14th Amendment never meant for illegals--Proposed Texas law could force Supreme Court to decide

The Washington Times ^ | August 14, 2010 | Gerald Walpin

[jazusamo]

The suggestion by at least three senators that the Constitution be amended to deny birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens born in the United States has induced derogatory retorts that to do so would negate the 14th Amendment's protection of civil rights. Historical facts - ignored by those opposed - in fact demonstrate that such an amendment would reinstate the rule as originally intended by the adoption of the 14th Amendment in 1868.

At issue is the first clause of the 14th Amendment, which states, "All persons born ... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." As the Supreme Court held in the Slaughterhouse Cases shortly after the adoption of that amendment, the main purpose "was to establish the citizenship of the negro," who, while recently freed in the Civil War, "were still not only not citizens, but were incapable of becoming so by anything short of an amendment to the Constitution." No one has ever suggested that the three civil rights amendments (13th, 14th and 15th) would have been adopted, absent the need to give citizenship and protection to blacks.

Even more relevant, and totally ignored in the current discussion, is that, while the 14th Amendment reads "all persons born in the United States" are citizens, it has never been disputed that "all" never meant "all." In 1873, less than five years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court addressed the meaning of that citizenship provision by considering the facts surrounding the adoption of the 14th Amendment, "almost too recent to be called history, but which are familiar to us all." The court concluded, without dissent on this point, that "[t]he phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers...

[goodnesswins]

Walpin.....glad to see he is still “fighting.”

[mnehring]

Heck, early 14th Amendment cases ruled it didn’t even apply to Native Americans- a group who has more claim on Native Born Citizen than any other.

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

I was disappointed that Rubio believes in birthright citizenship and Greta failed to pose the question. Then, you agree with the Chinese loading up pregnant women (almost due) flying here to have a baby. (A very real practice in LA)

[jazusamo]

Me too, and I believe he’s appealed the ruling on his firing.

[Melas]

The article is crap. For those who don’t live in Texas, and don’t follow Texas politics, let me explain something: Like all states, we have a few whack-jobs in the legislature, and Leo Berman is one of ours. He routinely sponsors Quixotic bills like this one that go nowhere, made a feign at opposing Perry for governor, shoots his mouth off the to press with regularity. The only real consistency is that when he opens his mouth, you know it’s going to be embarrassing. This is not a serious bill in front of the Texas legislature, and it has no chance of even making it to the floor, let alone passing.

[Las Vegas Ron]

Encyclopedia Britannica 1771:

[deport]

This has been an ongoing debate here in Texas for sometime now. Bergman has filed this legislation in the last two Texas Legislative sessions but to no avail. If it ever gets into Texas law then we may have some action in the courts.

Here is a discussion of the subject from the Houston Chronicle, August 18, 2010 about an article in the Texas Tribune.

Snip
U.S. Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison support a "review" of the amendment. Fifteen of Texas' 20 Republican congressmen have signed on to legislation that would restrict it. One of them, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Surfside, has opposed it since 2002. State Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, has in each of the past two sessions proposed legislation that would effectively do away with it -- and vows to do it again in 2011. End snip.....

[jazusamo]

Thanks for your post and link.

[Michael.SF.]

Now I see why ObamHolder fired him, he just makes too much sense for them.

[The Comedian]

This "Repeals the 14th" is such a transparent red herring.

Its intent was to enfranchise former slaves, period.

And illegal aliens are no more "subject to the laws of the united States" than stow-aways are ship's crew.

The stupid and obviously wrong misinterpretation of the 14th just needs to stop being acted on by the slimebag bureaucrats in the INS (or whatever it's called today), and the Clinton appointee judges who rule in favor of this treason.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[CapnJack]

“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.”

I hate to be a devil's ad vacate, but, the article's statement that “it has never been disputed that “all” never meant “all.” “ could be turned around and used in to attempt to nullify the 2nd Amendment in some way ... something like “...the People never meant “The People””.

I could see some slippery, slimey lawyer try to pull this one off defending some city's “gun ban” if the “all” never meant “all” argument was successful in a 14th Amendment turnover ruling.

But then, what do I know.

[jazusamo]

You make a valid point because there’s a lot of slippery, slimey lawyers out there.

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

I agree with you....pure nonsense that this applies to illegal aliens.

[supercat]

... something like “...the People never meant “The People””.

Did it apply to slaves?

I would say that "the People" means "all free persons", an interpretation which I think would be consistent with what was meant and intended.

As for the Fourteenth, I would apply the "clean hands" doctrine and say that people who by their presence are flouting the laws of the United States cannot claim to be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" merely when it suits them. If such people really were effectively subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, they wouldn't still be here.

[Monorprise]

The 14th amendment is easily the most heavily abused part of the Federal Constitution just as it is the most irresponsibility written amendment. The original intent of the amendment as expressed by its writers and ratifiers(the ones that didn’t have a gun to their head) could not have been more different then the application it has been given after the same folk had largely died off.

We need to just repeal the amendment and replace it with a far simpler and to the point clause that Forbids government discrimination on the account of race.

PS: It was the power hungry radical republicans that asserted that supreme court had decreed blacks as apposed to non-freed property could never be citizens of the United States.

This is an ill-rational assumption they never bothered to test before insisting upon the 14th amendment. An amendment that ironically would have to be applied retroactively to fix the problem they calmed to fear.

I don’t honestly think they were worried about citizenship of the freed slaves, as much as they were worried about expanding their powers to “punish” those that had dared exercise their inalienable right of revolution against them.

This is what I find most disgusting about the 14th amendment, the people who wrote and radiated it(the ones who didn’t do so with a gun to their head) were un-American monsters. They had just fought the most costly war in our history against the very same inalienable right to which we owe our free independent existence. They destroyed the United States and by transforming us from a Federation of the willing into an empire of Central government slave.