WHY BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP SHOULD BE REPEALED
|| By FITSNEWS || As he’s done since his entry into the 2016 presidential race, Donald Trump is driving the debate – forcing America into a long-overdue discussion of the inconvenient realities our unsustainable policies are producing. He’s also forcing the far left (including those within his own party) to confront the failure of their decades of kicking various cans down the road.
Trump’s comprehensive immigration reform proposals – released earlier this week – are no exception.
After the GOP-Fox News conspiracy to take Trump out of the race failed (miserably), he punched back with a sweeping, substantive set of proposals designed to secure America’s southern border, ramp up enforcement of our nation’s existing immigration statutes and – perhaps most importantly – stop incentivizing illegal immigration.
And while we’re not going to gush like talking head Ann Coulter – who called Trump’s plan “the greatest political document since the Magna Carta” – it does represent the only thing resembling a real solution to the immigration problem any politician has put forth. Ever.
“Trump’s far-ranging immigration proposals aren’t just comprehensive, they represent a sweeping repudiation of the ‘bipartisan’ approach to the issue that’s been en vogue in Washington, D.C. for decades,” we wrote.
Not only that, Trump laid out specifically how he would pay for his ideas – which few candidates ever do (about anything they propose).
Obviously we’ve never been “fire-breathers” on the immigration issue. In fact we continue to support pathways to status for certain illegal immigrants – and believe mass deportation is every bit as unfeasible as it is cost-prohibitive.
But we’ve always argued in favor of enhanced border security – one of the few things our totally unwieldy federal government is actually supposed to do. And we’ve long argued our leaders needed to start distinguishing between the kind of immigration which strengthens our nation’s economy (which should be incentivized) – and the kind which saps its strength (which should be discouraged).
All of this leads us to the most controversial component of Trump’s proposals – outlawing “anchor babies.”
The mainstream media refers to this as the “birthright citizenship” debate, implying that a child born within the borders of the United States to illegal immigrants ought to enjoy the same status as a child born to law-abiding, taxpaying citizens.
Should they? No.
According to the liberal website Salon, adopting such a view means we’re racist, hoping to “get back to a soccer-free America dominated by Christian white men and pretty girls.”
Ah yes … pretty white girls. Like the ones in that “controversial” University of Alabama video.
But is that what it’s about? No. It’s about the current system being unsustainable financially – for all Americans.
According to a report Kaiser Health News released earlier this year, Medicaid annually pays out $2.2 billion in reimbursements to hospitals to partially cover emergency room deliveries involving illegal aliens. That’s $2.2 billion each year – just to get these “anchor babies” into the world.
And the costs only soar from there … with some estimates topping $50 billion a year.
Wait … doesn’t federal law ban illegal immigrants from benefiting from Medicaid? Yes. But no one seems to care about that.
“Birthright citizenship” perverts the Fourteenth Amendment, which was created to ensure former black slaves (and their sons and daughters) were not denied citizenship in the aftermath of the War Between the States.
It was not intended to provide perpetual government benefits to the children of illegal aliens.
But can it be changed? If it’s determined a constitutional amendment is needed to eliminate automatic citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, that’s obviously never going to happen. Seriously: There is literally nothing two-thirds of both houses of the U.S. Congress (and three-fourths of state legislatures) can agree on in today’s political climate.
Something as controversial as this? It wouldn’t stand a chance.
But love him or hate him, Trump is right.
“This remains the biggest magnet for illegal immigration,” he said in rolling out his proposal to eliminate the anchor baby statute.
It is … and America simply cannot continue to subsidize the influx of immigrants it attracts.
155 comments
Please go over your plan on how you would get the 14th amendment repealed. Everyone is acting like this is a simple bill to get passed. It is not a perversion as you say. It is pretty fucking clear actually.
“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.”
The 14th Amendment does NOT grant “birthright” citizenship.
[http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-congress-can-end-birthright-citizenship-without-amending-the-constitution/]
But see, the SCOTUS ruled differently in 1898 – so in effect – it does. Either get the court to reverse that (which it won’t) or amend the Constitution (which you probably cannot do) or accept it. If it took 3/4 of the states to ratify it, that means you need 39 states. Are there more than 13 that would not vote to amend it. Let’s see – CA, FL, NY, NJ, PA, CT, MA, RI, MD, DE, WA, OR definitely won’t because they are large immigrant states. VA, MI, MN probably won’t either, nor will NM. So……. you don’t have the states to amend the Constition. So let’s just fix immigration process and move on. Maybe someone can pass an immigration plan to secure the border and streamline the process so people come legally. Oh right, they did that in 2013 and the GOP killed it.
SCOTUS ruled differently in Dred Scott, too.
Dred Scott was before the 14th Amendment, so its not relevant to what the 14th Amendment does or does not do. In fact one of the purposes of the 14th amendment was to overturn Dred Scott. Has any court ever ruled that the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to persons born in this country. I think not. There really is no legitimate argument on that issue.
Thanks Tom. Saved me typing.
Slavery was not outlawed by the original constitution, either.
The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.
Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual. The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.
This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens. Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.
As John Eastman, former Dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”
In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.
American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.
Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the Court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.
