U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Constitution Doesn’t Mandate Birthright Citizenship
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern ... andate-birthright-citizenship/
Published: Aug 18, 2015
Author: Ken Klukowski
Post Date: 2015-08-18 15:04:10 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 19977
Comments: 115
The Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment does not confer citizenship on the children of foreigners, whether legal or illegal. Media commentators have gotten this issue dead wrong. Fox News’s Judge Andrew Napolitano says the Fourteenth Amendment is “very clear” that its Citizenship Clause commands that any child born in America is automatically an American citizen. That’s not the law. It has never been the law. 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. How is that possible? This is from the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (INA), as it has been amended over the years. Is this federal law unconstitutional? No. 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.” Today’s debate turns on the six words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” As captured in the movie Lincoln, the Thirteenth Amendment—which ended slavery—barely passed Congress because many Democrats supported slavery, and it was only through the political genius and resolve of Republican President Abraham Lincoln that the proposed amendment passed Congress in 1865, sending it to the states for ratification. In 1866, Congress passed a Civil Rights Act to guarantee black Americans their constitutional rights as citizens, claiming that the Constitution’s Thirteenth Amendment gave Congress the power to pass such laws. But many voted against the Civil Rights Act because they thought it exceeded Congress’s powers, and even many of its supporters doubted its legality. The Civil Rights Act 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. The same members of Congress who voted for the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 then voted to define citizenship for freed slaves in a federal law in 1866, then voted again months later in 1866—using only slightly different language—to put that definition of citizenship in the Constitution, language that was ultimately ratified by the states in 1868 as the Fourteenth Amendment. 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. So why is a child born on American soil to foreign parents an American citizen by birth? Because the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause is a floor, not a ceiling. 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. Congress could expand it to grant citizenship to every human being on earth, or narrow it to its constitutional minimum. Media confusion on this issue is puzzling, because the greatest legal minds in this country have discussed the issue. (Just none of them were put on camera to explain it.) Scholars including Dr. John Eastman of Chapman University, and even Attorney General Edwin Meese—the godfather of constitutional conservatism in the law—reject the myth of birthright citizenship. Nor is rejection of birthright citizenship limited to conservatives. Judge Richard Posner—a prolific scholar who, despite being appointed by Ronald Reagan, is a liberal judicial activist—wrote in 2003 in Ofoji v. Ashcroft: We should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children. But the way to stop that abuse of hospitality is to remove the incentive by changing the rule on citizenship…. A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U.S. citizenship, but I doubt it…. The purpose of the rule was to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves, and the exception for children of foreign diplomats and heads of state shows that Congress did not read the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment literally. Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense. It is another question as to whether Congress could strip citizenship from the children of illegals who already have it. If Congress could do that, then it could also strip citizenship from the many millions of foreigners who came to the United States legally and went through the lawful process to become Americans. There is no court precedent for that, and the congressional and ratification debates from the Fourteenth Amendment do not reveal a clear answer. Trump could rescind President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty, but that executive order did not grant anyone citizenship, and it would be a steep uphill climb in court to try to take someone’s citizenship away. And if the children already here are American citizens, then they could never be deported. Some other parts of Trump’s plan face even longer odds. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights applies to all “persons,” not just citizens. And the courts have always held that due process requires any foreigner to be given a “meaningful hearing” in court before being deported. That would certainly impact the pace of deportation. Donald Trump’s position on immigration has changed drastically from his previous positions, just like his past support for socialized healthcare and abortion. He has not yet explained why he changed his position on immigration, and some voters do not trust that he sincerely holds to his current campaign positions. But none of that changes the legality of his immigration proposal. While parts of it may face legal challenges, denying citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is fully consistent with the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. Ken Klukowski is legal editor of Breitbart News and a practicing constitutional attorney, and explains birthright citizenship in Chapter 12 of Resurgent: How Constitutional Conservatism Can Save America. Follow him on Twitter @kenklukowski.
