EXPLORING THE MEANING OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
|| By ROBERT ROMANO || Ever since he announced his candidacy for president in June, Donald Trump has been setting the agenda for the rest of the field. And so, naturally, his call to bring an end to birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants was all anybody could talk about last week.
On NBC’s Meet the Press on August 16, Trump said, “We’re going to keep the families together, but they have to go.” Here, he was addressing the issue of anchor babies — those born in the U.S. whose parents were illegal immigrants at the time.
Since the only basis for deporting a person is if he or she is not a citizen and is not here legally, then, Trump has raised the question.
Does being born to illegal immigrant parents while geographically located in the U.S. automatically confer citizenship?
Supporters of that view will often cite the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that guaranteed citizenship to freed slaves after the Civil War, which states, in part, “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.”
By its text, clearly, being born in the U.S. is not enough to confer citizenship. The person must also be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
Opponents of birthright citizenship, such as constitutional scholar and radio talk show host Mark Levin and the Library of Law and Liberty’s Mark Pulliam, have noted that the reason for that is because the amendment was not intended to include Native Americans who did not owe allegiance to the U.S. And that, most importantly, the Fourteenth Amendment does not automatically confer citizenship by default to those born in the U.S. if their parents are not citizens.
They quote the framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, Sen. Jacob Howard (R-Mich.) who, at the time, explained the clause “is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already,” adding that, “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…”
And what was “the law of the land already?” Per Pulliam, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed citizenship to “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed…”
That, clearly, would exclude the children of citizens of foreign nations …
(To continue reading this piece, press the “Read More …” icon below).
Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of Americans for Limited Government. This piece (reprinted with permission) originally appeared on NetRightDaily.com.
134 comments
Not to mention Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution empowers Congress to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” – or, more simply put, to make universal rules regarding foreign-born residents of the United States and their offspring. Not to mention that it stretches any interpretation to deduce that the 14th amendment framers would have in mind what we are talking about today.
Guess he forgot to mention:
In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who is born in the United States of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
Ooops. Forgot that part.
Hurry up Flip.
Congress is the only ONE that can decide citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
SCOTUS has decided differently. You must hate the SCOTUS – don’t you……..
No they didn’t. Congress decides citizenship.
Nope. Congess decided citizenship in the 14th – if you’re born here, your parents live here and are not on a diplomatic mission.
No, citizenship is given if you’re born here so long as your parents are here and subject to US law. Which of course documented and undocumented immigrants are. Sorry, SCOTUS ruled.
Right, subject to US law which they apparently violated by illegally entering. Guess they weren’t paying attention. Oopsie for them.
It is not subject to legal status, that’s the thing. It never referenced legal status, nor did the court ruling. If you think that can defeat it, go for it. We got all day and night, and attorney’s charge $1,000 an hour, minimum, for SCOTUS cases.
Rocky brought a third world family into this country and he wants them to feel at home.Outhouse,hang the laundry in the backyard,shower once a week etc…
Actually I did not. I met my wife here, she was a legal resident alien, already had applied for citizenship, and went through the naturalization process before we got married. Our children were born here – and guess what nationality they are – Americano.
WTF is it with you and ‘aliens’? I am sure they are very nice Rocky.
As a child of a first generation American, who’s grand-parents were immigrants, who’s family knows many immigrants, I take exception to this silly attack on immigrants. You upset they came undocumented, you have had 10 years to reform the system. But your party never does, and blocks it at every turn. That’s the problem. Because every four years you like to gin up your base saying “look out – Pedro and Maria are gonna take your EBT card money.” Stop playing to trailer trash and get something accomplished. Else, live with it.
From what I hear they have stronger family values.
Flip only thinks they are smart if they have some white in them.
It is LEGAL or ILLEGAL.
The court ruling was clear – if you’re born here, and your parents are here, and subject to US legal juridication. It’s not really that hard.
You have a ‘definition’ issue…NOT undocumented-ILLEGAL
That’s very ableist of you to talk down to a special needs person like Flip.
ha! Hanging your hope on gay perverts and illegals ain’t gonna win you NOTHING!
You support Josh Duggar so I don’t give a shit who you think is a pervert.
SCOTUS decides constitutionality, Congress can’t do shit unless someone passes an amendment or gets a competing court ruling.
Doesn’t matter.Thank you Donald. NO amnesty OR path to citizenship.
Bye Bye Democrat party!
Looks like the Stop Hillary Express is headed for the same fate as the Stop Obama Express. CHOOOOO CHOOOOOOOOO!