Of course, the judges in that case were strongly influenced by the fact that there were discriminatory laws in place at that time that restricted Chinese immigration, a situation that does not exist today. The Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending to the children of legal, noncitizens was incorrect, according to the text and legislative history of the amendment. But even under that holding, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal aliens – only permanent, legal residents.
It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.
Federal law offers them no help either. U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The State Department has erroneously interpreted that statute to provide passports to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Accordingly, birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.
We are only one of a very small number of countries that provides birthright citizenship, and we do so based not upon the requirements of federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. Congress should clarify the law according to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment and reverse this practice.
Careful not to wear out the Ctrl + V too much there buddy. I’m glad you can have other people make shitty arguments for you.
Like the US Supreme Court?
Yes, the Supreme Court, given power by the constitution itself to decide the constitutionality of things. You people profess love for the constitution so much but that’s one document you idiots have yet to actually read, let alone comprehend to any decent degree.
“Brithright” citizenship was not the original intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment. That part didn’t happen until a hundred years later.
More like 40 years later, but whatever.
The amendment says “born or naturalized” so either through birth or naturalization you become a citizen here.
Try again buddy!
So why didn’t “birthright” citizenship arise until a hundred years after the passage of the 14th Amendment?
You are going to lose this one. You are used to people who don’t fight back and let you have your way because, like little children, you never stop whining.
That chapter is drawing to an end.
What am I going to lose? The kids being born are citizens, that’s the end of it buddy! You’ve already lost!
Try again!!!
So in your world all you have to do is read a law until you get to the part that you like and ignore the rest of it?
1) All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
They are born in US territory.
2) and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
Unless they have diplomatic immunity, they are in the jurisdiction of our laws and can be arrested for breaking them.
3) are citizens of the United States
They are citizens of the United States of America.
4) and of the State wherein they reside.
They are citizens of the state they were born in.
What did I leave out? Please let me know.
So, in your exalted opinion, is ANYBODY walking on US soil “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
If everybody on US soil is included, then why have the phrase at all?
PS – Where did you get your law degree?
Again, to apply to those born in territories that existed that were under the jurisdication of the United States. UT, NM, AZ, NE, CO, WA, SD, ND, MT, ID……. and today, Puerto Rico and Guan.
If you’re going to go with the law degree shit, please present yours, or shut the fuck up.
If you need someone to define “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” for you then I’m pretty sure you don’t have a law degree, or whatever law school you went to needs to be shut down, immediately.
So ANYBODY on US soil is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Again I ask: If EVERYBODY is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” why even include the phrase?
The only reason you would include it is because some people on US soil are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Native Americans were not considered to be US citizens for a long time. It took a federal law to make them US citizens.
I know by the fact that you resorted to imbecilic four-letter words that you have no rational answer.
So let’s hear some more four-letter words, Einstein.
Technically they were not subject to jurisdiction because “reservations” where not subject to the state jurisidiction – they were considered in effect – soveriegn.
Does Mexico grant birthright citizenship to babies of American tourists ?
We don’t live in Mexico. Canada does though. Just ask Teddie Cruz.
The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.
Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual. The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.
This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens. Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.
As John Eastman, former Dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”
In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.
American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.
Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the Court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.
Of course, the judges in that case were strongly influenced by the fact that there were discriminatory laws in place at that time that restricted Chinese immigration, a situation that does not exist today. The Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending to the children of legal, noncitizens was incorrect, according to the text and legislative history of the amendment. But even under that holding, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal aliens – only permanent, legal residents.
It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.
Federal law offers them no help either. U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The State Department has erroneously interpreted that statute to provide passports to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Accordingly, birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.
We are only one of a very small number of countries that provides birthright citizenship, and we do so based not upon the requirements of federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. Congress should clarify the law according to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment and reverse this practice.
“[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States” – that seems pretty clear to me – persons (babies), born (are born) in the United States. I think you’re pumping a dry well here.
You ignored the jurisdictional part. I wonder why?
Answer: Because you are a typical Democrat. Always selectively enforcing the parts of laws that you like and ignoring the parts you don’t.
No, I’m going to respond to that. So, first off, you’re point is that they have not pledged to the United States. So today, if two French nationals had a baby in NYC, they live there because of work as an expat deal. They want their child to be a French citizen, they go to the consulate and register that child. So in effect, they’ve not accepted jurisidiction. Fine. If they don’t register the child with the consulate, they by virtue of taking no action, are accepting the juridication of the United States. That’s what happened to Ted Cruz. He was born in Canada, and his parents registered him with the consulate, yet he was also given citizenship to Canada. My point is, unless those two immigrant parents register the child with the consulate of Mexico, or Guatamala or Mars for that matter, they are accepting by default jurisidiction.
If you are in a country, you are subject to its laws, unless you are specifically granted exceptions.
If an illegal immigrant assaults someone the cops don’t refuse to arrest them now, do they?
Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.
But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual. The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.
Actually diplomates are not subject to US law. Ever see a double parked diplomate car on the east side of mid-town Manhatten?
And actually, it does allow that a tourist, who gives birth to their child here, the child is afforded US citizenship. My wife’s parents rushed home to South America from Boston for her birth specifically so she was a natural born citizen of her home country and not the United States. Had they waited five days, she would have been born a US citizen.
That was not the original intent of the framer’s of the 14th Amendment, and it didn’t happen until a hundred years later.
Well they should have written better I guess – yeah?