Parts of Donald Trump’s immigration plan may raise serious constitutional questions, but the part that launched a media firestorm—ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens—does not.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-27) not displayed.
.
.
.
#28. To: Vicomte13, buckeroo, redleghunter (#26)
I agree with that statement although it is my view that the 14th amendment covers to children of LEGAL immigrants and NOT the children of illegals. Their children were put under the anchor baby umbrella by the 1965 immigration act. But SCOTUS would most likely declare a repeal of that provision unconstitutional after they examine the "penumbras" and "emanations" of the Constitution. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
It will NEVER happen with a weak SCOTUS; these nine dressed upped black robed klouwns go along with any demanding President that goes against cultural and social instinct to include allowing the construct of "marriage" to be mandated by federal law, where none exists at all. These were states rights issues. And SCOTUS shall use 0bama's "laws" as a precedent for "their" further decisions, assuming they permit a court review.
I agree with you. IF there were a "god of the Constitution" lurking out there, with an actual opinion of what the words "MEAN", in a transcendental, absolute sense, the divine INTENT of those words, so to speak, then I'm sure that birth right citizenship would not "mean" the children of illegals. But the Constitution is just a set of loose rules for political cricket, they're not Scripture and there's no constitutional god out there holding the "true" meaning. It means whatever the Supreme Court says it means, and it means whatever the various players in the game actually do and claim (and believe) is "correct". The Supreme Court has a very long and very important set of jurisdictional rules. The whole concept of "jurisdiction" grew and grew through layer after layer of court decisions over the centuries. Why? Because if the US has "jurisdiction", that means that the Supreme Court can hear the case, which means they have power over the outcome. The Supreme Cpurt has been an eager beaver over the years at finding jurisdiction. That is why going to the Court with a political argument, that it should dramatically reduce the meaning of the word "jurisdiction" so as to allow the politicians to "get at" the anchor babies without having to amend the Constitution is simply a no-fly zone. Congress and the President will be asking the Supreme Court to carve away at the basis of its own power, and to claim that it does not itself have the power to judge cases that concern illegal aliens. For that is precisely what "No US jurisdiction" would MEAN under two centuries of Supreme Court precedent. It would mean that the Supremes were powerless over a case. The Supremes will NEVER rule that they are powerless over average people of whatever nationality within the United States. Never. The whole argument turns on jurisdiction, but for the Supreme Court to rule that there is no jurisdiction would mean that the Supreme Court would have no power over tens of millions of people in America. Once that is understood, is is clear why the Supreme Court will rule 9-0 that the US DOES have jurisdiction over those people, and that therefore their babies are citizens. To ask the Supreme Court to rule "No jurisdiction" would be akin to asking the Congress to relinquish its ability to make laws regarding some important subject matter. It ain't happening, no matter HOW much the people want it. Fact is, if the people REALLY want it that badly, they'll have the supermajorities necessary to amend the Constitution. But they don't. And they won't. That is why birth right citizenship is a terrible pace to pitch a battle. It's doomed before the first shot is fired. The place to fight this is at the border, with walls, surveillance and redeployment of military forces from abroad to the US.
It's a terrible place to pitch a battle, but it's a good place to make a feint. Trump has chosen the ground well, because it fires people up.
