How you going to pay for it Trump?
How, huh how?.
They are citizens you moron.
Posted on 08/28/2015 3:03:00 PM PDT by betty boop
Thanks in very large part to The Donald, the illegal immigration issue has come raging to the fore in the consciousness of a great many American citizens (and others) in recent times. People are not only thinking about the issue, but they have started talking about it, oftentimes with great passion. And this is so regardless of which side of the dispute the contenders align with.
It seems there are two basic, contending schools of thought, both premised in the Fourteenth Amendment, which says:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.
School I cherry picks this language to give a certain result: That all persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States. This is the jus soli doctrine boiled down to its essence: That citizenship is a matter of geography, and of nothing else. If you are born on U.S. soil, you are automatically a citizen of the United States. Your parents’ heritage or status as citizens of a foreign country, who are in the U.S. illegally — i.e., operating entirely outside of our visa, immigration and naturalization laws —are completely irrelevant considerations. And thus we obtain automatic “birthright citizenry.”
School II points out that this reading of the Fourteenth gives short shrift to the clause, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and obviates the matter of State citizenship altogether (and thus the entire idea of any established permanent residency within the bounds of the nation). The School II proponents gravitate to the jus sanguinis doctrine: A child born no matter where is regarded, naturally and in common law (and common sense), as inheriting his citizenry from his parents; from the moment of his birth.
It cannot be doubted that Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution vests plenary power in Congress to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Clarifying “birthright citizenship,” thus, does not require a repeal of the Fourteenth Amendment, as some commentators insist; it just requires Congress to act. Nor does the Constitution place this power in the hands of the Supreme Court.
From an excellent “backgrounder” published by the Center for Immigration Studies (August 2010) — “Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison,” by Jon Feere — we have seven main scholarly findings regarding “birthright citizenship,” as follows:
• Only 30 of the world’s 194 countries grant automatic citizenship to children born to illegal aliens.
• Of advanced economies, Canada and the United States are the only countries that grant automatic citizenship to children born to illegal aliens.
• No European country grants automatic citizenship to children of illegal aliens.
• The global trend is moving away from automatic birthright citizenship as many countries that once had such policies have ended them in recent decades.
• 14th Amendment history seems to indicate that the Citizenship Clause was never intended to benefit illegal aliens nor legal foreign visitors temporarily present in the United States.
• The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the U.S.-born children of permanent resident aliens are covered by the Citizenship Clause [see the Wong decision; notably, Wong was the U.S.-born child of legal, permanently-resident aliens], but the Court has never decided whether the same rule applies to the children of aliens whose presence in the United States is temporary or illegal. [That would likely be because the Court understands that it does not have the constitutional power or authority to do this. To recognize the plenary power of Congress in this matter is to recognize that the issue must be decided through the political, not the judicial branches of government.]
• Some eminent scholars and jurists have concluded that it is within the power of Congress to define the scope of the Citizenship Clause through legislation and that birthright citizenship for the children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens could likely be abolished by statute without amending the Constitution.
The global trend over the past several decades has shown many countries that formerly defined citizenship according to the “right of the soil” (jus soli) principle have abandoned this practice. Freer writes,
In recent years, the international trend has been to end universal birthright citizenship. Countries that have ended universal birthright citizenship include the United Kingdom, which ended the practice in 1983, Australia (1986), India (1987), Malta (1989), Ireland, which ended the practice through a national referendum in 2004, New Zealand (2006), and the Dominican Republic, which ended the practice in January 2010. The reasons countries have ended automatic birthright citizenship are diverse, but have resulted from concerns not all that different from the concerns of many in the United States. Increased illegal immigration is the main motivating factor in most countries. Birth tourism was one of the reasons Ireland ended automatic birthright citizenship in 2004. If the United States were to stop granting automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, it would be following an international trend.
Oh, that unlovely child of jus solis doctrine, “birth tourism!” We have that over here, in the U.S., in spades! It defies logic; it defies reason; it defies common sense.
Though the major impact of “birthright citizenry” is caused by invasions over our southern border, and mainly by Mexicans (according to the statistics they account for 60 percent of the illegal immigrant population in the United States), it cannot fairly be said that Mexican nationals can be held mainly accountable for the phenomenon of “birth tourism.” As it turns out, Chinese and Turk “anchor babies” have exploited this particular form of entrepreneurial activity more than other “anchor baby” groups.
