Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Babies and Immigration Reform (Not one word in the 844-page law mentions Birthright Citizenship)
American Thinker ^ | 04/24/2013 | Cindy Simpson

Posted on 04/24/2013 6:53:09 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Not a single word in the 844-page "Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act" introduced by Senator Marco Rubio and the "Gang of Eight" addresses the controversial practice of "birthright citizenship."

Birthright citizenship is the common description given to the automatic grant of U.S. citizenship to babies born in the U.S. regardless of the citizenship status of the parents. Many experts agree with the verdict of law professor Lino Graglia -- that the practice generates "perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry."

The failure of Congress to confront the subject is nothing new. The "four pillars" of the reform framework floated by Senators Chuck Schumer and Lindsey Graham back in 2010 also avoided mention of the gaping "hole in the fence" created by the "magnet" of the birthright practice.

While Rubio touted the newest bipartisan proposal and appeared to "backtrack" on the border fence as illegals continue to climb over it, our government creates even more incentives for illegals to have children here. Besides potential ObamaCare benefits, many provisions in the Gang's new package increase the allure and impact of the birthright magnet.

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter penned a scathing analysis titled "If Rubio's Amnesty is So Great, Why is He Lying?" Near the end of her litany of damning facts and figures, Coulter wrote: "The children of illegal aliens become automatic citizens under our current insane interpretation of the 14th Amendment."

The insanity, however, goes beyond the "illegal" argument. Coulter noted statistics and dollars relating to the children of illegals; however, she didn't mention that the practice also awards citizenship to the babies of virtually anyone legally but temporarily present, including "birth tourists."

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 14thamendment; aliens; amnesty; anchorbaby; birthright; borderwars; citizenship; citizenship4sale; criminals; enemyingates; enemyinmygates; enemywithin; illegalaliens; illegalimmigrants; illegals; immigration; invaders; invasion; invasionusa; jackpotbabies; lawbreakers; mexicans; mexico; naturalborncitizen; notforaliens
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-204 next last

1 posted on 04/24/2013 6:53:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
If the GOP is stupid enough to go for this, they deserve to go extinct, and they will.


2 posted on 04/24/2013 6:56:39 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The article also touches on “natural born” citizenship and Rubio’s eligibility, near the end.


3 posted on 04/24/2013 7:04:30 AM PDT by Sallyven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sallyven

“addresses the controversial practice of “birthright citizenship”

Controversial how? Everyone born in America is a citizen since the 14th Amendment.

If your goal is to strip citizenship from Americans based on their lack of a pedigree - that’s something that’s going to cut both ways.

What’s to stop Obama from stripping citizenship from others?


4 posted on 04/24/2013 7:07:11 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; All

It’s not mentioned because the two people writing this monstrosity LIKE the bastardization of the 14th amendment...and YOU?? Well, you’re just another ‘bitter ender’ racist if you don’t!

CESAR CONDA: “Birthright Citizenship and Abortion”
By Cesar Conda (Rubio’s chief of staff)
August 4, 2010

As a pro-immigration conservative (yes, I know, we could fit in a phone booth), I am opposed to Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R., S.C.) proposal to end birthright citizenship for babies who, through no fault of their own, are born in this country to illegal immigrants. Innocent children shouldn’t be held responsible for the sins of their parents.

In terms of why not amend the Constitution: The Fourteenth Amendment rejected the idea that someone could be a person but less than a person legally, as well as the idea that citizenship can be made dependent on race. It is of enormous symbolic importance. There is no data supporting the claim that significant numbers of women deliberately cross the border to give birth in the United States in order to take advantage of this provision.[AuntB: OMG, what a LIAR!]

Further, the Republican party would be committing political suicide if it were to endorse ending birthright citizenship, as it would cost the party Latino votes, which are crucial in Florida and in several Western states.[snip]http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3007546/posts?page=56#53

GROVER NORQUIST:
Norquist Says Ending Birthright Citizenship Is a Tax

Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, who is most famous at the moment for waging a political war on government spending, said on Monday that ending automatic citizenship for babies born on U.S. soil would be a tax on having babies.

