Interesting. Carry_Okie has again posted the particulars at #15 that the press blithely choose to ignore. And so, the 'debate' continues.
FWIW, IMO I don't agree with conferring citizenship on anchor babies.
Diplomats, as a consequence of the lack of jurisdiction Mr. Tancredo would extend to aliens, cannot be arrested or charged with crimes.
Then any of their children born here are NOT US citizens?
Interesting. It would have to be up to SCOTUS to determine what they thought the framers meant. IMO, I don't think they considered a time when expectant mothers would jump the border to have their babies here just so they could enjoy the benefits of the welfare state.
This must be phrase # 3 on the DNC daily fax. I heard it on two local shows in Chicago in the last week, and now in the Washington Post. Hopefully the liberals won't start hiring illegals to tell lies and smears that the Washington Post and other Americans won't do.
As written and ratified, the 14th Amendment was NOT intended to grant citizenship to the children of foreign subjects, all protestations of the WaPo to the contrary.
The Slaughterhouse Cases are the first Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment on record. The author of the majority opinion is a contemporary of those who drafted and debated the Amendment. The following text is from the majority opinion (about 3/4 of the way down the linked source page):
Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) (USSC+)
Opinions
MILLER, J., Opinion of the Court
"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 first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
Here is a second source:
Senator Jacob Howard, Co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
And in Section 5 "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." cedes control of implementing provisions of the Amendment back to Congress. Because the Constitution is a limiting document, the wording of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause means that they MAY NOT grant birthright citizenship to the children of illegals, nor the equivalent.
The confusion lies in the word, "subject." Clearly, in the context of a discussion of citizenship, "subject" refers to the nation of which one is a citizen, a foreign subject. Just because one is within a jurisdiction does not make them a subject.
How does Mr. Tancredo propose to get around this language?
Same way you liberal idiots get around this one:
Interesting. Carry_Okie has again posted the particulars at #15 that the press blithely choose to ignore. And so, the 'debate' continues.
FWIW, IMO I don't agree with conferring citizenship on anchor babies.
(sigh)
Everyone insists on putting more into this sentence than is actually there.
The United States does NOT mean the entire country...if it did, the additional qualifier of 'and of the State wherein they reside' would be redundant, but it's not.
The *United States* and it's jurisdiction is defined by Article I, Section 8,paragraph 17:
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;
__________________________________________________
Even though the extent of the United States is CAREFULLY outlined in the Constitution, NO politician or anyone else in the federal government will EVER admit to it. To do so would greatly diminish governmental control.
"When all government, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the Center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
– Thomas Jefferson
_________________________
Oh.... and claiming to be a *US citizen* is not necessarily a good thing:
"... a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that `citizen' means `citizen of the United States,' and not a person generally, nor citizen of a State ..."
U.S. Supreme Court in US v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542:
______________________________________________________________________
The US Supreme Court in Logan v. US, 12 SCt 617, 626:
"In Baldwin v. Franks ... it was decided that the word `citizen' .... was used in its political sense, and not as synonymous with `resident', `inhabitant', or `person' ..."
______________________________________________________________________
14 CJS section 4 quotes State v. Manuel 20 NC 122:
"... the term `citizen' in the United States, is analogous to the term `subject' in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government."
______________________________________________________________________
125 Fed 322, 325:
"The thirteenth amendment is a great extension of the powers of the national government."
______________________________________________________________________
U.S. v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases 785, 794:
"The amendment [fourteenth] reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution"
______________________________________________________________________
Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520:
"... the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not be protected from state action by the privileges and immunities clause" [of the fourteenth amendment]
Until I see a solid argument otherwise, I will maintain the position that it is perfectly Constitutional - and more than that, proper - to deny citizenship to the US-born children of illegals. Illegal aliens, by entering this nation in felonious violation of our law, by their own actions deny the jurisdiction of the United States. They cannot then justly claim that very same jurisdiction as a basis for citizenship for their children.
After I read this sentence, I didn't really need to go any further.....
susie
The same as how the Second Amendment is prostituted by federal and state firearms controls, or as Campaign Finance Reform restrictions infringe upon the First Amendment rights of free speech, or as property tax laws allow seizure of property without just compensation crossgraining the Fifth Amendment.
The key? "subject to the jurisdiction". No citizen birthright certification ought to be issued without first one parent present their own birth certificate and/or a certificate of naturalization if issued outside the United States.
IMO, ALL marriage certificates issued to illegals ought also be voided whether the other is a legal resident or not. That "legal" person ought be prosecuted for aiding and abetting an illegal alien's stay.
Liberals are taking alot on with this since so many instances of fraud exist to make this a ten ton millstone about their necks.