). One case refers to another and another and yet another. There is another thread on FR that deals with “domicile” that was very informative.
As much as I would like it to be, because I have always thought it was an abuse, no one is going to be able to wave their hand and say...Begone BRC and good riddance. I truly believe that it will take an amendment to the Constitution.
Another question came to mind while reading. Let's say that we had an acquiescent Congress and could get an amendment thru the states...would such an amendment be retroactive? If not, chain migration would still be a huge factor. If so...talk about opening a can of worms!
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.