Posted on 02/01/2014 8:34:39 AM PST by Yooperman
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
I say NO. The illegal mothers are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
By current law: yes
Should it be that way: no
You are quite correct, but a lot of people around here won’t want to hear it.
“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a common law concept familiar to all attorneys at the time. It included everybody except those with what we now call diplomatic immunity and members of invading armed forces.
It is exceedingly unlikely those who wrote or ratified 14A intended to include children of illegal immigrants, however. This is largely because at the time there WERE no illegal immigrants.
The first federal restrictions on immigration were passed in 1882. So in 1868 there were no illegal immigrants.
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtid=2&psid=3295
They shouldn’t be.
And if they are... the congress should have the power to strip them of their citizenship.
While the courts have used the 14th in that manner, title 8 section 1401 is the section of law where Congress has expressed it’s will concerning the enumerated power of Congress as detailed in Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution.
Title 8 section 1401 subsection a reads:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
So it is the expressed will of Congress that they be citizens. If that is to change, we will need to change Congress.
You're quite correct, a few people around here don't know what they are talking about as seen posted in 35.
Illegals = Felons
I say NO and if it has to be adjudicated then let’s do so.
From 1942 to 1964, the United States had a foreign workers program called 'Bracero' for Mexican citizens that was instituted because of US involvement in WW2. Similarly, to what the Rinos in the US Cong want to do now, but now it would be a Trojan horse for US citizenship. During that time, the Mexican migrant workers working under Bracero, and who had children in the US considered them US citizen by birth, or did they, the Mexican citizen believe that their children were US citizens.
Yeah they are. If they break the law then they can be arrested, tried, convicted, and jailed. That sure sounds like 'subject to the jurisdiction' to me.
"who had children in the US [did NOT] consider them US citizen by birth, ...."
The word "thereof" meaning from that cause or origin of foreign country.
Good luck with any changes to the law, as right now you have Republican leaders trying to make the illegals legal, their kids born in Mexico are "dreamers". It will take a conservative anti-illegal President and a lot of effort to bring about the political will to enforce existing law and then begin expelling the invaders. We need to de-condition the people to being Mexicanized.
I don't like the legal concept of citizenship by place of birth.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) discusses, among other things, British common law that all persons born within the British realm, unless the child of a foreign minister, ambassador, or alien enemy during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominion, are citizens of the King.
Wong Kim Ark is worth reading, even though I consider it bad policy.
In Wong Kim Ark, the Court says:
In construing any act of legislation, whether a statute enacted by the legislature or a constitution established by the people as the supreme law of the land, regard is to be had not only to all parts of the act itself, and of any former act of the same lawmaking power of which the act in question is an amendment, but also to the condition and to the history of the law as previously existing.
Wong Kim Ark at 653-654.
The Court later says:
It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.
Wong Kim Ark at 657.
That's simplistic, and certainly not all Wong Kim Ark discusses, but those two paragraphs say a lot about the Supreme Court's view on U.S. citizenship of most babies born on U.S. soil.
I take not that Wong Kim Ark's parents were not illegal aliens, so that issue is not specifically discussed. However, the opinion does not say it is limited to children of legal resident aliens in the U.S.
As I said, I don't like the public policy.
Voila - there it is. You put your finger on the essence of the problem. When both major US political parties are for illegal immigrants "being legal" even though for different reasons, the US government will ignore laws.
Texas just executed a Mexican national. I'd say that's evidence that they are.
Canada does.
That's a very creative definition of that term, and one that I don't think would stand up in court. Otherwise Ted Cruz wouldn't be giving up his Canadian citizenship.
Of course they are.
Can they be detained?
Can they be brought in front of an Article III court?
Can they be forcibly removed?
Look, XIV is the worst drafted amendment except for XXII. But the language has to be changed to fix this.
Saying that people who can be arrested, tried, and removed are somehow "not subject to jurisdiction" is ridiculous.
Is there ANY reason you think the plural of “baby” is “baby’s?” This may come as a shock to you, but in English this SIMPLE PLURAL is spelled b-a-b-i-e-s. “Babies.” There. It’s not so hard. “Baby’s” is POSSESSIVE and not plural. The RULES are REALLY, REALLY, REALLY simple. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, please bookmark this link.
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/apostrophe
And what I posted in #35 about the phrase "Subject to Jurisdiction Thereof" is accurately and correctly understood by two political professors Dr John Eastman and Dr. Edward Erler who testified before Congress, and likely much to the dismay of certain Congs who were in attendance.
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.