"1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull, participating in the debate, stated the following: "What do we [the committee reporting the clause] mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." The Congressional Globe is my friend. I had already quoted what Trumbull actually said at my #9, and also explained that it was Senator Howard who introduced the 14th Amendment. My #9 gives extensive quotes regarding what "subject to the jurisdiction" means. A child born in the United States without diplomatic immunity is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The clear context of Trumbull was a child born into an Indian nation tribe was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because he was under the jurisdiction of the tribal laws. A child born of two illegal aliens in the U.S. is under the complete jurisdiction of U.S. law, U.S. law enforcement, and U.S. courts. In addition, SCOTUS decisions have repeatedly held that children born in the United States without immunity are citizens at birth. It was a function of English common law before July 4, 1776 and said common law was adopted by all thirteen colonies upon independence and carried into statehood. Legislation cannot conflict with SCOTUS holdings interpreting the Constitution. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14 At page 2893, column 1, Senator Lyman Trumbull speaking:
I think you refer to Ex parte Merryman, by Taney sitting as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court at Chambers. It is not an opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, but an in chambers opinion of a single justice. That is what Taney wrote on the hand written opinion, and what he anounced from the bench just before he read it. That was in the courthouse for the Circuit Court in Maryland. Some argue it was a Circuit Court opinion as it was so reported by a court reporter. Ex parte Merryman, 17 Fed. Cas. 144, Case 9487, pp 146-155 (1861). The constitution provides, as I have before said, that " no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." It declares that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ; and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the per. sons or things to be seized." It provides that the party accused shall be entitled to a speedy trial in a court of justice. These great and fundamental laws, which congress itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and suspended, like the writ of habeas corpus, by a military order, supported by force of arms. Such is the case now before me, and I can only say that if the authority which the constitution has confided to the judiciary department and judicial ofiicers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any circumstances, be usurped by the military power, at its discretion, the people of the United States are no longer living under a government of laws, but every citizen holds life, liberty and property at the will and pleasure of the army officer in whose military district he may happen to be found. In such a case, my duty was too plain to be mistaken. I have exercised all the power which the constitution and laws confer upon me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome. It is possible that the officer who has incurred this grave responsibility may have misunderstood his instructions, and exceeded the authority intended to be given him ; I shall, therefore, order all the proceedings in this case, with my opinion, to be filed and recorded in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland, and direct the clerk to transmit a copy, under seal, to the president of the United States, It will then remain for that high officer, in fulfilment of his constitutional obligation to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," to determine what measures he will take to cause the civil process of the United States to be respected and enforced.
Notice that about half the able-bodied men in the state of Wisconsin were foreigners who had not been naturalized. Stanton’s reply confirmed they were eligible for the draft. OFFICIAL RECORDS: Series 3, vol 2, Part 1 (Union Letters, Orders, Reports) Page 369 UNION AUTHORITIES. Honorable E. M. STANTON: About one-half of the able-bodied men between eighteen and forty- five years in this State are foreign born. They have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States. Have the right to vote under our State constitution if twenty-one years old. Have enjoyed and are enjoying all the privileges of citizens. Are they liable to be drafted? They should be liable. Great injustice will be done to our State if they are exempt, and our quota would be too large if they are exempt. Cannot those who are not willing to subject themselves to draft be ordered to leave the country? Answer this immediately. I must have the time for volunteering extended, as asked for by my dispatches of Saturday and yesterday. Please answer them. E. SALOMON, Governor of Wisconsin. - - - - - Washington City, D. C., August 12, 1862. Governor SALOMON, Madison, Wis.: Foreigners who have voted at our elections are regarded as having exercised a franchise that subjects them to military duty. Declaration of intention to become naturalized is not of itself sufficient to prevent their taking advantage of their alienage, but a man who votes must bear arms. Your telegram respecting extension of time for volunteering cannot be answered until to- morrow, some information from different States being required. EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. - - - - -
There are plenty of things that can be done to address illegal aliens. And birthright citizenship - if it's a matter of sufficient political power and anxiety in the people, COULD - under the leadership of a politician determined to do it - even become the vehicle to significantly attack and diminish the power and prestige of the Supreme Court. But on the issue itself, the Court will rule that the 14th Amendment means what every judge and lawyer in practice knows it means, and it will do so early. To get rid of birthright citizenship will either require a constitutional amendment, or a joint Congressional and Presidential assault on the very authority of the court that limits the power of judicial review itself, through legislation and through executive defiance without consequences from Congress. I absolutely concur. A child born to two illegal aliens awaiting deportation in a detention center is a natural born citizen. The child is born in the United States and does not enjoy immunity from U.S. jurisdiction. What could be done, and what I understand Trump to be alluding to with a nuanced statement, is that the parents could be deported. The U.S. citizen child could not be deported, but they could take the child with them, keeping the family together. Or not. Their choice. The 14th Amdt. establishes citizenship for the child. It does not grant anchor status for the parents.