“Birth tourism” takes the form of providing wonderful tourist packages marketed to foreign nationals who wish to birth their babies on U.S. soil, so to make them instant citizens, while receiving splendid amenities during their stay in the U.S.: Good hotels, medical care, shopping, touring the local landmarks, etc., etc. It’s a “package deal!” [At rates in the multi-thousands of dollars per trip for those who can pay.]
So, say a Chinese expectant mother, who likely was educated in the United States (and thus had a legitimate visa to be here at one time), along with her husband likewise situated, who both had to pay small fortunes for their tuition, might realize that U.S. tuition rates at first-rate American universities would be far cheaper, were their child a U.S. citizen. So, make your kid a U.S. citizen! The Fourteenth Amendment lets you do it! So enjoy your stay, drop the kid, and go back to China. There is rarely any intention of becoming a permanent resident of the United States in any of this, let alone a citizen.
But the most egregious example of abuse of the prevailing construction of the Fourteenth Amendment goes to Turkey. A family of Turkish citizenry, illegally present in the United States to this day, as founded on a single “anchor baby,” managed to establish in the U.S. a thriving hotel chain that caters to the U.S. “birthright citizenry” interests of Turkish nationals. And to add insult to injury, one learns that certain hospitals on the southern U.S border likewise engage in this trade, offering “package deals,” mainly marketed to Mexican nationals.
But I am encouraged to learn that, recently, certain hospitals on the southern border have refused to issue birth certificates to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. No birth certificate, no proof of American birth. Kudos to them. [See ya’ll in court!!!]
This nonsense has to stop. And Congress alone has been invested with the constitutional duty to do it. It NEEDS to define the meaning of the “under the jurisdiction of” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, and of the prior Civil Rights Act of 1866, point clearly to the matter of undivided allegiance to one’s country as the key determinative factor in defining U.S. citizenship. Only those people are the people fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
As Thomas Jefferson defined it, “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” They are those who have not given their allegiance to the United States, because they are under allegiance to another nation.
With that thought in view, consider these chilling lines, from Jon Freer:
Are illegal aliens subject to the authority of the United States? Not in the way contemplated by authors of the 14th Amendment. … [T]he authors of the 14th Amendment explained that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States means not owing allegiance to anybody else.
Without asking immigrants themselves, we cannot know where their allegiances lie, but in the case of Mexican immigrants, who constitute nearly 60 percent of the illegal alien population in the United States, we do know what their government thinks. It appears these individuals owe at least partial, if not complete allegiance to the government of Mexico.
For example, in its recent amicus brief to the U.S. District Court overseeing the injunction hearing on Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration bill S.B. 1070, the government of Mexico refers to Mexican illegal aliens as “its people” and “its citizens.” This is not a new perspective.
Former Mexican President Vicente Fox appointed one Juan Hernandez to head a governmental agency called the Institute for Mexicans Abroad. According to Mr. Hernandez’s own website, the agency’s principal objective is to “serve and dignify the 24 million whom President Fox has called heroes — the countrymen who live in foreign lands.” Mr. Hernandez explains: “We are betting on that the Mexican-American population in the United States…will think ‘Mexico first’ … But now I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think ‘Mexico first.’”
Can you think of a better enabling principle for the Mexican Reconquista of the United States? Mexico has never recovered from the defeat of Santa Ana at San Jacinto, meted out by the hands of feisty Texans. Mexico receives billions of dollars a year in payments from their out-of-the-country population, which is probably a main support of subsistence and lifestyle for a great many of its citizen/nationals living within its geographic borders.
If Congress will not do its duty to define U.S. immigration/naturalization law, then likely our policy in such matters will be left to the determination of foreign governments.
No wonder The Donald has a “beef” with the Mexican government!
It’s time — past time — for Congress to do its constitutional duty to clarify such critical, even existential, matters.
The evident fact, however, is Congress is loathe to do so.
What a clown college they have got going on there! On the one side, the clowns demand endless, indiscriminate immigration, evidently thinking they can register millions of new (ignorant, mainly low-skilled, unculturated, non-English-speaking) Democrat voters.
On the other hand, you have the Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, National Association of Manufacturers types who fund the GOP, who only want an unlimited supply of cheap labor. Not that they care at all about how this undermines blue-collar and middle-class employment in this country, and how it suppresses U.S. wage rates and standards of living.
Then they have the chutzpah to demand that the very people whose policies they are disadvantaging must pay all the costs associated with these “newcomers,” as federal and state taxpayers.
Am I alone in thinking that this is a horrifically corrupt, deranged system of governance that has completely departed from constitutional requirements — to which each legislator (and judge) has sworn an Oath of Office to uphold and defend?
Time to get rid of such folks, time to remove them from public office.
It’s time to bring in new national leadership, who understand and love the United States of America, “warts and all.”
We aren’t a “perfect union.” But we have ever strived towards that end.
Let’s keep on doing that. Let’s make America great again.
JMHO, FWIW.
How would your post read any different if you were in favor of it?
Maybe the President can't but apparently the Vice President can or do you not remember the imposition of fees on cable/internet companies disguised as user fees to assure low cost internet to the masses. Al Gore proposed and imposed them.
Neither is the word "Is."
And who would know better than Thomas Jefferson? :)
Not at all. My comment was not pro or anti, just a recognition that the statement quoted did not support an argument against birthright citizenship.
That's interesting, but irrelevant in this discussion. Thomas Jefferson was not involved in drafting the 14th amendment, and he was not the source of the quote, so how he would have defined the term makes no difference in how the text is interpreted.
Of course Thomas Jefferson was not involved in drafting the 14th amendment: He died July 4, 1826.
However, John P. Foley, in The Jefferson Cyclopedia: A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson, (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1900; p. 32), directly quotes Jefferson as writing, "Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power." The drafting of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment commenced in 1866, a mere 20 years after Jefferson's death.
It appears eminently reasonable to infer that Sen. Jacob Howard (R–MI) had Jefferson's maxim in mind, when he initiated debate on a resolution that would become the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment in 1866. In defining citizenship by birth, Howard explained:
“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."Sen Trumbull, sponsor of the 1866 Act, offered his definition of "subject to the jurisdiction":
"What do we mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."How Jefferson defined the term "alien" does indeed make a difference, if his understanding was reflected in the thinking of the Framers of the 14th. And the case is clear to me that it was.
Take the case of the Indian tribes. At the time of ratification, the Indian tribes were considered to be sovereign nations, owing allegiance to their respective tribe, not to the United States. Therefore, they were excluded from U.S. citizenship — on the basis of their alien status. The Citizenship Clause could not be applied to them, for they were regarded as "subjects of a foreign power."
Sen. Trumbull clarifies this:
“It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’”This was the understanding at the time the 14th Amendment was framed and ratified. (It matters not at all that American Indians received U.S. citizenship by statute, not by express operation of the 14th Amendment, in 1924.)
Jon Feere, in the CIS study I keep citing, has this to say (p. 8f):
If the question of “jurisdiction” boils down to one of allegiance, and under U.S. jurisprudence allegiance is a voluntary association, on what basis can a newborn child be found to have chosen an allegiance to his parent’s country over allegiance to the United States, or vice versa? It was understood by the authors of the 14th Amendment that jurisdiction as to the child would be imputed from the status of the parents.I'll just leave it there for now. Do your homework, CA Conservative!
Sen. Reverdy Johnson (D-Md.) explained that parents must be “subject to the authority” of the United States if their children born here are to be classified as having acquired the status of U.S. citizen:
“Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power…shall be considered as citizens of the United States. … [T]he amendment says that citizenship may depend on birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.” (emphasis added)Are illegal aliens subject to the authority of the United States? Not in the way contemplated by authors of the 14th Amendment. As explained earlier, the authors of the 14th Amendment explained that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States means not owing allegiance to anybody else.
Oooooopsie, make that "40 years."
Yes, and legal and constitutional scholars relied heavily heavily on the words of Jefferson. His legacy presence was never far even 80 years after his death.
Sorry, but you are still making two assumptions, at least one of which is disputed by the text of the quote in question. The first assumption is that the author of the quote had the same definition of aliens in mind as that of Jefferson. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't - there doesn't seem to be any definitive way of showing that. And the reason I said Jefferson's definition is irrelevant is because when interpreting any law that is ambiguous, the courts look at the legislative history and at the contemporaneous comments of the drafters of the law to provide context. They don't go back to statements of men long dead at the time the law was drafted unless the author of the law specifically references such as a source or authority for the law.
The second assumption is that, even if the author has Jefferson's definition of aliens in mind that it would somehow change that statement to mean 3 different groups, rather than one group. The structure of the sentence still reflects an intent for the term "aliens" to modify or clarify the term "foreigners". Actually, your argument that the term "aliens" refers to a particular class of foreigners supports the idea that the author only intended to restrict birthright citizenship to the class that he referenced, namely the families of ambassadors and foreign ministers. So this argument still does not support the idea that you are making.
Now I have heard others make better arguments about the intent of the drafters of the 14th that would argue against birthright citizenship. My only point is that focusing on this one quote undermines the argument, rather than supports it.