Where did you get your law degree?
Pretty sure the same cracker jacks box you got yours in?
The law is written in plain English. If you’re born here, and you’re subject to our laws (i.e. not given some special class where various laws do not apply to you), then you are a citizen of this country and whatever state you were born in.
Why do I need a law degree to read and comprehend something so simply written, especially when the law system operates in a manner that respects the citizenship of children of illegal immigrants?
You aren’t even arguing your point, you are just copy pasting gibberish that is merely opinion and clearly not what the actual courts have decided up until now.
Your argument on jurisdiction is nutty. You argue that being subject to the jurisdiction of the US means not owing allegiance to any other country. How does a new born baby owe allegiance to another country?
So you are calling hn Eastman, former Dean of the Chapman School of Law, “nutty?”
“In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.”
Actually I said the argument was nutty. Not a person. But I think both you and Mr. Eastman miss the point. We are talking about the baby, not the parents. You want to ignore the rights of the baby. The baby did not come to the country illegally. They baby holds no allegiance to a foreign power.
There was a lot of politics and racism that played into those late 1800s cases. I bet they would not be decided the same today. You would have contort the wording of 14th Amendment to a nutty degree to find the meaning you claim, in addition you would need to find that parents who left their country for the US still had allegiance to the country, they left, did not voluntarily subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the US and that their allegiance to their country of origin, means their child has an allegiance to a country he never even lived in.
See you in court.
Doubt it. That case would never even reach the Supreme Court .
Like I said, you’re used to opponents who roll over and die.
Yes, because most people realize they can’t fight the constitution without putting forth another amendment, and another amendment isn’t happening anytime soon.
Go home Joe, you’re drunk.
This was a belated interpretation. If it can change once, it can change again.
We just have to fight harder than you. That’s how you always get your way.
You’re right. I don’t think the framers of various amendments ever knew their amendment would result in the SCOTUS decisions they have. Does it matter what the framers of the 14th Amendment thought about gay and interracial marriage? Fuck no, it probably wasn’t even a brain fart back then, but guess what? Doesn’t matter.
We go by what our constitution dictates, and the constitution dictates that people born here who have to follow our laws are absolutely and unquestionably citizens of this great country. Piddle away your monopoly money in court if you want but I don’t see you changing that any time soon.
The key part you gloss over when reading is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Those already here illegally are clearly not “subject to the jurisdiction” and therefore cannot pass off their offspring as citizens just because they decide to come in illegally and basically use them as human shields. No repeal of the amendment is necessary to end the “anchor babies” safe haven that has been created by the advancing of illegals. You really have to stretch to think the founders believed indiscriminately in having any and all children born somewhere on this soil to be granted automatic and irrevocable citizenship for any reason and that it can never be taken away.
First of all, if you are within an area controlled by a governmental entity you are “subject to the jurisdiction of that government.” The only people who are in the US and not subject to its jurisdiction are diplomats who reside in an embassy and have diplomatic immunity. Being subject to the jurisdiction of a country generally means you are present in the country, you are subject to the laws of that country, and you must answer to the courts of that country if you break those laws.
Second, the “founders” certainly did see a difference between people born in this country and people born elsewhere. Many patriots who fought against the British in the Revolution were not born in one of the Colonies. Despite their loyalty, the founders saw fit to make them ineligible to run for President of the US, restricting that office to natural born citizens. Which I believe to mean people born in this country; or at least on property controlled by the Country, like army bases and embassies.
Finally, the “founders” have nothing to do with the 14th Amendment that was passed after the Civil War.
Babies born in the US are citizens if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Illegal aliens, by virtue of not being citizens, or even being in the country legally, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They’re foreigners. They aren’t accounted for or documented in any way, so how in the world can they be subject “to the jurisidiction thereof” that supposedly automatically instills citizenship on their children?
If they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States then I guess they’re free to drive cars without license and insurance, we can’t arrest them for murder and rape, and in fact, they can do just about anything they want, because they are only accountable for their legal status. Right?
We’re only talking about it from the standpoint of the granting of citizenship, not whether our hands are tied in criminal or legal proceedings due to being “out of jurisdiction”.
Current immigration law–found at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)–specifies that a baby born on American soil to (1) a foreign ambassador, (2) head of state, or (3) foreign military prisoner is not an American citizen. If the 14th Amendment said all people born here were citizens, how could 8 USC 1401 carve out these exceptions? The fact is, if Congress can make these exceptions in any case that they deem necessary. The 14th amendment is not absolute as you seem to be arguing that it is, and Congress can certainly make another exception for people in the country illegally. That’s really the bottom line.
But that list is directly tied back to this inane argument about jurisdiction. The first two are people clearly here in an official capacity representing a different sovereign state. The last is people here held against their will.
It doesn’t matter. They are simply exceptions that are made to the so-called “rule” regarding “natural born citizenship”. You think an exception can be made for those acting in an official capacity but those not acting in an official capacity and here illegally can’t have an exception made for their children? I don’t even understand what your purpose in arguing this is. It’s like your head is so full of the anti-Trump propaganda about him being a nativist that you just can’t let go of anything that might make his proposals look bad.
What are you going to base the exception on? The exception you listed was based on “jurisidiction” – but now you want to allow for numerous excpetions not covered under anything in the 14th amendment.