We can and have drafted aliens, see #34. Tourists are under U.S. jurisdiction while in the U.S. Drafting of alien tourists would be a major violation of international law. Reciprocity would indicate that if we drafted tourists, others could do the same to U.S. citizen tourists.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. That would accomplish the meaning you say. No. That would make the child of a foreign diplomat, born in the U.S., a natural born U.S. citizen. Recognized diplomats have immunity and are not subject to our laws while in the U.S. Their child also has immunity.
I believe this is backwards. The 1965 Act put the alien parents under the anchor baby umbrella. It is the baby who is the qualifying U.S. immediate relative citizen. The 1965 Act could be repealed or amended by another piece of legislation.
From the 'Trump, Deny Citizenship --' thread: --- Because once born in the USA, the baby is a citizen, and cannot be deported. -- And because it's parents could be deported, it would be a ward of the court until its maturity, subject to the courts orders, which could allow the parents to take the child with them when they are deported. -- Or, the child could remain in the USA, raised by foster parents.. Problem solved?
But the U.S. Constitution trumps international law. You're in the Army now.
Correct. Trump said the government was not going to break up families. Illegal aliens will be allowed to take their children with them if they wish. I might add that he said nothing about revoking anyone's existing birthright citizenship.
That would be the logical course of action... i'm sure the founding fathers never intended to keep the evidence from two illegal acts. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I think it's possible to make a strong case that the children born here of illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens at birth. Congress needs only to define, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as "owing allegiance to no other country". This, by the way, is not breaking any new ground. That said, I doubt they will be able make that definition retroactive.
What if foreign tourists have a baby here? Is their child a U.S. citizen? Can we draft their child into the military?
The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on the citizenship status of children born in the U.S. whose parent(s) are here illegally. And THAT is the subject we're discussing, not diplomats, not Indians. Illegals.
The law is what it means. You can't change the definition of some word willy- nilly to mean something totally different. When the 14th amendment was written and passed, it meant owing allegiance to no other country.
I doubt it as well because of special interests and platform ideologies. Common sense however dictates that two illegals shitbags couldn't produce a legal spawn... and why would this country think it's the wisest move to keep the child and separate it from the shitbag parents? Deport them all. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
yes and that has been the problem since they decided they have judicial review in Madison v Marbury . Since then it's been a looking glass world. “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.” Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Why that was allowed to happen, and continues to happen, I don't know. "and why would this country think it's the wisest move to keep the child and separate it from the shitbag parents?" The child is a legal U.S. citizen. We can't just kick him out of the country. We can only hope that if he's young enough, the parents will take him with.
check this out : Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
These people have got to laughing their asses off at the stupid Americans. No birthright citizenship for tourists or illegals. And add Green Card holders, those here on work visas, student visas, or any other visas. Children of U.S. citizens only.