“This is a tax on every child being born,” he said during a telephone conference call hosted by the public-policy group National Foundation for American Policy. “It solves no problems and instead creates all sorts of problems and costs in terms of Americans.......“It’s frustrating, and it’s why people lash out and reach out for these non-solutions” like ending birthright citizenship, he said.[snip]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/norquist-says-ending-birthright-citizenship-is-a-tax-20120305

BOTH of them are wrong, but they never cared about the law.

“Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

Senator Jacob Howard,
co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.


5 posted on 04/24/2013 7:08:43 AM PDT by AuntB (Illegal immigration is simply more "share the wealth" socialism and a CRIME not a race!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

“Controversial how? Everyone born in America is a citizen since the 14th Amendment.

If your goal is to strip citizenship from Americans based on their lack of a pedigree - that’s something that’s going to cut both ways.

What’s to stop Obama from stripping citizenship from others?”

Good Grief! Are you Grover Norquist...your thinking is just as suspect!

ONE MORE TIME!
“Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

Senator Jacob Howard,
co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.


6 posted on 04/24/2013 7:10:58 AM PDT by AuntB (Illegal immigration is simply more "share the wealth" socialism and a CRIME not a race!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

844 pages to say “Let them all stay and bring their relatives too.”

If you really want to know how disingenuous this whole thing is why is the Senate not also including the 4.5 million folks who are legally standing in line to get citizenship? Not a peep about those people.


7 posted on 04/24/2013 7:13:33 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; HiJinx; Liz; Tennessee Nana; SierraWasp; DoughtyOne; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; ...

Jackpot baby/14th amendment ping!

“Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

Senator Jacob Howard,
co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.


8 posted on 04/24/2013 7:19:44 AM PDT by AuntB (Illegal immigration is simply more "share the wealth" socialism and a CRIME not a race!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AuntB

Are you claiming these children are children of ambassadors?

No?

Then I guess it would be unwise to strip them of their citizenship - which is based on the same exact thing as your own citizenship is based - being born in America.

Or are we now making it a requirement that there are additional hoops that need to be jumped for some people and not others? That violates equal protection.

In any case, I only hope you can see how your position serves Obama very well. If birth doesn’t make you a citizen - then the state can strip it from those it does not like, and award it to others who have no connection to America whatsoever.

I bet that would be something Obama would like very much indeed. So, go on - attack the very basis of your own citizenship and pile high the requirements. Just don’t be surprised when you find yourself *outside* the box.


9 posted on 04/24/2013 7:26:19 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

You’re a troll. SHUT UP, I don’t read your garbage. You lie about what posters post. YOU ARE A TROLL!


10 posted on 04/24/2013 7:35:34 AM PDT by AuntB (Illegal immigration is simply more "share the wealth" socialism and a CRIME not a race!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AuntB

Calling me a troll won’t change the point that empowering the state to have a more ‘nuanced’ definition of citizenship isn’t going to end well.


11 posted on 04/24/2013 7:36:58 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge; AuntB
Are you claiming these children are children of ambassadors?

Are you claiming that a nation has a claim on children despite the loyalties of their parents? "Birthright citizenship" is functionally equivalent to a press gang in that it places obligations on people who might just be tourists having no intention of such.

Then I guess it would be unwise to strip them of their citizenship - which is based on the same exact thing as your own citizenship is based - being born in America.

That is false. She and I were born as children of American citizens. That's what makes us legitimate American citizens.

Or are we now making it a requirement that there are additional hoops that need to be jumped for some people and not others? That violates equal protection.

The Fourteenth Amendment instituted those "hoops" in the first place. Its current interpretation (your prefrence) is a legal fiction drawn by progressives with every intention of diluting the culture and serving the interests of the outrageously wealthy. Given that the children of aliens are not legally citizens (despite what the current administrative policy says), the equal protection clause very clearly does not apply to aliens, as it applies its privileges and immunities to the preceding citizenship clause.