Umm…yeah, I keep seeing this case brought up everywhere I go now by those respond to defenders of ending “birthright citizenship”, but it doesn’t jive with what we’re talking about. Wong Kim Ark had parents who were immigrants from China, who, because of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, were NOT American citizens but were not necessarily subject to or loyal to a foreign power. If you want to argue that this particular case will be used in court in favor of “birthright citizenship” then I’ll certainly agree that it will based on the fact that it keeps being brought up everywhere. Same thing with INS vs Rios-Pinda. But both these cases are simply bringing up the fact that the court said, in dicta, that children born in the United States to illegal immigrants are citizens and not necessarily that it is expressly states such in the 14th amendment (or wherever). Trying to construct a holding that babies born to illegal aliens are automatic citizens fails. Those who bring such a case before the courts would have to clarify the language. Holdings by themselves do not make law. Precedent, sure. But laws, no. Putting aside all this is the fact that Congress is expressly granted the power to end birthright citizenship and any exceptions to be granted to the laws they make regarding would have to go through the court and one would have to argue that their rights are being violated via the 14th amendment, not the other way around.
Dan – didn’t we do this tango last week?
Oh yeah, sorry. I forgot. I was drunk.
I probably was too:)
Did you just say “tango”? You mean that “grand” guy who always “slapped the shit out of you” and said that you claimed to work at the Savannah River site?
Yeah, Mr. Delusional.
So, let me understand you position in regard to your own party.
Marco Rubio, born in US to non-citizen parents. His parents were allegedly in the US legally, although the reason for their immigration remains unclear. Is he a citizen?
Raphael “Ted” Cruz – Born in Canada, Mother US Citizen, Father not a US Citizen. Father admitted he got into US by bribing customs officials in Cuba for a visa. Is Raphael a Citizen?
Piyush “Bobby” Jindal was born in the US to parents who were non-citizens. The were in the US legally but had not obtained permanent legal resident status. Is Piyush a citizen?
By their logic, No! No! Hell No!!!!
Your registered GOP voter card is more valuable than a long form birth certificate or picture ID.
First of all, my position is not “in regard” to anything except what I believe to be the facts regarding the discussion. My party is irrelevant.
Second, at the time of each of these individuals births, they were legally regarded as naturalized citizens. Most of the situations surrounding each of their births and parents’ status is muddy, so I have no idea how they would be affected by any ending of universal birthright citizenship. Ted Cruz’s mother was a US citizen and Rubio’s parents were both permanent legal residents on the path to citizenship who became citizens a few years after his birth. Nobody is saying there aren’t going to be any exceptions or special circumstances to claiming naturalized citizenship, only that the process of forcing the US to recognize citizenship SOLELY on the basis of birthright should be reconsidered because it’s supposed enshrinement in law is up for debate.
“Second, at the time of each of these individuals births, they were legally regarded as naturalized citizens.”
That is not right. They at the time of their birth they were considered citizen by birthright. To be naturalized, you must apply to be a citizen, be approved, take a test and swear an oath to the US. None of them have done that. So if you are correct and they are not citizens by birthright, they are not citizens at all.
Correct, I’ve just talked about this so much over the last week that I inadvertently get them mixed up. Yes, they are citizens by birth and not by way of naturalization. My point in that being that the birthright status of citizenship grant to them is different than the ones we are discussing regarding illegals coming in from Latin America.
So I think under your analysis Piyush and Marco are defiantly not citizens, and Raphael may be because his mother was, a citizen even though his father came into the country illegally.
Also, happy day, under your analysis Nikki Haley is not a US Citizen either.
Ummm, no…I made no analysis of who is and is not a citizen. I’m only talking about policy going forward and the scenarios I’ve mentioned, to my knowledge, do not involved any of these individuals. You are going nowhere barking up this tree. It’s irrelevant.
I know you Republicans have problems with facts an logic, but its not a policy issue. If you read the article we are talking about, the premise is birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment is restricted to person born in this country of US Citizens. That the amendment did not confer birthright citizenship on “foreigners.” Foreigners being Marco’s Parents, Pyiush’s parents, and Nikki’s parents. The argument being made is that we will take nothing away from anyone by ending birthright citizenship to children born to foreigners in the US, because they were never citizens in the first place.
Excuse me That the amendment did not confer birthright citizenship on the children of “foreigners. Which comports with Senator Howard’s quote.
Yeah, “you Democrats” never have problems with “facts and logic”. Your condescension aside, you completely miss the point. If we are discussing whether birthright citizenship is conferred on the children of foreigners, then that becomes a policy issue. You never really say what your position is nor do you explain your disjointed statement that “we will take nothing away from anyone by ending birthright citizenship to children born to foreigners in the US”. I have no idea what that even means.
No one gives a shit about the Constitution, so stop your bellyaching.
It’s nothing but a God damned piece of paper.
Put Republicans in office and everything will be fine.
Just one more thing I want to burn, along with the American flag!
I’ll wipe my ass with the Constitution and blow my nose with the flag!
The argument that an illegal alien can step into the United States, claim legal and political jurisdiction, and confer citizenship to their child is insane. People claiming to be Constitutional experts saying that the 14th Amendment allows birthright citizenship are dead wrong. The 14th Amendment didn’t even give citizenship to Native Americans, why would it give citizenship to illegal aliens? The Constitution is on our side in a second way: Article 1 Section 8, which grants plenary power to Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. We’re tired of being told someone can come into our country illegally, claim citizenship, and we’re told there’s nothing we can do about it. We have policies that promote illegal aliens and illegal alien children more than the American citizen and American child – we’re committing national suicide.
Indians did not submit to “jurisdication” as they were considered soverign entities. Immigrants, however, as soon as they came into the country, were subject to juridication. Thus, after the ruling of the Supreme Court in 1898 – all immigrant children born here in the United States have been granted citizenship. Sorry that upsets you. And that’s the bottom line. A uniform rule of natarualization (i.e. how one applies for citizenship – the fees – the test – etc) is seperate from the citizenship conveyed upon an immigrant child born in the United States. Once again, twisting blurbs to suit your purpose, like you’re going to argue with the service departmet at your local Ford dealership – still ain’t gettin’ you free sparkplugs for life. Sorry.
Legal immigrants entering differ from illegal immigrants.
Bad Precedent.
If jihadists illegally enter over a number of years, decades let’s say, and have “anchor” babies, would you still accept the result?
We are supposed to be a nation of laws not corruptible men.
Then let’s reform the system, so that legal residents come through the front door without having to wait 10 years. Then again, the last set of terrorists came legally.
LMAO!!! Desperate for those illegals, Rocky? Can’t win elections without em, can ya?
No amnesty.Period. Thank you Donald.
Some deportation can be part of the reformation.
See the initial jihadists that did enter followed the rules. They won’t use THAT M.O. again. I mean, why should they when it’s a free for all at the border?
Accept it’s not. Ever been to the border?
Naturalization and birthright citizenship are two different things.
Birthright citizenship is based on the laws regarding naturalization.
The Robert’s Supreme Court will somehow not employ the same imaginative creativity and reasoning to this case that they applied to the folly of ObamaCare. That was where the Court ruled that whatever the supporters of ObamaCare left out of the bill, we will just make it up and insert it. They did it twice.
Let’s make them real anchor babies and when they are born tie anchors around their necks and drop them into the sea before shipping their parents back to their third world hell hole.
And if they die quick enough, we can harvest their brains for medical research.
Not before we pass them around dead for everyone to look at.
Can we wipe our hands with the American flag and then burn it? That would be awesome.
Ok Rocky.Stealing my name again?
Not me. I’m sticking with my killer looking Squirrel picture.
That squirrel has its tailed lifted up for you.
He’s got gas.
Tell us what the word is for an anal queef.
Tango
Hahahahaha!
#SantorumTango
Do I have to make my second coming just to slap a bitch? Flip, you are the worst person in the world.
Boz or Rocky are stealing my name? Not me.
Don’t be shy, my follower! Tell them you work for me!
Lucifer the dem/socialists that post on Fits make you look like Jesus.
Animals with NO respect for life,liberty or the law.
You do make me look like Jesus, don’t you, socialist gas-tax hiker Flip? You’re such a great believer in my cause! Maybe too great. I’m not looking to let you replace me!
Know your place goat humper. I’ll stomp your goat head with my cloven feet.
My name is Carlos, and I was born in Florence SC in 1997. My Momma and Pappi where working at the Holiday Inn then, but without legal status. I was born in the McLeod Medical Center, and was given a birth certificate that was followed within a week with my Social Security number. I was given American citizenship. I went to school speaking English, and later this year graduated high school. I am going to attend USC in Columbia with the money my parents saved for my education. My girlfriend Allison Greggs, is really nice. We will get married after I graduate and we’ll start a family. I don’t think I’ll come back to Florence, since I can make much better money in Atlanta. You’ll never revoke my citizenship, and some day I’ll run for President, and then I’ll get revenge.