When the 14th amendment was written and passed, it meant owing allegiance to no other country. That's right, the law is what it means. There are 2 parts of the 14th Amendment: soil, and jurisdiction. Soil is obvious. Now, you might think that "jurisdiction" means whatever it meant in 1868, but it doesn't. It means what it means to the courts today. "Jurisdiction" jurisprudence has developed over the past two centuries to mean, today, very clearly, the power of the court to hear the subject matter of the case, and to enforce its judgments upon the parties. That's what "jurisdiction" means in every court in America that would rule on the 14th Amendment. Concepts of jurisdiction have changed since 1868, and they affect everything. No court in America is going to say that it doesn't have jurisdiction over illegal aliens, because if that were so, it would mean that they could not be tried, at all, for anything, before American courts. If illegal aliens raped, murdered and stole their way in a swathe across seven states, and then were captured, the lack of jurisdiction would mean that they could not be tried for anything - no court had the power to judge them. They could merely be deported. That's not the reality: courts have jurisdiction and do routinely imprison and punish illegals, just like everybody else. They can because they have jurisdiction. To ask the courts to say that the illegals are not subject to US jurisdiction, and yet could be tried in courts of the US, would be asking the Justices and judges to redefine the word "jurisdiction". Now, we've just redefined the word "marriage" in America, so I suppose we can redefine "jurisdiction". But the courts would have to do that, and they are not going to. Jurisdiction is the source of their power. They're not going to limit it. The only way to change the 14th Amendment is through a constitutional amendment. The illegal immigration battle has to be fought on a different battlefield. There is no victory on this one. And be careful what you ask for, because if "jurisdiction" means that they can try you without authority, then "the right to keep and bear arms" means that you can't have guns, and up is down, and evil is good.
They decided, and Jefferson and the Congress did not overrule them. It takes three to dance that dance. The Supreme Court can rule however, but if the President ignores the decision, and the Congress impeaches the justices for making it, on the ground that they have abused their authority, then it isn't there. If you don't want judges exercising equitable power, you have to make it illegal for them to do so and then punish them if they do. Most people would fall well shy of THAT. Instead, most people want what they want on any given issue, but they want the Supreme Court to be a bulwark protecting them on the rest of the issues where they AGREE with the policy or the court. Desegregation, after all, was driven by Supreme Court decisions.
In the context of the 14th amendment, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means "owing allegiance to no other country". Always had. Always will. Now if you want to take the word "jurisdiction" out of context and define it as the power of the court to hear the subject matter of the case and to enforce its judgments upon the parties, fine. I agree with that definition. But, in context, it means something different.
Now if you want to take the word "jurisdiction" out of context and define it as the power of the court to hear the subject matter of the case and to enforce its judgments upon the parties, fine. I agree with that definition. But, in context, it means something different. Says you. But all 9 Justices of the Supreme Court, and all of the Circuit Court judges in the land, and 98.5% of the Federal court justices, and the lion's share of licensed lawyers will all say the jurisdiction in the 14th Amendment means what jurisdiction means everywhere else under the Constitution. It's not a political question. It's not even a question, really. Jurisdiction is a defined word in the legal profession. It means something specific. What that is has been defined by the Supreme Court over two centuries of jurisprudence. Everybody who went through law school has spent a month on the subject of jurisdiction, and had to very painfully grind through the process by which it got to where it is. This word is not a football. Sure, it would make things very easy for a certain political cause if the word jurisdiction, for the purposes of the 14th Amendment, were fixed to a specific moment, indeed a specific sentence in legislative history. But the truth is that that is not how law works, it's not how any court works. The legal profession doesn't accept that argument. There are always some lawyer who will take a fee to argue the point, and argue they may. And they may even argue it before some politicized or crazed or senile judge somewhere who will agree with them. But no appellate court in this land will accept that limitation on the word that you believe. And neither will the Supreme Court. Take this case before the Supremes, and it goes down 9-0. Choose to fight on this battlefield with this weapon, and you're charging into the arrows at Azincourt, charging into the rifles at Gettysburg, charging into the guns at Balaclava, charging into the panzers with horses, and flying out in your Libyan fighter against the F-14s of the 6th Fleet. This battle, on this ground, cannot be won. It's not a debatable point. Saying it's debatable won't make it debatable. It's like arguing that Gaelic is the official language of the USA. No, it isn't. And it won't be. Jurisdiction, for the purposes of the 14th amendment, does not mean what it meant in the legislative history of 1868. It means the same thing that it means in all of the rest of American constitutional jurisprudence, nothing else. There is not an appellate court in America that will say anything different. The cavalry can charge into the arrows, guns and panzers all they like, but the outcome is always the same. If you want to defeat longbowmen, cannons and tanks with cavalry, you had better take them in flank (or, with tanks, get off the high horses and go on foot). The frontal assault will always fail. Jurisdiction means the authority of the court to hear the subject matter of the case and to enforce its judgment against the parties of the case. That's all that it means now in American law. 1868 is gone with the wind, and there is no special definition of jurisdiction for the 14th Amendment. Original intent is a theory. It's not the law. It's not going to ever be the law either, when it comes to a fundamental concept like jurisdiction. Even Justices Thomas and Scalia will tell you that.