In any case, I only hope you can see how your position serves Obama very well. If birth doesn’t make you a citizen - then the state can strip it from those it does not like, and award it to others who have no connection to America whatsoever.

This is a completely specious argument. Birth doesn't make one an American citizen, hell, there are people born all over the world that are not American citizens. There are also people born all over the world that are American citizens. The difference with the latter is the citizenship of their parents, just as it is within the borders of the United States.

12 posted on 04/24/2013 8:31:51 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AuntB; JCBreckenridge
You’re a troll. SHUT UP

I was reading the exchange up to this point.

13 posted on 04/24/2013 8:33:21 AM PDT by douginthearmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Funhy, back when I respect Rand Paul he was ‘interested’ in taking another look at the 14th Amendment in creating anchor babies. Well, we are well passed that now.


14 posted on 04/24/2013 8:35:38 AM PDT by Theoria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

“Are you claiming that a nation has a claim on children despite the loyalties of their parents? “Birthright citizenship” is functionally equivalent to a press gang in that it places obligations on people who might just be tourists having no intention of such.”

I would argue that it’s no such thing - but is a safeguard for the child and the rights of the child as opposed to their parents.

“That is false. She and I were born as children of American citizens. That’s what makes us legitimate American citizens.”

That’s not what the Fourteenth says. This opinion is explicitly rejected.

“The Fourteenth Amendment instituted those “hoops” in the first place.”

And it explicitly rejects this one. Hence my point. You are in violation of the equal protection clause already by trying to deprive some American citizens of their citizenship. We already have enough problems with Obama running roughshod over the constitution, let alone Conservatives.

“Birth doesn’t make one an American citizen”

Yes, it does. I know you have trouble following the plain and clear words of the constitution.

“There are also people born all over the world that are American citizens.”

So your argument is that because X is sometimes not Y, that proves that Y cannot be X?


15 posted on 04/24/2013 9:05:26 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; ..
Ping!

Click the keyword Aliens to see more illegal alien, border security, and other related threads.

16 posted on 04/24/2013 9:06:11 AM PDT by HiJinx ("A country without borders is not a country." - TJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
That’s not what the Fourteenth says.

No, that is what the Fourteenth says.

This opinion is explicitly rejected.

By a crooked progressivist court. Read the minority opinion cited in the article you didn't read.

And it explicitly rejects this one.

No, it doesn't. The court did.

Yes, it does. I know you have trouble following the plain and clear words of the constitution.

You can't read because you don't know the difference in the law at that time between "subject to the jurisdiction" and being within a jurisdiction.

17 posted on 04/24/2013 11:10:39 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Today liberals/illegals were whining and moaning on fb because they think the restriction about border being secure using interdiction numbers is unfair...according to them the Border Patrol can dink with those numbers and does all the time for political reasons so that number has no meaning. Those of us that want the border to be secured have been saying that for how long? Now it seems it is obvious to everyone. Supporters of amnesty say interdiction numbers and past interdiction numbers are “meaningless” imagine that.


18 posted on 04/24/2013 11:46:09 AM PDT by Tammy8 (~Secure the border and deport all illegals- do it now! ~ Support our Troops!~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Good one, except should say “conservative” instead of GOP. I am not so sure the GOP doesn’t support amnesty...


19 posted on 04/24/2013 11:50:14 AM PDT by Tammy8 (~Secure the border and deport all illegals- do it now! ~ Support our Troops!~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
For starters those born of parent/s that are here illegally should never have qualified for citizenship to begin with. No one will ever convince me someone should get citizenship when the parents are here illegally. If parent are here legally that might need clarification but people should not be able to illegally come here, and have their children get citizenship based on their parents criminal acts. Never should have happened and needs to be stopped.
20 posted on 04/24/2013 11:59:32 AM PDT by Tammy8 (~Secure the border and deport all illegals- do it now! ~ Support our Troops!~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: AuntB; JCBreckenridge
If you're going to quote Senator Jacob Howard, then you need to understand what he was saying.