Someone who comes in here illegally is not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are they? Can they be drafted? Can they be summoned for jury duty? No and that’s where the “jurisdiction” phrase will certainly get dicey and open to interpretation. You can’t just say that the parents here illegally are fully under the jurisdiction of the US or locale they are in just because they are on US soil.
Yes they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. God, how can you not get that. They are subject to the laws and jurisdication of the United States. That they cannot be called for jury duty is based on the requirement that jurors are US citizens.
Good Lord, this is getting nauseating. Of course they are subject to the laws of the US, but so is any and everyone here. All you are talking is something automatic. Why would the 14th amendment specify “jurisdiction” on such an obvious point? It doesn’t make any sense. It does so because there are exceptions and it wouldn’t be an unconstitutional exception for Congress to make an exception in the case where the parents are not fully subjected in every way to the jurisdiction (taxes, jury duty, military order, etc.) You are stretching hard if you think that should really be the case based on the 14th’s specification of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, particularly when it’s original purpose was far from what we are discussing it around now.
Unless of course it was 1865 and jurisidication was meant to apply to numerous territories that had not yet become states. And thus we’re back to where we started. BTW – based on your jury argument. So can we agree, if you had two legal resident aliens, who had a baby, that child would be afforded citizenship. Right? Of course. But they still can’t participate in a jury. They’re still exempt. Can you start to see how inconsistent that argument is? Cause I’ll tell this – six out of nine Supreme Court justices most certainly would.
Of course those justices would, they are politically motivated. That’s irrelevant because that case can’t be brought by illegals.
It’s not true that “legal residents” can’t serve jury duty. Some states confer the “citizenship” on documented immigrants solely for the purpose of possible jury duty selection. But I see your, nevertheless. You would still have to tell me why in the world the aforementioned stipulation about jurisdiction is placed in the 14th amendment. It can’t be by your simple definition of it, otherwise it wouldn’t need to be there.
I would suggest it was placed there specifically to apply to “territories” of which there were 12 that eventually became states. It was intended to avoid an instance where slave owners might claim that a child born to slaves, say in 1859, in Arizona, would not have the right to citizenship under the 14th because they were not born in the “United States” as in the Union. In otherwords, potential states could, if they so desired, avoid having blacks the right to vote simply by where they were born. And I’m so confident in that, I would point you to Puerto Rico, and Guan, which are not states but US terriroties, and whose people are born with US citizenship.
I see nothing to suggest it was physical jurisdiction (otherwise they would have spelled out the “limits”), but that it was clearly political jurisdiction. Your using a backwards argument. The slaves in then non-US states were in the physical jurisdiction but were in the political jurisdiction, that’s why their civil rights were constitutionalized.
This is from John Bingham, the actual author of the 14th:
“Every person born within the limits of the Unites States and subject to their jurisdiction (meaning the states) is by virtue of natural law a citizen of the Unites States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
He knew that the basis of our republic and thus the conference of citizenship was based on the consent of the country. That’s the bottom line. There is no such recognition of self-immigration which is what the children of illegals would be make out to be. It can’t just be claimed indiscriminately and that’s plain. That was clear with other writings around the same time of supporters, who made it clear that citizenship couldn’t just be conferred on anyone for any reason. That’s where you miss the boat. You’re making all these detailed arguments around the issue that have nothing to do with the fact that we have every right not confer citizenship on certain people if they don’t meet certain requirements. The exceptions spoken of are not in any way exhaustive but are mean to se forth broad interpretations agreed upon by “we the people”.
That may be what he said, but this not how the courts have interpretted the law. And that is what matters here.
Not to me. I don’t really care. I’m about the truth, not about whether the political and “legal” winds are blowing. If judges want to ignore Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution that allows Congress plenary power to “establish the uniform rule of naturalization” then that’s embarrassing is why at the very least Donald Trump is right that we losing our country and “either we have a country or we don’t”. You should be embarrassed about it, too, and not just throw your hands up at the fact that the courts are going to erroneously rule in favor of the corrupted status quo. You are right that, in a sense, that’s all that really matters. But if the courts were going to do nothing but rule in favor of murderers and rapists, would just throw your hands up say “oh well, can’t do anything about it because I know how the courts will rule. That’s all that matters. Might as well move along”. That’s an extreme example that won’t happen but illustrates the absurdity of the logic.
See the issue to me is – I don’t see where we’re losing out country. Our country has been an ever-evolving nation and society. But again, whether they werer talking jurisdiction about a terriroty, or jurisdiction related to I’m subject to your laws, the fact is, a child born here, who doesn’t reject the jurisdication, is subject to it, and therefore is granted citizenship.
Anyway, this was fun. Have a good evening.
You miss the point. We are talking about the baby not the parents. How can you say the baby is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? The baby did not come here illegally, his parents did. You are ignoring the rights of the child.
That’s a god point? If you’re parents are here illegally, is that akin to original sin, and therefore you’ve come illegally? Does it matter where you were concieved? If you were concieved here, are you free of that “orginal sin?”
What about my rights? The parents don’t have to pay taxes, be summoned for jury duty, or be drafted into the military. Yet they can claim sanctuary because they delivered an “anchor baby”.