No they won't. They're both Originalists who believe the Constitution's meaning is fixed as of the time of enactment.
We'll see soon enough. Trump is headed towards a victory, and when he wins, he's going to press ahead into court with your very argument. I predict 9-0. If you're right about Scalia and Thomas, it will be 7-2.
Sounds like, regardless what the USC decides, you are in favor of the illegal little bastards being the United States problem and financial burden?
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
I am in favor of bringing home the US military and placing it on the border to stop the illegal flow. And I am in favor of punitive fines and taxation of businesses that hire illegals, so that nobody dares to do it. Then the illegals will self-deport, and the coyotes will be blocked, and we won't have to start pretending that words don't mean what they mean so that we can get some narrow desired result. I am favor of honest, direct efforts using legal means that are already available, to target illegal immigration at the crucial choke points: the border (and because I want to bring the forces home and disband many of them, the Border becomes an excuse to keep a larger military for awhile), and employment. Tracking illegals is hard. But destroying businesses that employ them is easy. Also, illegals are not entitled to social services. They're illegal. Obviously you have to provide food and medical care, at the deportation camps. I want to pour the foreign aid we give to Israel and elsewhere into American agriculture (and use prisoners and unemployed Americans, not migrant workers, to pick the crops) and industry and infrastructure - and just cut it to reduce the deficit. And then any real foreign aid we do give should be aimed at infrastructure projects in Mexico that will benefit the USA. Notably, California needs water. The Baja is long and empty and hot with sunlight. There are desalinators in Israel that supply the whole country. Build desalination right there in Mexico, and build the pipelines to pump the water to Socal. Gives employment to Mexico, and gets water to socal. Certainly I'm in favor of heavy oil infrastructure investment in Mexico, with pipelines northwards. I'm in favor of solar power generation in the Sonora - get Mexico on our grid. I'm in favor of heavy investment in Mexican agriculture. There are all sorts of tropical crops we love that grow there and not here, so develop it there, as a nearly domestic resource. I'm in favor of helping Mexico use what Mexico has that's special, and that we don't have, to symbiotically develop both places - that employs Mexicans, makes Mexico richer, so people stay there, AND it relieves our burden and increases our security. Then we don't NEED to keep those troops on that border. And I'm in favor of decriminalizing all drugs and going to a treatment and education system, That will, in one fell swoop, destroy organized crime in Latin America and make it safer. All of the money we pour into Eurasian and African arms and intelligence efforts, I'd see used to bring our deficit to zero, then bring our debt to zero, and to develop, intelligently those areas of the world to which we can drive directly with cars: Mexico, Central and South America. This is our hemisphere, and we should secure and develop IT, not Europe, not the Middle East, not Asia. But no, I am not in favor of taking American babies born on American soil and treating them as criminals. I am in favor of developing the economy so that the ones that already are, are not a financial burden, and so that the flow stops.
Or by relatives lawfully present in the U.S.
Good post,
Once born in the USA, the baby is a citizen, and cannot be deported. -- And because it's parents could be deported, it would be a ward of the court until its maturity, subject to the courts orders, which could allow the parents to take the child with them when they are deported. -- Or, the child could remain in the USA, raised by foster parents.. Problem solved? Good to see we've found a legal issue where we can agree.
No, I am not Dung Beetle, Sam Hill, or Hon. But I've heard that before. Steve is on hiatus from Sweetness & Light.