That quote was made by Senator Howard after the following exchange, which took place during a Senate session in which Howard was present:

Senator Fessenden: "Suppose a person is born here of parents from abroad temporarily in this country."

Senator Wade: "The Senator says a person may be born here and not be a citizen. I know that is so in one instance, in the case of the children of foreign ministers who reside 'near' the United States, in the diplomatic language. By a fiction of law such persons are not supposed to be residing here, and under that fiction of law their children would not be citizens of the United States, although born in Washington."

Senator Howard was there, but he made no objection to that definition.

And shortly after that, Howard made his statement that you quoted (which does not include the word "AND" between the 2nd and 3rd clauses - indicating that's not a LIST of 3 separate things, but a RESTATEMENT of the same thing 3 times.

As well, Senator Conness of California had this to say:

"The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.

So Senator Conness says the law will declare that children born in the United States of Chinese, non-citizen parents will be citizens.

This is in direct and absolute contradiction to the way you are interpreting Senator Howard's words.

But Senator Howard makes no objection at all.

Why not? It's obvious. Jacob Howard wasn't saying what you claim he was saying.

Neither the grammar of his sentence, nor the exchange that came before his quote, nor the discussion that came after his quote, support the interpretation that you have given it.

When Sen. Howard said, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons," it is clear that he was simply restating three things that meant the same thing:

foreigners,

aliens,

who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

21 posted on 04/24/2013 12:37:34 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

You gave it a good shot, Carry_okie!


22 posted on 04/24/2013 12:38:17 PM PDT by AuntB (Illegal immigration is simply more "share the wealth" socialism and a CRIME not a race!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston; Carry_Okie

I’m not going to waste hours arguing with anyone about the meaning of the 14 th amendment. To anyone who isn’t an open border hack, the meaning was NEVER to allow illegal aliens to drop babies here and have them be citizens. NEVER!

DONE with this discussion!


23 posted on 04/24/2013 12:42:40 PM PDT by AuntB (Illegal immigration is simply more "share the wealth" socialism and a CRIME not a race!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: AuntB; JCBreckenridge
I’m not going to waste hours arguing with anyone about the meaning of the 14 th amendment. To anyone who isn’t an open border hack, the meaning was NEVER to allow illegal aliens to drop babies here and have them be citizens. NEVER!

The Senators passing the Amendment, at the time, seem to have felt that it would declare the children of foreigners TEMPORARILY in the country to be citizens. They don't seem to have contemplated the issue of illegal aliens.

So yes, I agree with you that the intention was not to allow illegal aliens to drop babies here and have them be citizens.

Historically, if you go back into the origin of our rule of citizenship, it required "allegiance" or "obedience." I think prohibiting the children of illegal aliens from being US citizens at birth is certainly within the spirit of the citizenship rule, and it might even clear the "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" hurdle of the 14th Amendment. I'm not sure whether it would or wouldn't, but Congress could pass such a law and then we could hand it over to the courts to find out.

24 posted on 04/24/2013 12:53:27 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so.

This is a tacit admission that the 14th Amendment does not extend birthright citizenship to the children of aliens. He wants it to be that way.

In fact, the citizenship clause is written in the present tense. The overt reason was to deal with the uncertain state of affairs pursuant to the end of the Civil War and the emancipation of slaves. In fact it was an unnecessary statement for people pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The real reason for the clause was to extend the protections of the Bill of Rights to persons other than natural persons, i.e., corporations. It was later admitted by Senators Bingham and Conkling.

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" meant those that were American 'subjects.' It did not mean that one became "a subject" by merely being within the national boundaries. One was "subject" by virtue of citizenship. I suggest you consult a law dictionary of that time to confirm the meaning of the term.