They cannot participate in Jury duty because there’s a requirement that a juror is a citizen, not a legal or illegal alien. It’s not connected. They do pay taxes in the form of rent (a portion of which the property owner passes through when he pays his property tax) and sales tax and often federal income tax under a social security (btw they often use the anchor baby’s ss number). As for selective service, if they were legal they would have to register for the draft, though they still couldn’t be on a jury. And since there isn’t a draft, it’s a rather hollow argument to suggest you’ve suffered any damanges because illegal immigrant parents can’t register for selective service. But if it bugs you that much, give them legal status and they’ll have to. Also, they cannot actually get legal status from the anchor baby, since the law specifically requires the “citizens” sponsoring them to be 21 years or older.
How can you argue “subject to the jurisdiction therof” – which I think you’ve taken completely out of context. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” the thereof is used, given the time it was written, to essentially say – United States (the actual states) and subject to the jurisdiction thereof – means adjoining non-state territories under US jurisidiction. – for example at the time it was written – Colorado, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Utah, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Alaska, Wyoming, and eventually Hawaii.
So let’s think this through. The hypothesis is that Juan, living in a small village in Central Mexico, knocks up Juanita. They decide to then save up $7,000 to have a coyote drag prego Juanita through the wilderness so she can have the baby in Yuma. The reality is that is probably a rare instance. Yes, federal agents have closed down “birthright mills” in LA. But most of those participants came to the US via an airplane, with a valid visa. But of the estimated 300,000 to 400,000 kids born annually to non-Green Card holders each year, the vast majority were likely concieved here in the United States. Does that make a difference? Is the location of the conception make that child more likely to be eligible or not? The legal reality also is that to reverse the SCOTUS ruling, regardless of when it was, would require a change to the Bill of Rights. And since there have NEVER been any changes to the Bill of Rights that rescinds a “right” except for Prohibition, it would likely never pass. So…… the other solution is, reform the immigration process to funnel people through a working “legal” process to immigrate (since today’s process is not working) and bring people in through the front door. Then those children born here would be born to “legal” immigrants and would of course be eligible under the law as citizens, and not be “anchors” but additions to the family.
Well the Republican Party is running two questionable immigrants for President. Rubio is an anchor baby. All we know about his parents was they came to this country and stayed. No other explanation has been provided. At first their story was they were fleeing Castro, but the timing proved that to be a lie. So I can’t see him wanting to change anything.
Cruz is the first generation child of a former Cuban Communist rebel, who came to this country illegally and stayed. He admits he bribed officials to get a visa and then never left. He even attended the University of Texas, a taxpayer supported school, while here illegally. To add insult to injury Cruz was born in Canada, and at the time his father was not even a US Citizen. How can the GOP have any moral authority on this issue, when two of its candidates should not even be eligible to run for President.
We need a President with long roots in this country. Someone whose parents were born in this country. As far as I am concerned those two are just a non-starter. I will never vote for either of them.
Rubio’s parents had permanent residency status long before he was born. He was in no way an “anchor baby.” You’re a dumbass.
Are you sure?
Yep.
Well good for Marco. That’s so sweet.
But they weren’t U.S. citizens so Little Marco wouldn’t be a U.S. citizen under Trump’s proposal. Neither would Little Bobby Jindal or Little Ricky Santorum or Big Ted Cruz. But this might be the silver lining to Trump’s proposal: we could deport these losers.
A birther issue.Trump wasn’t born in the US.He’s from a galaxy far,far away..
And while we’re not going to gush like talking head Ann Coulter – who called Trump’s plan “the greatest political document since the Magna Carta” – it does represent the only thing resembling a real solution to the immigration problem any politician has put forth. Ever.
———
I’m glad you didn’t gush… sheesh!
Will is giving The Onion a run for its money with these Trump humping pieces.
That one got me laughing, great job!
When you break from the herd, and pride yourself on your ability to engage in independent thinking, sometimes crazy doesn’t register.
The fact is, Trump has not stated how he would pay for his “plan”:
————————————————-
“Donald Trump’s immigration plan is huge in every aspect — including its price tag.
Think $166 billion. And that’s on the low end.
“As far as immigration’s concerned, we need the wall,” Trump said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday, the same day he unveiled his proposal on his website. “We want people to come in. I want people to come in. They have to be wonderful people. They have to come in legally.”
But Trump has said little about how much his plan would cost or how he’d pay for it, other than a dubious assurance he’d make Mexico foot the bill for the wall.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/donald-trumps-immigration-tab-166-billion-121500.html#ixzz3jGrIEr00
—————————————————–
Mexico is not paying for “the wall” and FITS, and his claim that if not, he’ll just increase tariffs and taxes on imported goods is unlawful, violates international treaties that the U.S. has lawfully entered into. Do you seriously want a President who thinks he can unilaterally set tariffs, taxes and fees on imported goods, in violation of US Law? I thought we were supposed to hate the current Imperial President for using the Constitution for toilet paper.
FITS, you do realize that increasing tariffs and taxes on imported goods from Mexico is an increase in government? More taxes/fees/tariffs = bigger government. It is also anti-consumer, to which you routinely opine about is struggling.
And he is for immigration, to work in his hotels, restaurants and golf courses. His intellectual advisor on race and immigration issues, Andrew Coulter, wants all foreigners out of the country, legal or illegal. So they’ll have to work out that issue, while per Trump, “winning the Hispanic vote”, again more delusional talk.
