U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Media Ignores Constitutional Experts Debunking Birthright Citizenship
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern ... unking-birthright-citizenship/
Published: Aug 23, 2015
Author: Ken Klukowski
Post Date: 2015-08-23 19:31:51 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 609
Comments: 5
Instead, the voices given the biggest public platforms are commentators who lack any professional credentials on the topic, who breezily assure viewers that “of course everyone knows” that the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship on everyone born in this country. And when the media occasionally puts on an opposition guest to provide a veneer of balanced reporting, they put on well-meaning individuals who are clearly not well grounded on this issue, who cannot make a compelling case and can’t answer hard questions. But there are a plethora of legal experts who can field those questions. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause declares: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Breitbart News first explained that the debate of who becomes an American citizen by virtue of being born on U.S. soil turns on the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” And we later explained in greater detail how the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause over time supports the original meaning of that clause, a clause which does not extend citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. This is the third installment in this series of reports. Among modern scholars who can shed light on this issue, Professor John Eastman—the former dean of Chapman University’s law school and a former law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas—thoroughly discusses the original meaning of the Citizenship Clause in From Feudalism to Consent. He explores the congressional speeches of two of the clause’s primary authors, Senators Lyman Trumbull and Jacob Howard, and how they made it clear that this part of the amendment only applied to children born to parents who were not citizens of another country. Yet Eastman—who is also an experienced media commentator—has not been featured on major shows this week to inform the public discussion. Another scholarly source is Professor Lino Graglia’s article in the Texas Review of Law & Politics. In it, the professor explores in greater detail the point in our first report in this series, that the 39th Congress—which in 1865 voted for the Thirteenth Amendment and in 1866 voted for the first Civil Rights Act—later in 1866 repackaged the Civil Rights Act’s definition of citizenship in the new Fourteenth Amendment, and that the Civil Rights Act’s original language explicitly excluded citizens of foreign countries. Graglia also notes that instant citizenship is an incredibly strong magnet that temps foreigners to break our laws. “It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducements to illegal entry.” Others on the media’s general go-to list for legal issues who have spoken out this past week to affirm that the Fourteenth Amendment does not include birthright citizens—like the Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky and National Review’s Andrew McCarthy—have also been notably absent from major interviews. Moreover, conservative scholars do not hold a monopoly on the legal conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment does not mandate birthright citizenship. In our first report we quoted at length Judge Richard Posner, who, in addition to being a federal appeals judge, is also a top law professor at the University of Chicago. There are others. Professor Peter Schuck, who holds an endowed chair at Yale Law School (the top-ranked law school in America), and Professor Roger Smith, a political scientist who holds an endowed chair at the University of Pennsylvania (another Ivy League university), coauthored a scholarly treatise on this subject, Citizenship without Consent, and conclude in their book that “the framers of the Citizenship Clause had no intention of establishing a universal rule of birthright citizenship.” With such expertise available to inform the public on this issue, observers are left to wander why those controlling media access are so reticent to provide these scholars a platform to lay out these arguments for the American people to hear and decide. Ken Klukowski is legal editor for Breitbart News and published a scholarly academic work on the framing and ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment for New Mexico Law Review. 
Myths about birthright citizenship—promoted by liberals, embraced by establishment Republicans, and repeated by mainstream media pundits without critical examination—have been debunked by experts spanning the political spectrum. But none of those people are being given A-list treatment by major media outlets to respond.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: cranky (#0)
For the first time in 10 years, the issue of Birthright Citizenship was in the forefront on Capitol Hill this week when the House Immigration Subcommittee held a hearing on Wednesday. The hearing sought to determine if Birthright Citizenship is the right policy for America, but it focused less on the policy question, and more on whether or not it's a Constitutional mandate via the 14th Amendment. The panelists told the Subcommittee that only with a law passed by Congress could the courts offer an interpretation. PETITION: Tell Congress to abolish Birthright Citizenship The first section of the 14th Amendment reads, "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." Rep. Steve King's (R-Iowa) Birthright Citizenship bill, H.R.140, would require at least one parent of a child born in the United States to be a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident for the child to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and therefore receive automatic citizenship. You can read more about the "subject to the jurisdiction" debate here. Panelist and President of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Richard Cohen, argued that everyone in the United States is subject to U.S. laws and therefore "subject to the jurisdiction", but both Dr. John Eastman, Founding Director for the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, and Lino Graglia, a University of Texas law professor, argued that the phrase would simply be redundant if it meant all persons in the United States, so it must serve a purpose. Dr. Eastman made a distinction between those who are within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and those who owe allegiance to the