I think so too.
libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...t.cgi?ArtNum=41480&Disp=0 So, -- What do you think, -- can the government ban 'anything'?
No, I am not Dung Beetle, Sam Hill, or Hon. But I've heard that before. Steve is on hiatus from Sweetness & Light Fess up, -- were you 'roscoe' on FR? And why is Steve on hiatus, -- is he ill?
That definition does not comport with the constitutional interpretation given by SCOTUS. An act of legislation cannot conflict with a constitutional interpretation of the Constitution. The child must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, i.e., subject to its laws and courts. The allegiance (a term not in 14A citizenship) cited by Trumbull refers to the term as used in English common law citizenship, as brought into this country. Acquired allegiance, is that binding a naturalized citizen. Local or actual allegiance, is that measure of obedience due from a subject of one government to another government, within whose territory he is temporarily resident. From this are excepted foreign sovereigns and their representatives, naval and armed forces when permitted to remain in or pass through the country or its waters. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
And why is Steve on hiatus, -- is he ill? I don't know roscoe on FR. I have not been on FR in over 10 years and my time was in the Smoky Back Room debating Civil War era legal and political issues. I was nolu chan. I only know that on the S&L site, Steve says he is on hiatus effective 15 August. I do not know Steve personally. I joined CP shortly after Dung Beetle left. At first, management thought I was Dung Beetle sneaking back on. I did not then know who Dung Beetle was.
Comments (69 - 115) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestSupreme Court will strike down attacks on birth right citizen .
#29. To: tomder55 (#28)
But SCOTUS would most likely declare a repeal of that provision unconstitutional after they examine the "penumbras" and "emanations" of the Constitution.
#30. To: tomder55 (#28)
#31. To: All (#30)
#32. To: misterwhite (#13)
Wiki is your friend:
The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” Now, does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajoe Indians are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United Slates? What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is, what it means. Can you sue a Navajoe Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we would not make treaties with them.
#33. To: Vicomte13 (#16)
I don't remember Taney's exact words, but I recall a decision he wrote in which the court ordered something or other, and he knew that it would be ignored, so he wrote something bitter words along the lines of 'but I understand that the writ of this court no longer runs in this land'.
Yet, under these circumstances, a military officer, stationed in Pennsylvania, without giving any information to the district attorney, and without any application to the judicial authorities, assumes to himself the judicial power in the district of Maryland ; undertakes to decide what constitutes the crime of treason or rebellion; what evidence (if indeed he required any) is sufficient to support the accusation and justify the commitment; and commits the party, without a hearing, even before himself, to close custody, in a strongly garrisoned fort, to be there held, it would seem, during the pleasure of those who committed him.
#34. To: buckeroo, Vicomte13 (#25)
MADISON, WIS., August 12, 1862.
WAR DEPARTMENT,
#35. To: Vicomte13 (#16)
The 14th Amendment bestows birthright citizenship on anybody born in the USA who isn't a diplomat with immunity. That's the status of "jurisdiction" TODAY, and I don't think there is one justice on the Supreme Court that will go anywhere BUT there.
#36. To: misterwhite (#14)
Can we draft tourists into our military? Hey, they're subject to our jurisdiction while they're here, right?
#37. To: A K A Stone (#21)
It could have just said
#38. To: tomder55, Vicomte13, buckeroo, redleghunter (#28)
Their children were put under the anchor baby umbrella by the 1965 immigration act.
#39. To: nolu chan (#35)
If the act of entry is illegal and criminal, why doesn't the act de-legitimize and nullify the entire "transaction"? ---- Liberator
I absolutely concur. A child born to two illegal aliens awaiting deportation in a detention center is a natural born citizen. The child is born in the United States and does not enjoy immunity from U.S. jurisdiction.
What could be done, and what I understand Trump to be alluding to with a nuanced statement, is that the parents could be deported. The U.S. citizen child could not be deported, but they could take the child with them, keeping the family together. Or not. Their choice.