25 posted on 04/24/2013 1:35:12 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
“Are you claiming that a nation has a claim on children despite the loyalties of their parents? “Birthright citizenship” is functionally equivalent to a press gang in that it places obligations on people who might just be tourists having no intention of such.”

JCB: I would argue that it’s no such thing

You'd be WRONG!

Take a peek at what the IRS is doing to "Accidental Americans"...

The term “Accidental American” refers to the millions of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (“LPRs”) residing outside the U.S. Many of these individuals were born in the U.S. or acquired derivative citizenship based on a number of factors via one or both parents. However, other than their U.S. citizenship, they typically have no other direct family, business or personal ties to the U.S. Many LPRs who worked in the U.S. for a few years or who acquired their “green card” through their U.S. parents have long ceased to live in the U.S., returning to their country of origin. The author refers to each of these types of “U.S.” individuals as “Accidental Americans” throughout this article.

The Accidental American is subject to U.S. income tax on his or her worldwide income, and to information reporting requirements

“Accidental Americans” – Rush to Renounce U.S. Citizenship to Avoid the Ugly U.S. Tax Web, But There's a Ten Year Tax Penalty

Born in the U.S. when your non-citizen parents were just passing through or were just here on vacation? Shut up and pay the IRS your taxes, "citizen"!!!

26 posted on 04/24/2013 2:21:05 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

Derivative Citizenship

WHAT IS DERIVATIVE CITIZENSHIP?
A child born outside the U.S. may become a U.S. citizen by operation of law via the child’s parent

REQUIREMENTS OF DERIVATIVE CITIZENSHIP

A child can derive U.S. citizenship if all the following conditions are met:

One parent is a U.S. citizen


27 posted on 04/24/2013 4:22:47 PM PDT by ObligedFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

Are you still keeping that comprehensive list of all Obama’s constitutional violations? I know how much it pains you, when he uses the Constitution for t-paper.


28 posted on 04/24/2013 4:30:59 PM PDT by Fantasywriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: AuntB
“Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction..."

The question I have is this: is a person who snuck in illegally under the jurisdiction of the United States or still under the jurisdiction of their homeland?

I would think that the only way to be under the jurisdiction of the United States is for the United States to affirmatively approve of the alien's being here, meaning they entered legally, they provided proper documentation, and they received an identification number from the United States.

Failing that, the children of illegal aliens who are born here would NOT be birthright citizens because they are not under the jurisdiction of the United States. How can they be if the United States doesn't even know of their existence?

-PJ

29 posted on 04/24/2013 4:32:48 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

ELIGIBILITY OF UNLEGITIMATED CHILDREN FOR DERIVATIVE
CITIZENSHIP

It is distinct from the acquisition of citizenship at birth, including the “citizenship by descent” that may be conferred on a child born abroad to a citizen parent.

See
id.; see also INA § 301(c), (d), (e), (g), 8 U.S.C. § 1401(c), (d), (e), (g) (2000) (examples of INA
provisions conferring citizenship by descent).

http://www.justice.gov/olc/2003/ins_opinion.pdf


30 posted on 04/24/2013 4:43:40 PM PDT by ObligedFriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
The question I have is this: is a person who snuck in illegally under the jurisdiction of the United States or still under the jurisdiction of their homeland?

If an illegal alien murders someone in the U.S., we can prosecute him. If a foreign ambassador murders someone in the U.S., we can't prosecute him because he has diplomatic immunity. So yes, illegal aliens are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.

31 posted on 04/24/2013 4:48:14 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
The question I have is this: is a person who snuck in illegally under the jurisdiction of the United States or still under the jurisdiction of their homeland?

See post 25.

32 posted on 04/24/2013 4:49:08 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

So your argument is:

1, these people were born in America.
2, these people, despite no longer residing in America are considered be American citizens and pay taxes.

What’s the problem here - it verifies my position.


