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: 19963
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 (1-37) not displayed.
.
.
.
#38. To: tomder55, Vicomte13, buckeroo, redleghunter (#28)
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.
No 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 ----- nolu chan Agreed, an act of legislation cannot conflict with our Constitution. -- Thus, either the interpretation, -- or the law, -- must be changed. IMHO, this issue can be resolved by the three branches without passing an amendment. Opinions?
Looks like we all agree on this.
Notably, California needs water. I see your in favor of a lot of shit I didn't ask you about. So I'll assume you are in favor of adopting the little 3rd world bastards of two illegals. I don't give a rats ass what Kookifornia needs. That filthy smog filled, over taxed libtarded cesspool can break off at the fault line and sink into the ocean. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
-- Thus, either the interpretation, -- or the law, -- must be changed. IMHO, this issue can be resolved by the three branches without passing an amendment. Opinions? The Executive and the Legislature cannot change a SCOTUS constitutional opinion. SCOTUS cannot just do it on its own, but it must be presented with a case within its jurisdiction upon which it can revise its opinion in the new case. This is unlikely on birthright citizenship. To change constitutional law requires an amendment. That might get done but it takes time and meeting all the requirements is uncertain. Such constitutional change is only required to end birthright citizenship for babies born to illegal aliens. It is not needed to limit prosecutorial discretion, end designation as anchor babies, or eliminate special treatment for the parents, or to deport the parents. The only
We are not "adopting: little 3rd world bastards of two illegals". The US Constitution says that children born here are citizens, natural born. So that's what they are. I am opposed to twisting the language around to get results we want. I think that is corrupt. I care what California needs, because California is part of my country, and it has some serious problems that I would like to see addressed in a way that is positive for California. And I understand that we do not live in a vacuum, so if there are things that can be done for a part of my country that will have the knock on effect of employing people in Mexico so they don't feel driven to come here, then that is good for my country in general. I don't sit around hating people because they are from "the Third World" - they are my fellow Christians - and I don't hate different pieces and people who are part of my own country. I want to see us all do well, from Maine to Washington and on out to Anchorage and Honolulu, and from Minot to Brownsville. I also want to see the Mexicans do well, because when the neighbors are troubled, that spills over to affect us. No man is an island, and no country is either Boiling with rage and hatred at your fellow man will make you older, faster, and will never fix a damned thing. I am about fixing things. And you don't fix things by manipulating language to say that black is white and down is up, just because that gets you to the temporary result you want. The 14th Amendment is clear, to me, and to most people, and to the Courts too. It's not going to be changing. I don't think it should change. I certainly don't think that we should start lying about the language in order to force through some sort of cheap result. That's what lying politicians do, and I despise them in both parties. The better answer is to accept the law, and to work with that reality. And while you might be ready to cut off pieces of our country and tell them to go to hell and sink, I'm not.
Agreed, an act of legislation cannot conflict with our Constitution. -- Thus, either the interpretation, -- or the law, -- must be changed. IMHO, this issue can be resolved by the three branches without passing an amendment. Opinions? But they can challenge such an opinion, forcing scotus to reconsider. It's not unlikely if Trump is elected, or if congress is pressured to re-write the law.
2) I care what California needs, because California is part of my country, and it has some serious proble 3) I don't sit around hating people because they are from "the Third World" - they are my fellow Christians - and I don't hate different pieces and people who are part of my own country. 1) You just don't like hearing what it is... you live by politically correct softened language. An illegal alien isn't just an undocumented worker... He's a criminal piece of shit, shitting on my freedoms and liberties because his country sucks. Not my problem. 2) I very vocally oppose certain libtard ideals... Kookifornia has run its state the direct opposite of my political beliefs... thus I could give a shit what happens to that state. I've never asked for help from ANYONE I didn't listen to in the past. If my father suggested I not buy a car... and I did, and the car broke down... I would never ask him for the money to fix it. I have pride... and that's how we learn. Kookifornians WILL LEARN AFTER THEY COLLAPSE. The sooner the better. 3) Your sympathy and empathy ARE YOUR WEAKNESS... and it's that very weakness that's allowed everything in our present day society to be dysfunctional and fucked up. Every crappy thing we have today, every deficit, every program, worthless government agency... was justified by sympathy for someone or something. From high taxes to 30 million criminal invading bastards running around my country. I don't know what's worse, the Mexican government encouraging them to flee into our country, or people like you that are too weak to plug this leak. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
"---- Last year, the University of Maryland’s Arie Kruglanski detailed evidence that psychology, not theology, is at the root of extremist ideologies. For extremists, Kruglanski wrote in the online journal E-International Relations, the world is one of “good versus evil, saints versus sinners, order versus chaos; a pure universe in black and white admitting no shades of gray. ---"
Please provide a link to the U.S. Supreme Court defining "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and how that definition applies to illegal alien parents. ----------------------------------------- "[O]ne rule that Congress should rethink ... is awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States ... including the children of illegal immigrants whose sole motive in immigrating was to confer U.S. citizenship on their as yet unborn children.... 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.... A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule ... but I doubt it.... Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense.... Our [judges'] hands, however, are tied. We cannot amend the statutory provisions on citizenship and asylum."
Don't try and drag me in your libtarded mess. You are the Kookifornian. I've told you exactly what you could do to avoid the over regulated and high tax madness of big big brother.... MOVE. But you ignore my help... so don't ask for any other kind. Trying to equate my ideology as the very part of your problem is absurd. You and your Kookifornia peers are the problem... you can stay and be part of the problem, or leave and be part of the solution.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Comments (79 - 115) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestTheir 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?
#69. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#67)
misterwhite, ---- 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.
#70. To: tpaine, nolu chan (#69)
#71. To: Vicomte13 (#59)
I'm in favor
#72. To: tpaine (#69)
Agreed, an act of legislation cannot conflict with our Constitution.
anchor babies that would remain would be those abandoned in the U.S. by their parents.
#73. To: GrandIsland (#71)
#74. To: nolu chan (#72)
The Executive and the Legislature cannot change a SCOTUS constitutional opinion.
SCOTUS cannot just do it on its own, but it must be presented with a case within its jurisdiction upon which it can revise its opinion in the new case. This is unlikely on birthright citizenship.
#75. To: Vicomte13 (#73)
(Edited)
1) I am opposed to twisting the language around to get results we want. I think that is corr
#76. To: GrandIsland (#71)
I don't give a rats ass what Kookifornia needs. That filthy smog filled, over taxed libtarded cesspool can break off at the fault line and sink into the ocean
#77. To: nolu chan (#67)
"That definition does not comport with the constitutional interpretation given by SCOTUS."
-- Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2003)
#78. To: tpaine (#76)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]