The 14th Amdt. establishes citizenship for the child. It does not grant anchor status for the parents. ---- nolu chan
#40. To: nolu chan (#36)
"Tourists are under U.S. jurisdiction while in the U.S. Drafting of alien tourists would be a major violation of international law."
You're not behind a plow.
You'll never get rich
By diggin’ a ditch.
You're in the Army now.
#41. To: nolu chan (#35)
"What could be done, and what I understand Trump to be alluding to with a nuanced statement, is that the parents could be deported. The U.S. citizen child could not be deported, but they could take the child with them, keeping the family together. Or not. Their choice."
#42. To: misterwhite (#41)
Correct. Trump said the government was not going to break up families. Illegal aliens will be allowed to take their children
#43. To: GrandIsland (#42)
"i'm sure the founding fathers never intended to keep the evidence from two illegal acts."
#44. To: nolu chan (#37)
#45. To: nolu chan (#32)
"In addition, SCOTUS decisions have repeatedly held that children born in the United States without immunity are citizens at birth."
#46. To: Vicomte13 (#19)
"The law is what it says"
#47. To: misterwhite (#43)
That said, I doubt they will be able make that definition retroactive.
#48. To: Vicomte13 (#30)
It means whatever the Supreme Court says it means
#49. To: GrandIsland (#47)
"Common sense however dictates that two illegals shitbags couldn't produce a legal spawn"
#50. To: misterwhite (#44)
What if foreign tourists have a baby here? Is their child a U.S. citizen? Can we draft their child into the military?
#51. To: tomder55 (#50)
"Even though the mothers paid birth tourism operators tens of thousands of dollars in fees, they paid local hospitals nothing or a reduced sum for uninsured, low-income patients, according to the affidavits"
#52. To: misterwhite (#46)
The law is what it means. You can't change the definition of some word willy- nilly to mean something totally different.
#53. To: tomder55 (#48)
yes and that has been the problem since they decided they have judicial review in Madison v Marbury . Since then it's been a looking glass world.
#54. To: Vicomte13 (#52)
"Now, you might think that "jurisdiction" means whatever it meant in 1868, but it doesn't. It means what it means to the courts today."
#55. To: misterwhite (#54)
In the context of the 14th amendment, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means "owing allegiance to no other country". Always had. Always will.
#56. To: Vicomte13 (#55)
"Even Justices Thomas and Scalia will tell you that."
#57. To: misterwhite (#56)
No they won't. They're both Originalists who believe the Constitution's meaning is fixed as of the time of enactment.
#58. To: Vicomte13 (#57)
#59. To: GrandIsland (#58)
#60. To: tpaine (#39)
the child could remain in the USA, raised by foster parents..
#61. To: nolu chan (#34)
Dung Beetle .... err nolu chan.
#62. To: nolu chan (#60)
Or by relatives lawfully present in the U.S.
I absolutely concur.
#63. To: buckeroo (#61)
Good post, Dung Beetle .... err nolu chan.
#64. To: tpaine (#62)
Good to see we've found a legal issue where we can agree.
#65. To: nolu chan (#64)
#66. To: nolu chan (#63)
buckeroo (#61) --- Good post, Dung Beetle .... err nolu chan.
#67. To: misterwhite, GrandIsland (#43)
I think it's possible to make a strong case that the children born here of illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens at birth. Congress needs only to define, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as "owing allegiance to no other country". This, by the way, is not breaking any new ground.
Natural allegiance. In English law, that kind of allegiance which is due from all men born within the king's dominions, immediately upon their birth, which is intrinsic and perpetual, and cannot be divested by any act of their own. In American law, the allegiance due from citizens of the United States to their native country, and which cannot be renounced without the permission of government, to be declared by law.
#68. To: tpaine (#66)
Fess up, -- were you 'roscoe' on FR?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]