33 posted on 04/24/2013 5:34:02 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

How can a child who did not sneak in be considered ‘under the jurisdiction of their homeland’, a country they have never set foot in?


34 posted on 04/24/2013 5:34:53 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

“the children of illegal aliens who are born here would NOT be birthright citizens”

Actually, they are citizens, for the very reason that they were born here.


35 posted on 04/24/2013 5:36:11 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston

The problem is, as Coolidge once wrote - either the Constitution is the highest law of the land, or it is not.

The Fourteenth - the purpose was to provide citizenship for slaves (who most certainly were born here), and for those who had, up until then - been born outside America, and were presently residing in territory that was now America. This is the only good way to accomplish both of these goals at the same time.

Basing it on the citizenship of your parents, would have lead to a permanent underclass (a-la Europe). Something - at the time, was not what America granted. Is it radical to provide citizenship to someone without regard to their country of origin? Absolutely - but that is part of what made America what it is.

There is absolutely no need to ‘enforce’ things this way. Enforce immigration laws by deportation. This is just a fool’s errand that has deep and long lasting consequences. Negative ones that serve to help no one whatsoever.


36 posted on 04/24/2013 5:40:11 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tammy8

“No one will ever convince me”

Thankfully, it doesn’t matter what you think. It matters what the constitution says. Constitution sez - born here in America- you’re a citizen. Doesn’t matter if your folks were from Mexico or England.


37 posted on 04/24/2013 5:42:27 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

“By a crooked progressivist court.”

Ah. I see. So we’ve moved on from, “the Constitution doesn’t say this, to, “the courts got it wrong”. If you want to change the constitution to read what you want it to say, there’s always the Amending formula. Good luck with that, btw.


38 posted on 04/24/2013 5:44:07 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
How can a child who did not sneak in be considered ‘under the jurisdiction of their homeland’, a country they have never set foot in?

The law doesn't say "under" it says "subject," which, given that I posted a link to an 1856 law dictionary above AND that definition is in the article you clearly didn't read, renders your "question" baiting and misdirection on a foundation of ignorance.

39 posted on 04/24/2013 5:48:23 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

To: JCBreckenridge
Ah. I see.

What you "see is an opportunity to misconstrue.

So we’ve moved on from, “the Constitution doesn’t say this, to, “the courts got it wrong”. If you want to change the constitution to read what you want it to say, there’s always the Amending formula. Good luck with that, btw.

I haven't moved anywhere. You've tried three different "synonyms" for "subject" and I didn't bite. It has a very specific legal meaning, but then, given that you apparently prefer a "living Constitution," I'm not surprised at your pathetic stand on a set of opinions you clearly haven't read. BTW, the dissenting opinion was written by Chief Justice Fuller.

41 posted on 04/24/2013 5:51:42 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Apparently it’s also point well taken. The child knows no other country than the United States. Her home country is the US, the country she was born in.


42 posted on 04/24/2013 5:52:16 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

“given that you apparently prefer a “living Constitution,”

Actually, it’s you who refuses to accept what the constitution says. I’m arguing that we should follow the constitution, even when it says something that we don’t like.

Radical, eh?


43 posted on 04/24/2013 5:53:43 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
Apparently it’s also point well taken. The child knows no other country than the United States. Her home country is the US, the country she was born in.

"Well taken" eh? Guess what? You're therefore in the same corrupt company as the group of "Justices" that decided US v. Wong Kim Ark:

We have Rufus Peckham, infamous inventor of the now-discredited term, "substantive due process," used to invalidate a state statute regulating the hours of bakery employees.

We have George Shiras, a prominent (drum roll please) railroad lawyer with no prior judicial experience and friend to corporate railroad barons with a rather keen interest in retaining Chinese coolies. Kinda reminds you of something rather more contemporary, doesn't it?

We have Horace Gray, author of the majority opinion, a buddy of Brandeis, Holmes, and other noted court activists and a big fan of paper money.