The argument that an illegal alien can step into the United States, claim legal and political jurisdiction, and confer citizenship to their child is insane. People claiming to be Constitutional experts saying that the 14th Amendment allows birthright citizenship are dead wrong. The 14th Amendment didn’t even give citizenship to Native Americans, why would it give citizenship to illegal aliens? The Constitution is on our side in a second way: Article 1 Section 8, which grants plenary power to Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. We’re tired of being told someone can come into our country illegally, claim citizenship, and we’re told there’s nothing we can do about it. We have policies that promote illegal aliens and illegal alien children more than the American citizen and American child – we’re committing national suicide.
Carlos, don’t threaten me.Take your filthy blackmailing ass back to Latin America.
Guess you’ll need to argue that one before the Supreme Court. Good luck with that.
Maybe Carlos is from Spain.
Revenge for what? Your own parents misdeeds? Thank the US government for looking the other way and the taxpayers. Glad you have assimilated and are enjoying the American way. Make lots of $$$ so you can get your parents out of their illegal status.
I’d refer him to Catholic charities, they probably have a legal advocate that will assist. Praise God!!!
If the intent of an immigrant is to gain proper citizen status, following the prescribed legal path to citizenship should be a no-brainer. If they are trying to cynically circumvent the law in hopes of gaining a freebie by birthing a child across the border, that is ABUSE.
How many other nationalities make use of the anchor baby fabrication? It sounds like a convenient misinterpretation of the law welcomed by those who had most to benefit by its circumvention… to the tune of 300,000-400,000 births per year.
Canada – re: see Ted Cruz.
To the tune of 300,000-400,000 per year?
Guess you’d have to check with Canada.
So, I guess you already know the answer to that one, like “fairly infrequent” as opposed to 300,000-400,000 births per year. ABUSE.
I don’t know. Really. Ted Cruz was given citizenship because he was born there. Wait one second………nope can’t find it. Teddie’s the only one I can point to just now.
What he’s saying is because it isn’t as prevalent, it’s magically OK and totally not hypocritical.
Besides, Cruz is a Republican. They don’t hate illegals that vote the right way.
Hey Rocky-how is the market doing?I see it is heading back to MINUS 1000!
Last time I checked it’s around – 650.
-670
Closes in bit – let’s see if it keeps sliding or done for the day. Like I said earlier, ton of cash goes to bonds today, then leaks back to market over the next few weeks. It’s a run out of emerging markets.
Obama fucked us. Watch your money.My broker is getting nervous.
Do people on Medicaid have a broker?
I don’t know.Do you?
Yes they do, it’s called the local drug dealer. He makes Flip broker and broker every day.
L M A O ! ! !
Looks like we’re ending down 500. Half the loss you all were cheering for.
-600…Rocky likes to lie…:)
Yeah, little last burst. We’ll see how it recovers tomorrow.
Intentional circumvention of the law. In other words it’s illegal but they are getting away with it. Trump has said he will do something about it. GO TRUMP. Somebody somewhere needs to address this and stop it. 300,000 to 400,000 new Dims every year is reason enough. I haven’t settled on Trump yet but the more he speaks the better I like him. It seems like that as he has progressed in the campaign he is becoming a more serious candidate. Wait and watch.
??????????????????????????????????? …….
?Look HERE???? http://www.work-join.com ????????????????????????????????????????? observe and discover more help by clicking any connection
“According to CIS, 71 percent of illegal-alien headed households with children received some sort of welfare in 2009, compared with 39 percent of native-headed houses with children. Illegal immigrants generally access welfare programs through their U.S.-born children, to whom government assistance is guaranteed. Additionally, U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are entitled to American public schools, health care, and more, even though illegal-alien households rarely pay taxes.”
“The short-term cost of “anchor babies” was revealed a decade ago in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. “‘Anchor babies’ born to illegal aliens instantly qualify as citizens for welfare benefits and have caused enormous rises in Medicaid costs and stipends under Supplemental Security Income and Disability Income,” wrote medical attorney Madeleine Pelner Cosman. She noted the increasingly costly situation in California…”
Asking the questions no one else is dumb enough to, Robert Romano does humanity a disservice yet again.