Trump also conveniently does not mention that it would take 40 years before every illegal would have had a deportation hearing. It is delusional to propose or think we’re going to round up 11 Million plus illegals and send them back to Central America. We need more enforcement on employers hiring them.
I’m all for enforcement at the border, even a wall. His ideas of mass deportation and making illegal, what is expressly Constitutional, are non-serious and ill-befitting a nominee of a major party for POTUS.
“Think $166 billion. And that’s on the low end.”
$166 billion. That’s all you got. Hell Bush shipped 12 billion in cash to Iraq in an airplane after the war and it all disappeared.
No, he’s going to pay for it with tarrif’s on stuff like VW Jetta’s and Golfs, and other items used in the manufactur of US autos, and in essence, tax us so we pay for it.
How about seizing Western Union remittances of money transferred between the U.S. and Mexico?
Would be struck down by the Courts in about three days.
Naw, just call it a tax or a penalty … whatever, The Supreme Court’ll just allow it, as long as a Democrat is defending it…
100% tax? Good luck with that.
I’ll give them 10 cents on the dollar.
Get it passed. They’ll just wire the money to a clearing house in Canada to exempt themselves from the tax, and the money will be wired from Canada to Central America. BTW – one year on Christmas eve my wife sent to a Tienda locally to get some calling cards and a few items. I was standing in line and a young girl was wiring home $10,000. Now I think that was nice for her family in Mexico – but what I really took away from that – as a dumb fat American I’m so materialistic I can’t even save $10,000 (nor can most Americans) – yet here’s someone making probably 25% my salary, and her and husband can cobble together $10,000 to send home. And I’ve seen ’em at Christmas time at the pediatrician’s office, pay a six month bill of $2,000 in cash. I’m probably more at awe over that, than upset. They pay their bills, save money like crazy, live thrift driven lives, and help out their families. We get a Chase card, wrack up $16,000 in debt on just one card, and spend years making minimum payments.
When you live with 16-20 people in a two bedroom house, are paid in cash and pay little if any taxes it’s easy to save money.
Since we’re swapping anecdotes, I thought I’d share this one: A friend who i jokingly refer to as “the slum lord” had a house in a less desirable part of town off of Leesburg Road. He rented the house to a “Hispanic family”, after the water heater gave up ghost the renters told him that they’d install it if he bought a new one. “The Slum Lord” is a fairly handy guy but trusts almost no one.so he asked me to help him install a replacement. We arrived at the house Saturday morning to find 16 people sleeping there – in a two bedroom house. The “renter” was no where to be found.
Since the “Slum Lord” is a clever fellow, his contracts include a maximum number of folks that can reside in the property and he began the eviction process. As the process went forward we learned that the “renter” who was a naturalized US citizen, was also a “fixer” who rented and set up flop houses for illegal aliens to live in. He would show up with his family to look at the property and then once the landlord was clear, he’d move in as many folks as there was floor space for.
Saving money is a lot easier than you’d think but it’s even easier when you get to skip some or all of the taxes, live like a cockroach and have to stay hidden most of the time.
Oh I hear ya. I can remember back in the mid 1980s living in Jacksonville FL, instead of Hispanics it was folks from Manila. You’de get two or three legal ones to rent a house, and suddenly the garage was a barracks. But honestly, is that any differnt than the lower East Side of Mahnatten in 1915? Not really.
An old lady long-time resident once told me that was Elmwood Park in the 1960s. One family per bedroom.
Oh, and Leesburg Road – damn – ain’t been out there in a very, very, very, very long time. Funny how you move away from somewhere and forget about all those places.
A suggestion for you, be sure you’re never in war, Marines don’t put up with your kind.
I had two friends in the first Gulf War. One in the Army, one in the Marines. The Marine pulled his groin hauling a box through the sand, spent the war on a ship. The one in the Army was a squad leader, rode a Bradley from Saudi Arabia to the Basra Highway, engaged a Republican Guard division for 36 hours. Just sayin’……
Stopping open wire money transfers is the same process we used for stopping Cuban remittances. All that should be required in the future for these transfers is US Treasury compliance form with SSN and DL# attached. Embargoing the Western Union remittance payment fees immediately halts the Mexican government from profiting off inbound wire transfers. The transfer fees are encountered by the recipient (Mexico) not the sender (U.S.A.) – there is no fee on the sender, only the recipient.
See below – so I wire to Canada to a clearning house who send it to Mexico. Great plan. Or – since illegals do it all the time – I open a BofA account, mail an ATM card to my Uncle, and he can to the local Bank of Ciudad Donkey and get the money out $300 at a time as he needs it.
It’s also about who it’s coming from (thus the Treaury compliance form), not just where it’s going to.
If I open a BofA account with $2,000, and mail Tio Jose a debit card with the password, and he takes out $150 – there’s no Treasury form. I routinely take out money from my account at overseas ATMs and never filed out a Treasury form.
This is little example of yours is irrelevant. Most of the money transfer between illegals and their family in another country is via Western Union. At the very least, it increases the cost of transferring by another workaround means.
It might be through Western Union, but tax it heavily, and they, just like other normal human beings, will find an alternative. That ole’ Invisible Hand.
Well, you’de have to have a real plan first.
Birthright citizenship is part of our constitution, what a surprise, the right hates yet another piece of the constitution.