We have Yalie David Brewer, founder of the American Society of International Law, peace advocate, and judicial activist toward using the court to supersede State laws.

We have Yalie Henry Brown, author of Plessy v. Ferguson!!!, and a huge fan of the use of Admiralty Law as a regulatory means (even though he hired a substitute to serve in the military for him in the Civil War).

In other words, this case was not decided on compassion; it was about MONEY, cheap labor for the owners of the largest corporations of their day. They diluted the principle of citizenship to its virtually meaningless level today.

That puts you in company with the ideological left. Congratulations. Wear it with pride.

44 posted on 04/24/2013 6:51:30 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
Actually, it’s you who refuses to accept what the constitution says. I’m arguing that we should follow the constitution, even when it says something that we don’t like.

Actually, it’s you who refuses to accept what the constitution says, because you had to redefine the term, "subject" to get away with interpreting it the way you do. That's rubber language, the essence of a "living Constitution." I’m arguing that we should follow the constitution IN ITS ORIGINAL MEANING, even when it says something that YOU don’t like.

Next time try reading the links you're given for a change. You might actually learn something.

45 posted on 04/24/2013 6:54:03 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (An economy is not a zero-sum game, but politics usually is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
This is a tacit admission that the 14th Amendment does not extend birthright citizenship to the children of aliens. He wants it to be that way.

It doesn't "extend" birthright citizenship to the children of [resident] aliens, in the sense that it really had no intention of making any actual changes in the rule of citizenship as it had been up until that time. The purpose was simply to declare what the law already was, and to try and make sure that no one (read, "former slave-holders, and officials in the former slave-holding states") could deny the rights and privileges of citizenship, in particular, to the millions of freed former slaves.

The children born here of resident alien parents had always been natural-born members of the society. First they were called "natural born subjects," then they were called "natural born citizens" when we substituted the word "citizen" for "subject."

The real reason for the clause was to extend the protections of the Bill of Rights to persons other than natural persons, i.e., corporations. It was later admitted by Senators Bingham and Conkling.

Um... no. The real reason was as stated above.

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" meant those that were American 'subjects.' One was "subject" by virtue of citizenship.

No, the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" really meant "fully subject to the laws of the United States, without any kind of special exemption or immunity." The term did not include Indians (i.e., Native Americans), as long as they stayed within their tribes. When they left their tribes and came to live among the white man, they became "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States," whether they became United States citizens or not. And Indians, even though born on United States soil, had to go through a naturalization process if they were born in Indian tribes NOT because they had non-citizen parents, but because they were born as members of a de facto foreign nation which we made treaties with, just as we made treaties with England and France. However, once they left their tribe and came to live among the white man, their children born subject to United States jurisdiction were natural born citizens.

I suggest you consult a law dictionary of that time to confirm the meaning of the term.

I suggest you consult the same law dictionary for what "native" meant. "Native" and "natural born" were generally taken to be synonymous, although "natural born" is a slightly more expansive term that most likely includes the children born overseas of US citizen parents.

46 posted on 04/24/2013 6:57:41 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Fantasywriter

It does.


47 posted on 04/24/2013 6:59:40 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

There is a pretty decent argument that A) folks here illegally are the equivalent of a foreign, invading army, and thus their children are not born citizens, and B) citizenship by birth, that requires being “subject to the jurisdiction” doesn’t really apply to those not domiciled here - to use the term from WKA.


48 posted on 04/24/2013 7:04:11 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Nonsense. The left wants the same thing you do - making it so that citizenship is whatever the state says it is. Comrade - you should toe the line. It would be a sad thing if anything happened to your papers...

Birthright strips away all those shenanigans. You’re born here? You’re an American.


49 posted on 04/24/2013 7:07:58 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

You fight invaders by changing laws? Or do you fight invaders by preventing them from getting into America in the first place?


50 posted on 04/24/2013 7:08:46 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-204 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson