Skip to comments.GOP majority in House will push to end 'birthright citizenship'
Posted on 11/18/2010 8:20:29 AM PST by SmithL
WASHINGTON As one of its first acts, the new Congress will consider denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States.
Those children, who are now automatically granted citizenship at birth, will be one of the first targets of the Republican-led House when it convenes in January.
GOP Rep. Steve King of Iowa, the incoming chairman of the subcommittee that oversees immigration, is expected to push a bill that would deny "birthright citizenship" to such children.
The measure, assailed by critics as unconstitutional, is an indication of how the new majority intends to flex its muscles on the volatile issue of illegal immigration.
The idea has a growing list of supporters, including Republican Reps. Tom McClintock of Elk Grove and Dan Lungren of Gold River, but it has aroused intense opposition, as well.
"I don't like it," said Chad Silva, statewide policy analyst for the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California. . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
He did. The distinction is the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and what it meant in 19th Century legalese. Howard was so focused upon including corporations under equal protection he didn't much care about the rest of it. Had we left things the way they were under the Civil Rights Act of 1866, we wouldn't have nearly the problems we do in this country now.
You are confusing being within a jurisdiction with being subject to a jurisdiction.
That is not true. Try the Bouvier Law Dictionary definition of the term "subject." You'll find it on the Constitution Society website.
Wong Kim Ark was a terribly conceived and justified decision, in no way reflecting original intent, which Miller lays out in the Slaughterhouse Cases. I'd offer you Fuller's dissent on Wong Kim Ark but I detect an agenda.
One Senator (I believe from Pennsylvania) rails that the Amendment would give citizenship to the children of "trespassers and gypsies". He was right.
He was right that it could be interpreted that way. He was wrong as to the legal definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Effectively, the current interpretation is akin to a press gang or a kidnapping aboard ship. It is also a violation of the parents' natural law rights of first possession.
By all means tell us what the difference is.
Truly an eye-opener.
Thank you. I wrote it. You’ll find a lot more like it on that site.
I could tell.
So horribly conceived that its central legal holding has held has precedent for 112 years. Just saying.
Moreover, you're arguing how you think the Constitution should be interpreted. Frankly, I don't care how you think the Constitution should be interpreted, and neither should anyone else. Conversely, you shouldn't care how I think the Constitution should be interpreted. All that matters is how the Supreme Court thinks the Constitution should be interpreted. There has been no appetite to overturn (or narrow) Ark in the last 112 years, and I suspect there won't be any change in that appetite for the next 112 years. That's the practical legal reality.
"He was wrong as to the legal definition of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
If only 5 Supreme Court Justices would agree with you. Thus far, they haven't. I wouldn't hold your breath. Words mater. In this instance, whatever the intent of the author(s) was, he(they) should have chosen his(their) words more carefully. He(they) didn't.
I'll concede this point, the principle authors of the 14th likely wouldn't have intended for it to apply to the children of illegal aliens, not that "illegal alien" was a widely used term in the late 19th century. In fact, as a matter of law, it was literally impossible to be an "illegal alien" at the time the 14th was ratified because the first restrictive immigration law, The Page Act of 1875, wasn't passed until 6 or 7 years later. Before the Page Act, there was existing legislation limiting or defining citizenship eligibility, but there wasn't any law limiting immigration, of any kind. Without any laws stipulating who can or cannot be in the country, it makes it impossible for someone to be here illegally, assuming of course they aren't under arms of a foreign king.
The Congress could have moved to restrict the scope of Ark with another Amendment. They didn't. The Supreme Court could have narrowed their decision in the years subsequent to the enactment of restrictive immigration laws. They haven't. So, we are where we are today.
Yep, the progressive powers that be want to dilute the culture of this nation into a dependent class ignorant of the principles upon which it was founded. And?
Moreover, you're arguing how you think the Constitution should be interpreted.
I suggest you read this because it represents my position on the topic. It's a lot more than just my opinion. There is a huge difference between arguing the principles and law involved and treating it like it is justified because of its status as a virtual fait accomplis. We wouldn't be having this discussion if what you were saying is true.
I first brought the Slaughterhouse Cases to this board in 2003 and have advanced it considerably since with the article linked above. Over the years since, there are a great many FReepers who have requested that I link to it. The public discussion of the principles involved has advanced considerably since then, from being an object of derision to hearing a Congressman on Fox this morning discussing "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in its historically correct sense.
Did I do that? I doubt it, but those efforts have clearly added to the background on the topic and has stimulated discussion about it, which is what gets those charged with making decisions taking those points seriously. That's what we are supposed to be doing here, isn't it?