The author of the 14th amendment used the meaning that Jefferson stated. That was well-researched and presented by constitutional scholar and lawyer Mark Levin.
As betty boop says, do your homework.
The public is not yet fully aware of how the left has bamboozled them in creating a loophole for immigration attorneys to expand their business.
It will all come to a head over the next year and will result in overwhelming support for legislation to clarify exceptions under the 14th amendment. And the public is not going to be taking much more crap from Justice Kennedy and the other black robed subversives. Trump will knock them out with the FDR playbook if necessary.
Senator Howard mentions three classes: aliens, foreigners, and families of ambassadors. Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power; foreigners are overseas people temporarily in the country, as in tourists; ambassadors and ministers accredited to the U.S. government who are in the country to represent the interests of the foreign power that sent them are obviously "aliens" within Thomas Jefferson's meaning.
As were also the Indian tribes, who were regarded as giving their primary allegiance to their tribal governments — which meant they could not or would not give their primary allegiance to the United States.
The children of all four groups were considered ineligible for U.S. citizenship under the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment at the time of its framing. It all boils down to the matter of allegiance to the United States.
The terms "alien" and "foreigner" are not simply synonyms. Each term has its own particular meaning. TJ's definition of "alien" is specific, exact; "foreigners" is more of a catch-all, generic term. But you conflate them.
Consider this observation from Jon Feere:
Although, as a result of federal statutory law, all native-born Indians are regarded as citizens today, at the time of the 14th Amendment Indian tribes were treated as foreign powers, and members of the tribe were presumed to owe their first allegiance to the tribe. [Thus they are "aliens" within TJ's meaning, and not simply "foreigners."] There was no need to refer specifically to Indian tribes in the Amendment because it simply stood to reason that, for an Indian, mere presence in the United States could not be treated as a transfer of allegiance from his tribe to the United States. Query whether, in the 21st century, it stands to reason that a French tourist who gives premature birth to a child during a two-week visit to Disney World should, by virtue of her presence in Orlando, be regarded as having forsaken her allegiance to France.This French lady is a "foreigner."
The fact that she is also an "alien" within Jefferson's meaning is irrelevant given this state of facts: A mere visit to Disneyland does not even raise the issue of a consensual transfer of allegiance from France to the United States.
Your reading of this issue appears to be rather shallow and devoid of simple common sense. Just because Thomas Jefferson was not alive at the time the 14th Amendment was drafted does not mean that his influence on these deliberations was not deeply felt. (And you cannot demonstrate that it was not.)
What you seem to be doing, dear CA Conservative, with your line of argument, is "creating a loophole for immigration attorneys to expand their business," as Hostage put it. These types are in the business of torturing texts to make them say whatever it is they want them to say. This "textual approach" completely obscures the underlying meaning and rationale of the 14th Amendment.
God knows we have enough of that sort of thing already.
Hostage, I haven't seen Mark Levin's work regarding this. Got a link for me?
CITIZEN....
A Citizen of ONE place and NOT of another place is Natural law.. easy to discover and not hard to understand..
UNLESS you change what the “WORD” citizen means..
Citizens are human, not dead, and member of a particular society and culture..
AND NOT members of a different society and culture, dead, or not human..
This is TRUE no matter who says otherwise..
Changeing the “WORD” citizen to something ELSE as stated above is aggression to your culture, society, nationality, and political well being..
And should met with armed resistance, to THIS ENEMY, must be arrested prosecuted and either HUNG or Shot.. or other wise removed from appeal to the Citizens..
I totally agree with you, dear brother 'pipe!
Thank you for your outstanding insights!
HUGS!!!
It was a presentation on one of his radio shows and I believe a transcript is available. But it was a Monday I believe after Donald Trump announced and released his immigration reform overview which raised the subject of birthright citizenship as an issue for the campaign. It was not a new subject to Mark and other constitutional scholars but it was made anew by Donald Trump so Mark led with it on his show.
In Mark’s show he called out the specific words of the author of the 14th Amendment and talked about the exact definitions and meanings as stated by the author himself and it was clear that it was Jefferson’s same meaning and intent with respect to aliens, allegiance, citizenship. And there were many other issues at core and at the periphery that Mark discussed that were all tied back to the author of the 14th Amendment. It was a rock solid exposition by Mark Levin that showed without doubt whaT the 14th Amendment applied to and from where it derived.
If I can find the broadcast or its transcript I will post a link. I am tied up today so it’s not a priority at the moment sorry.
Liberals are desperate to make Illegals real voters in US elections.
They’ve aborted over 50 million of their potential voters.
Thanks for the BEEP!
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.