Not that anyone asked, but my opinion is that only foreigners who are living in the US LEGALLY (i.e. visa and green card holders) should be considered to be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” If you are here illegally, you are subject to no jurisdiction at all, you are a fugitive from justice.
Todd, that definition, to be clear, would say then if you’re not legally here you’re not subject to juridication, meaning you can rob a bank and never be arrested for it. Same for murder.
You mean the guys that get deported instead of executed or jailed every day? They are not subject to US law, they are turned over to their home country’s justice system, no?
If you’re not subject to juridication (example a diplomate) you’re immune from US law. Hence the always contenious issue of diplomatic immunity.
Once DEFINED as a fugitive from justice you are then SUBJECT to jurisdiction.
Rocky how long have you been an attorney? :)
So under you’re example, if I come over with my knocked up wife from Russia, then get defined as a fugitive, and am subject to jurisdiction, and then my wife pops out a bun, the bun is automatically a citizen. Thanks for helping to support how the law works Flip. You finally get it.
No.You were here illegally so the child CAN”T become a citizen. Read the 14th Amendment. Congress can only gramt citizenship under the 14th Amendment-NOT the courts.
No, the law says if the parents are here and subject to jurisdication. You just said once defined as a fugitive you’re subject to jurisdiction. I know you hate to be wrong, but you’re just wrong here. Now if you want to amend the Constitution, go ahead and get started. You’ll need a running start because it will take you about 8 years.
Subject to jurisdiction to be deported ONLY! They can take their children with them.
You can’t get to decide which jurisdication does and doesn’t apply. It wasn’t written that way. You’re hillary-ous. You love the Constitution, then when it supports something you don’t like, you argue it says something else, or there’s this exception, or that exception. You must be really funny when you read your warrenty on the Trail Blazer. You’re probably the local Chevy dealer’s worst nightmare. “I want my free spark plugs”
Ok.Make you a deal. Children stay that are (in your mind LEGAL) by birth-parents are deported for breaking the law.
Go ahead. And you’re party will never win the White House again.
Then why ya worried? I know why-because Democrats can’t win elections anymore with a NEW base of voters and that base is illegal immigrants.
Outstanding.What Trump is saying and the law is on his side.Americans understand what he is saying and are with him.
Well that, and Trump is wanting to deport American citizens.
Trump is being kind.Do you want the children ripped away from their criminal parents when we deport them?
-585
No, I want their parents who work for a lving to stay. I want the trailer trash people with three kids from different Dads, who don’t pay child support who suck off our entitlement for white trash system deported. That’s what I’d prefer.
That would end the Democrat Party as only 25% of black families have a father in the household.
What percentage for white trailer trash with multiple fathers, one chubby Mom, are you willing to sacrifice. I hear there’s lots of them in southern Ohio. Why do they call it Mary-etta, I doubt most of them Mom’s is gettin’ married.
WE got some of them-but they are here LEGALLY.We don’t get to pick and chose what laws we follow Rocky.
You want to as it relates to the 14th Amendment. Sorry, the court has ruled. Change the Constition or move on.
14th Amendment doesn’t give citizenship to children born to illegals.
It doesn’t differentiate between legal or illegal aliens. That’s the point. That’s you’re problem with it. So get it fixed. If you think you can. I’m betting you can’t.
No reason to fix anything.DEPORT all of the illegals we can find. Build a Wall. No amnesty or path to citizenship unless they leave.
Fine. Leave the children here, they’ll stay with their legal relatives, and they’ll enact their revenge when they become voters. And you’re party will be relegated to Southern Ohio and the SEC.
I don’t know Rocky.Republicans have run the table on the Democrat Party since 2008 in state-local elections INCLUDING 34 governorships.
Here you there. There was great piece on MSNBC a while back on that. The architect for it was on. Brilliant move on their part.
Have a good night Rocky. I enjoyed it.
If you can be arrested and charged with crimes or sued in our courts you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Diplomats who live in embassies and have diplomatic immunity are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Well, it ought to be corrected, and we all know a constitutional amendment is a pipe dream. I am pretty sure every other 1st world nation laughs at us for having this policy. It is impossible to legally control immigration in any meaningful way if anchor babies are still possible. The border may as well remain completely open.
Deport the 1000s of Spanish only radio stations too!!
No!!!! Ever see the weather ladies on Univision. Are you out of your mind?
Here is comes!!!! Americans starting to pull their money out of their bank accounts for cash!!!
When this bunch admits that the likes of Nimrata Randhawa Haley and Pyush Jindal were actual anchor babies, I’ll give them some credit.