It's time to 'reimagine' birthright citizenship

The American Thinker ^ | July 11, 2018 | Brian Lonergan

[EXCH54FE]

Now comes a whopper: much of what the American public has been told about birthright citizenship is wrong. The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) recently filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Fitisemanu v. United States, a case of birthright citizenship currently before the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah. In its brief, IRLI attorneys did not take a position on the primary issue in Fitisemanu: whether American Samoa is part of the United States for purposes of citizenship. The brief instead examined the overarching matter of birthright citizenship. Namely, does the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution grant automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are not U.S. residents, or who are in the country without permission? The findings may well topple conventional wisdom about one of the crown jewels of the left's immigration agenda.

Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/07/its_time_to_reimagine_birthright_citizenship_.html#ixzz5KzSvn3SL Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[mlo]

The article is wrong about Wong. It did not hold that the parent’s status was necessary.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

[DoughtyOne]

Nope!

[Altura Ct.]

Yep end birthright citizenship

[DoughtyOne]

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.

Children born of illegal alien foreign nationals in the United States are foreign nationals.

Their parents are subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico. That's why we jettison them back to Mexico.

They are not subject to the laws of our nation other than to be deported or arrested for crimes, and if you want to disagree with that, just ask the government of Mexico if they are subject to our laws.

Mexico screams bloody murder every time we put one of it's favorite sons or daughters on death row. It says we have no right to do that.

Once a foreign national becomes a citizen, they are then "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

We have a set policy that has to be followed for foreign nationals to become "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Illegal aliens have not complied with that policy.

[Electric Graffiti]

The courts can’t make anyone a citizen. Children born to foreign nationals, whether here legally or illegally, are citizens in name only. IOW, court created citizens. Congress has sole authority over naturalization.

[Phlyer]

"The 14th Amendment does not condone birthright citizenship for illegal alien children."

Yes, it does.

People are making a lot of definitive statements - on both sides - without support. It seems appropriate to me to examine the language rather than just make didactic statements.

The 14th Amendment actually says, "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 State wherein they reside."

So, are there any conditions under which a person could be born in this country and not gain citizenship for that reason alone? To me, the key is the phrase, " . . . subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . ." So, the question becomes: Are there any conditions under which a person could be born in this country and not be 'under the jurisdiction' of the United States?

What about fugitives from justice? Have they rejected the jurisdiction of the US, and not be ''under' that jurisdiction since they are fugitives?

I'm not going to provide my own opinion on that question, except to say that the answer is not black and white. It is subject to interpretation. Since the Constitution provides for formal determination of interpretations like that, and it's not a bunch of private citizens posting to discussion boards, I don't think we can be absolute in our statements.

On either side.

[Electric Graffiti]

No it doesn't

[philman_36]

A link to show the info in the image is right...

Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session Page 2890 of 3840

Middle column - 1/2 way down.

[Kickass Conservative]

Time to reimagine “Natural Born Citizen”...

[Phlyer]

. . . the info in the image is right...

So what? The Constitution does not start out, "We, the Lawyers and Judges . . ." or "We, the Landed Gentry of Virginia" or any other authoritative subset of "We, the People."

The Constitution means what it says to "We, the People", not what someone claims it says, no matter what his background might be. If someone's reasoning is compelling - including the original author - then 'We, the People' will agree with his reasoning. But it won't be because of what he meant it to say, but because of his compelling analysis of what it actually says.

Our agreement with ourselves is that "We, the People" will speak through our representatives, who in turn will select judges to interpret general laws in specific applications - aided by juries if necessary. If "We, the People" don't agree with their interpretations, then we vote them out (or vote in those who will impeach the judges). None of that is resolved by an ad hominem argument that some specific person's opinion is all that matters. That is as bad as the whole 'Living Constitution' obscenity where some judge's opinion can overrule the written words of the Constitution.

[philman_36]

Are you saying that the debate in Congress, provided in my link, on the adoption of the 14th Amendment is irrelevant?

[Flavious_Maximus]

As a free man you would still be a ward of the state. It was another word for those people who were subjects, tax payers, etc. You were under the protection of the government of the United States while foreigners had no such protection.

[Lurkinanloomin]

We have lots of freepers who think Anwar Al-Awlaki’s kids born in Yemen to one citizen parent are natural born citizens of the USA eligible to be President.

Natural born citizens are naturally citizens because they have only one nationality.

[billakay]

While I agree in principle that children of illegal aliens are not supposed to be US citizens at birth, I don't believe that the claim you make in your post is correct.

What about the case of two citizen parents, who give birth abroad. By all accounts, the child is a US citizen at the moment of his or her birth ("natural-born citizen"), but that child may have additional natural citizenships.

What if one parent is a US citizen who has additional citizenships that may be prohibitively expensive or impossible to abandon?

This question is not all black and white.

[Yaelle]

We need the amendment to be clearer. Case law shows that truly, only babies born here to legal residents have birthright. If you are a tourist or illegal, nope. We need to fix this ASAP.

[Dagnabitt]

We need to stop all third world immigration, legal or illegal.

Hispanic migration, in particular, is destroying our homeland. Courtesy of this voting block, California, Reagan’s home is now a left wing playground. The poison of Hispanic voting has also flipped CO and VA to the anti-American party.

[Phlyer]

Are you saying that . . . is irrelevant?

No. If it provides an analysis of the words as written that we find compelling, then it's very useful. However, if it just contains the opinion of individuals on what the 14th Amendment "should" mean, or what they "wanted" it to mean, then it's no more compelling than your private opinion, or mine.

Any argument . . . any argument where the point is who said something is ad hominem. What matters is what the words say, and what the simplest, most direct reading of the words mean.

Even then there will be room for interpretation, such as whether "under the jurisdiction thereof" includes fugitives from justice. But that interpretation question arises from the words themselves, not what someone wanted or intended them to mean - except to the point that the person makes a compelling case that what he 'wanted or intended' them to mean is the most straightforward interpretation of the words - and that applies regardless of who is making the case.

[Lurkinanloomin]

Citizen at birth and natural born citizen are not the same.
Natural born citizen was chosen as it excludes those with multiple citizenships.

http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

[billakay]

Great read!