Terri Neuman @ the RIGHTScoop
s
Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, the principle author of the citizenship
clause of the 14th amendment, explicitly said that candidates for
citizenship must be born here AND not owe allegiance to another
authority. He made it clear that allegiance “will not, of course,
include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens,
who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers
accredited to the Government of the United States.” If we can be sure
that even children of Indian tribes were excluded from automatic
citizenship, certainly temporary visitors from foreign countries were
meant to be excluded as well.
The notion that the framers of the 14th Amendment desired
to include illegal aliens in birthright citizenship is not only contrary
to the explicit language and context of the amendment, it is patently
absurd. – See more at:
https://www.conservativereview…
Also See: Article One, Section 8 Uniform Rule of Naturalization
Let that be a lesson to you – put it in writing.
“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.”
born or naturalized
or
or
or
This is another effort by Trump to tap into the nativist sentiment by aging white rural Americans. (And low-skilled Americans who are wanting to blame someone for their poor choices in lfe). The truth is, its about reducing immigration. The seige mentality.
The “nativist sentiment” and “aging white rural Americans”. You mean like Jamiel Shaw’s father’s sentiment.
Nativist? What about persons who waited for or continue to wait for citizenship legally? As far as Low-skilled Americans? So the solution is to bring in more low-skilled people to improve the economy and edge out our own citizens for training programs, subsidies, jobs, and housing, etc. Is it fair to overwhelm the system when those $$ can be used to repair infrastructure, improve healthcare coverage, our nation’s security, etc…? To the “average American” who came from immigrant stock, it is about assimilating those who are already here, to be productive and law-abiding citizens, to share our over-arching values – no matter the race, creed, or color.
As far as seige mentality? It is a natural consequence of lawlessness.
So you’re contention is that new immigrants – say from Latin America – don’t assimilate? Because dude, I grew up in NJ, about 35 miles out of Manhatten. Do you think that Italians and Greeks and Romanian immigrants in 1920 “assimilated” right away? Do you have any idea how many kids I went to school with growing up that had grandparents that didn’t speak English. Hell, my grandparents spoke horrible English. When I stayed with them as a kid, they only spoke English if my father was around. If it was just me or my Mom, everything was in French. It takes a generation for a family to assimilate. And even then they never 100% assimilate. They hold on to family and cultural traditions. As for productive and law abiding, the vast majority are productive and law abiding on day one. I suspect you need a trip down to Miami, or out to San Diego. You realize that San Diego has a lower murder and crime rate than Columbia SC?
Apples and oranges. Substitute Latin American for any other ethnicity coming into the country at the current volume, illegal status, and income level, and everyone would be equally alarmed, especially given this current economic climate. Assimilation doesn’t mean eradication of cultural and family traditions. It is more an adaption of the over-arching values of your new circumstance or country. Like for example: the Rule of Law. Those immigrants of yesteryear of whom you speak, came in legally and were screened for disease, financial viability, and criminality. Nothing wrong with that! First order of business is protecting your citizens. How much is enough in your book?
“Sigh” – OK. So here’s a fact. Every immigrant that arrived at Ellis Island, and stood in the front of those doors, until they were processed and came out the back doors, were in fact, illegal immigrants because they didn’t yet have legal status. Now, if you’de like to have an Ellis Island at each border point, and process them, that day or at least in 48 hours, I’m all for it. But to somehow suggest that Uncle Anthony DeSilva somehow had to wait at the US consulate in Sicily for 10 years to come, and provide reams of documentation etc – is just false. BTW – thank goodness those Italian and other European families were slow to assimilate – because most front-line infantry squads in Italy and Normandy – had a large number of immigrant family privates, corporals and non-coms who could speak those languages.
Average screening and processing time at Ellis Island was 4-6 hours, for a select few – 2-3 days – if you were sick we put you in a hospital on that island until you were well enough to complete processing. And I think something like 3 out of every 1,000 were not allowed in.
America agrees w Trump. While Obama has perverted every law we have to make it a handout program. We cannot afford it. Especially after he has bankrupted us.
Thank Reagan if you’re upset about picking up the tab for medical care of illegals.
In 1986, Congress passed the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which contained the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. The law requires hospitals to treat patients in need of emergency care regardless of their ability to pay, citizenship or even legal status. It applies to any hospital that takes Medicare funds, which is virtually every hospital in the country.
Gracias presidente Reagan para ayudar a los inmigrantes ilegales !
You’re quite welcome, and let me say, that your people have done wonderful things for the state of California, and for all America. In fact, it’s America who should be saying, gracias to you. By the way, I hated that Trump jerk off when I met him in the 1980s, and seems like he ended up just like I predicted to George HW Bush – fat, stupid and overpaid.
“Trump said in 2009 that Obama was ‘a strong guy who knows what he wants,’ a person with “the mark of a strong leader,” and “totally a champion.” He even bestowed the greatest Trumpian honor upon Obama, saying, ‘I would hire him.'”
He’s donated money to me so I already know he’d hire me too.
That phone call to Donald has paid off tremendously.
It’s not fair that Donald Trump buys politicians! I mean, it was fair when he bought me, but that’s different!
Leadership differs from policy. Many admire Mao’s “leadership”.
Glad to know Trump is not a racist, thank God.
Idiots and paid toadies agree with Trump. Which are you?
