Posted on 03/17/2015 4:48:47 PM PDT by Steelfish
I think it would be appropriate for the child to be born a citizen IF the parent is in this country *legally* (and not on a visitor visa, either). (I think it actually says that somewhere, doesn’t it? Someone with more knowledge than me can fill me in.) But if the parents are here illegally, why on earth should the bambino be legal? That has never made sense. Time to spell it out legally that it is NOT so.
Well there’s that pesky clause of 14A....and subject to the jurisdiction thereof....
I would argue that that’s plain language that foreign nationals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US...and were never intended to be covered by 14A.
That’s where I think Congress can legitimately clarify this by statute. Would it be challenged? Of course. But at that point we will have clarification one way or another.
And BTW, IIRC children of foreign diplomats born here do not have automatic American birthright citizenship.
I have heard it over and over on the Jan Michealson show on WHO radio that the guy that penned the thing spoke and wrote about how it would not apply to the children of foreign citizens who happened to be in the USA when they were born.
We don’t need a new law, we need to follow the current one.
There were no restrictions on immigration prior to the ones I outlined. At the time 14A was passed, there were no illegal aliens.
The interpretation of the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause of 14A accepted by the Supremes in 1898 was that it referred to those excluded from jus solis by common law. Which basically were diplomats and their families and members of invading armies.
Wong did not specifically address children of illegal aliens, as Wong was the child of legal residents. Until quite recent decades there weren’t enough illegal aliens in the country for the citizenship of their children to be a big deal.
A dumb idea. Start giving the bureacrats, in their infinite benevolence, the power to revoke citizenship? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
The problem is a de facto one party system that is hopelessly in love with the idea of mass immigration By Any Means Necessary. Illegal immigration is easily dealt with as Australia has recently demonstrated. The political powers in DC simply don’t want to deal with it. In fact they want to increase it.
I am not going to look it up, I never do, but the idea that there were no restrictions on citizenship or aliens before 1865 is simply not true.
There were also alien and sedition acts passed either in the late 1700s or early 1800s. Lots of controversy but I know they were passed. Also know people were prosecuted.
We are talking about citizenship. That was not just handed out to anyone who came to the country.
The Alien and Sedition Acts were four laws passed under the presidency of John Adams. They are widely considered a big mistake and a violation of the Bill of Rights.
Three were repealed after Jefferson became president. The Naturalization Act of 1802 established a five year residency requirement to be naturalized.
https://sites.google.com/site/kmaclubofamerica/1802-naturalization-act
You’re welcome to read through it, but it simply has nothing to say about whether someone can legally enter the US, only about what they have to do to become citizens.
I agree citizenship was not just handed out to anybody. Though if you read the Act at the link, they handed it out to just about anybody who was a free white person. Only real restrictions were time in country (5 years) and renunciation of prior allegiances.
Maybe I’ve misunderstood something in this history and if somebody can come up with evidence of restrictions on entry into US prior to the 20s I’d be more than happy to take a look at it. But from what I can see, there weren’t any. Walk down the gangplank of the ship and off into America.
We have a strong natural tendency to project the conditions of the present into the past, and quite often they just don’t apply.
Its needed but not happening, America is too far gone.
GOP POTUS candidates are terrified of Hispanic voter turnout, and a Dem POTUS wont let it happen for obvious reasons.
I'm sorry to report that the "whoever" was one of our historically rare but devastating activist "supreme courts."
Many such rogue courts have eventually been nullified or reversed, but obviously not all.
One of those baddest decisions is the subject of this thread.
Right on!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.