U.S. "Think of it this way: foreign tourists visiting the United States subject themselves to the laws of the United States while here," Eastman wrote in his prepared statement. "An Englishman must drive on the right side of the road rather than the left, for example, when visiting here. But they do not owe allegiance to the United States, they do not get to exercise any part of the political power of the United States, and they cannot be tried for treason if they take up arms against the United States." Dr. Eastman also explained why the issue is such a hot topic in the modern immigration debate, calling Birthright Citizenship the third largest magnet for illegal immigration after jobs and welfare services. Center for Immigration Studies Legal Policy Analyst, Jon Feere, backed up that claim in his testimony. "Every year, 350,000 to 400,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the United States. To put this another way, as many as one out of 10 births in the United States is now to an illegal immigrant mother," Feere wrote in his prepared statement. "[U]nder [Pres. Obama's] DAPA program (the Deferred action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program), it would provide benefits to illegal immigrants who gave birth here and allow them to 'stay in the U.S. without fear of deportation.'" As Roy notes in his blog on the topic, "H.R. 140 would put an end to babies being used as a kind of shield for lawbreakers and would return them to just being the children of foreign citizens who would be expected to take their full family back home with them, just like any other civilized family would be expected to do -- and just like is expected in most countries around the world where babies take the citizenship of their parents, not from the soil where their mothers happened to give birth." The question of whether or not the policy of granting automatic citizenship is good or not wasn't discussed extensively, but Rep. King did note that if his legislation were passed and signed into law, he expected a legal challenge. In defense of their positions, most panelists referred to a Supreme Court decision or Senate transcripts from more than a century ago, so Feere argued that Congress should act and put the issue to the test. "Some Administration decided to give them a Social Security number and a passport and no one really knows when," Feere said. "I think Congress hasn't addressed the problem, and as a result of not addressing it, we're relying on floor statements from 100 years ago. We're relying on a footnote from a Supreme Court case in 1982. I think some clarification from Congress would help a lot." Dr. Eastman agreed that the ball is in Congress' court. "Congress has the power over naturalization; it's a plenary power, and that means you get to set the policy of how large or small or how restrained or unrestrained our immigration into this country is going to be," he said. CHRIS CHMIELENSKI is the Director of Content & Activism for NumbersUSA H.R.140 - Birthright Citizenship Act of 2015 114th Congress (2015-2016) Sponsor: Rep. King, Steve [R-IA-4] (Introduced 01/06/2015) Cosponsors: H.R.140 — 114th Congress (2015-2016) Cosponsor | Date Cosponsored It's a "battle of the experts". The judges decide whom. The judges decide not to change the meaning of jurisdiction. Anchor babies are citizens. Choose a better battlefield.
A better battlefield for what? I don't care anymore. Words have no meaning and original intent is a fiction. I'm good with that. This is just the latest circus to hit town as far as I'm concerned. It too will pass. There are three kinds of people in the world: those that can add and those that can't
Words DO have a meaning. In legal proceedings, those meanings are determined by decisions of courts. "Jurisdiction" means "subject to the courts and laws." To "have jurisdiction" means that the court can try you. If no court has jurisdiction to try you, you have immunity. That's what jurisdiction MEANS, and there is a long and detailed history of that word evolving through court decisions. You are right that Original Intent is essentially mostly a fiction. THAT is a political philosophy of SOME men, mostly on the right. It IS NOT a legal doctrine that the Courts have ever respected as binding. It is a view that SOME justices - always a minority - have used. It isn't a law. It isn't binding. It's a POLITICAL OPINION, that judges "ought" to decide cases on original intent. It never, ever was a law. It never was binding. It IS NOT binding. The majority of the court is Republican, and THEY don't all apply original intent, or accept the theory as binding. Original intent isn't completely a fiction. A minority of jurists believe in it. But it's never been the law, and doesn't seem very likely ever to BE the law. The present is for the living to govern, not the long dead.
House panel urges Congress to pass Birthright Citizenship legislation
Updated: Sun, May 17th 2015
by Chris Chmielenski 
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#2. To: cranky (#0)
www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/140
Rep. Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN-2]* 01/06/2015
Rep. Brooks, Mo [R-AL-5]* 01/06/2015
Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-4] 01/07/2015
Rep. Olson, Pete [R-TX-22] 01/13/2015
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC-3] 01/13/2015
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC-3] 01/13/2015
Rep. DesJarlais, Scott [R-TN-4] 01/14/2015
Rep. Zinke, Ryan K. [R-MT-At Large] 01/16/2015
Rep. Barletta, Lou [R-PA-11] 01/30/2015
Rep. Foxx, Virginia [R-NC-5] 01/30/2015
Rep. Fortenberry, Jeff [R-NE-1] 03/16/2015
Rep. Nugent, Richard B. [R-FL-11] 03/18/2015
Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX-36] 03/23/2015
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ-8] 03/23/2015
Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX-1] 03/23/2015
Rep. Collins, Doug [R-GA-9] 03/23/2015
Rep. Roe, David P. [R-TN-1] 03/23/2015
Rep. Smith, Lamar [R-TX-21] 03/24/2015
Rep. Marchant, Kenny [R-TX-24] 03/25/2015
Rep. Posey, Bill [R-FL-8] 04/13/2015
Rep. Sanford, Mark [R-SC-1] 04/15/2015
Rep. Rohrabacher, Dana [R-CA-48] 04/22/2015
Rep. Forbes, J. Randy [R-VA-4] 05/12/2015
Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1] 05/12/2015
Rep. Graves, Tom [R-GA-14] 05/14/2015
Rep. Hice, Jody B. [R-GA-10] 05/14/2015
Rep. Woodall, Rob [R-GA-7] 07/07/2015 "We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#3. To: cranky (#0)
#4. To: Vicomte13 (#3)
Choose a better battlefield.
#5. To: cranky (#4)
Words have no meaning and original intent is a fiction.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]