Hello, you’ll be paying for Iraq and Afghanistan for 20 years, numb nut.
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
:::::::
::::::::::::::::::
???? Tinyurl.com/Start6eApplyCareers2v
………..,…,,………..,…………………..,…….,……………………………
FOR WORK INFo LOOK NEXT TAB IN PAGE WEBSITE
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Trump’s awesome plan (as seen by Folks) calls for deporting American citizens (not lawful), ending “anchor babies” (not going to happen), and forcing either Mexico to pay for a wall (not going to happen) or indirectly taxing us to pay for a wall (not going to happen). You two morons (Trump and Folks) make a lovely couple.
It’s the GOP motto.
I’m sure certain long-termed illegals will be somewhat grandfathred-in but their fine will be used to build the wall or pay for a surveillance method and it will not be the chaos you are projecting unless La Raza gets more terroristic. What can be more chaotic than what we have now? This lawlessness has to stop and it is NOT supported by the Constitution. It is partisan politics combined with cronyism. We do have leverage with Mexico and Central America and I can see us using that to stem the flow of illegal aliens.
Maybe we stop buying their crack.
Fabulous idea. Or send the users of crack to Mexico to live on an exchange program. Wow Trump has really got me thinking out of the box!
Oh, that’s right, Mexico doesn’t allow illegal immigration….
I love the way Tea Party and Trumpistas talk about The Constition and act like scholars of the sacred document, but in fact, scan through it, take six adjacent words and try and re-define “intent” and “meaning.” Sort of like that angry guy who goes into the local Ford dealership having read some obscure phrase in his warrenty and demands he gets “free” spark plugs for life.
Justice Hugo Black, said it best.
“The layman’s Constitutional view is that what he likes is constitutional and that which he does not like is unconstitutional.”
If Planned Abortionhood, cuts up the anchor baby for parts while it’s heart is beating is it still an US Citizen?
Yes.
This whole “illegal Immigration” problem is a mess.
Where is the law?
A person that avoided legal procedure to enter this country should be in legal jeopardy.
Therefore a woman that enters this country illegally and then has an “anchor baby” should not be given a pass on prosecution, and the child should not be considered an automatic US citizen based on the illegal actions of its mother.
We will probably be stuck with most of the lawbreakers for the present time, but something should be done quickly to stop this mass migration.
We can not absorb and bring to prosperity all the poor, underprivileged refugees from Mexico and Central America and the rest of the world.
But again, that is not what the Consitution says, and that is not how the SCOTUS has ruled.
And that is precisely why it needs to be changed, Senor. An illegal entry into this country should not automatically bequeath citizenship status upon a child born to an illegal alien within these borders…
GOod luck with that. Now I need to get back to work.
The fourteenth amendment was originally meant for the freed slaves and Indian tribes to insure their citizenship. It was only basterdized when the open borders crowd gained power. What it will take to get it back to it’s original meaning and interpretation will have to be seen. But a simple court order should get the ball rolling seems to me.
That would have been what – 1898? You mean we’ve had an open border crowd since 1898? Dang – Jesse Jackson is old.
1898 was when it was originally written. It has been only recently, I don’t know the exact date, When it was purposely “misinterpited “.
Like the second amendment has been bastardized by the NRA to allow anyone to own an assault rifle or automatic handgun?
The second amendment has been right from day one. “The RIGHT of the people to keep and bare arms SHALL NOT be infringed.” Looks pretty straight forward to me.
Yeah, all these folks dislike them undocumented immigrants. Wait until they start going to the local Mexican restuarant and the guy making dinner is Joe or Paul. They’ll screaming for Juan and Pedro to return pretty fast.
So these guys talking about “intent” of the law? How do they know the “intent” of the framers. Do they use a ouija board or do they hit up a speak-to-the-dead vodoo lady off Savannah Highway.
We love Trump. He drives up our billable hours and ensures our wives have new cars.
Seems to me the issue of illegal immigration can be solved by fining the shit out of businesses and individuals who hire illegal immigrants. They come for the jobs, stupid. No jobs, they don’t come. For proof look at the statistics from 2008-2010. But Republicans are so beholden to business interests they wouldn’t dream of fining the source of illegal immigration. They’d rather pay one of their cronies to build a wall.
But that would upset the GOP’s core constituency: wealthy corporations and the rich people who own them.
The illegal aliens are going to be rounded up and kicked out, and there is not a god damn thing anyone can do about it. Try to stop it and you will have a civil war on your hands. Over 74% of Americans want them gone. Got it?!
F ook off. You ain’t deporting anyone, let alone American citizen children born here you all talk do nothin’ redneck.
We are all anchor babies
According to the 2010 U.S. Census, there are 17,476,000 naturalized citizens, 22,480,000 illegal immigrants. All the rest of the population are birthright citizens. That is 269,394,000 Americans are anchor babies.
When I went to seek admittance to a community college, I was required to prove my U.S. citizenship or have a student visa. Even though I can trace all my mother’s ancestors having settled in the American colonies before 1700 and my father ancestors in the U.S. before the Civil War, I still had to prove my citizenship.
I proved my citizenship with a birth certificate. Without birthright citizenship, how will you prove your citizenship in the future? Perhaps a National ID?
Or the number engraved on your arm? Oh – bam!!!!