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 ...
Glad you finally admitted it!
We know from the citizenship clause's originators that the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement means: "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
More historical background info with citations, here:
http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/
You already recieved citations earlier showing just the opposite - that the Constitution after the 14th Amendment interpreted it’s application as this: - born in America - become a citizen. That was the point.
I find it amazing that you’re willing to discard the constitution when you don’t like it. What’s next? Interpreting the 2nd to mean that only militias can be armed?
I already provided evidence (which, you of course ignored, funny that!), showing that dual citizenship in America for those born in America, is treated by Americans no differently than any one else’s citizenship.
Why? Gosh. It might have something to do with that inconvenient 14th amendment.
Most definitely NOT.
As we can see, INTERNATIONAL LAW plays a role in births to aliens in the U.S. THIS arbitration ruling from 1876 (AFTER ratification of the 14th Amendment) CONFIRMS what Trumbull, Howard, and the U.S. Secretaries of State have ALL said about the 14th Amendment's requirements: children born in the U.S. to aliens are NOT subject to the complete jurisdiction of the U.S., are SUBJECT to a foreign power, OWE ALLEGIANCE to a foreign power, and therefore AREN'T U.S. citizens at birth:
"The umpire is of the opinion that it is not proved that the claimant was a citizen of the United States. The ground that he is so, is his own statement that he was born at New York, together with a certificate of baptism of a child who was born at New York, Beniguo being one of the names which were given to him; but it is not proved that the child then born and baptised was one and the same person with the claimant. Nor would the mere fact of his having been born at New York be sufficient evidence of citizenship. It is clear that his parents were both aliens at the time of his birth, and it is not shown that they were naturalized or that they or the child remained in the United States. The inference is to the contrary, and the umpire believes that the child in question, even if that child was really the claimant, though born in the United States, was subject to a foreign power and cannot without further proof be considered to be a citizen of the United States"Source:
OK, let me get this...
It is your understanding that the 14th Amendment grants Birthright Citizenship only to the following:
1) Babies whose Parents or Parent are Citizens
2) Babies whose Parents or one Parent are LEGAL RESIDENTS of the USA.
It does NOT grant Birthright Citizenship to Babies who parents are NOT legal residents regardless of whether they are here legally or illegally.
In the case of Jindal his parents WERE NOT permanent residents at the time of his birth.
See here:
http://hesnotmypresident.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/bobby-jindal-a-natural-born-citizen/
EXCERPT:
Jindal was born in 1971 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, to parents who had just moved there from India to attend graduate school.
So, he should not be a citizen by birth because of this and really should now apply for naturalization?
From the link you posted: "In fact, it was Gupta’s career move that brought the newly married couple to Louisiana."
Establishes permanent domicile before Jindal's birth.
Note the similarities to the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling:
"...of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States."
So, yes, via the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling, Jindal is a U.S. citizen. Is he a 'natural born citizen' for the Constitutional purpose of Presidential eligibility? Not necessarily.
From the article:
Gupta was accepted as a graduate assistant at Louisiana State University when she was pregnant with Bobby. Her husband, who at the time was an assistant professor at a Chandigarh engineering college, was concerned about her moving overseas in her condition. LSU offered her one month of maternity leave if she joined the program, a deal the Jindals agreed was too good to turn down.
They moved in January 1971. Bobby was born soon after, in Baton Rouge.
How does one obtain permanent resident status as a graduate student? I know of many brilliant graduate students who are here on Student Visas, not green card.
From the article:
“It is clear that the Jindal’s were only here for a few months before Bobby Jindal was born.”
It is your understanding that the 14th Amendment grants Birthright Citizenship only to the following:
1) Babies whose Parents or Parent are Citizens
2) Babies whose Parents or one Parent are LEGAL RESIDENTS of the USA.
Babies born in the U.S. whose parents are citizens? Yes.
Babies born in the U.S. who have one alien parent? Not necessarily. If both parents have an established permanent domicile in the U.S., then probably yes via the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling. If the alien parent is only in the country temporarily, then not necessarily. It would depend on whether the alien parent's country asserts jus sanguinis citizenship that specifically applied to the alien's child, as happened in Obama's case.
RE: If the alien parent is only in the country temporarily, then not necessarily.
Then we have to really check Bobby Jindal’s status. I don’t think his parents were permanent residents at the time of his birth.
Why not? They had acquired green cards via his father's profession. They lived in the U.S. prior to, at, and following the time of Jindal's birth.
Contrast that with Obama's father, who only had authorization for a temporary stay in the U.S., and had not lived in the U.S. beyond 3 years after Obama's birth because the U.S. refused to extend his temporary stay any further.
Jindal is a U.S. citizen via U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, but not necessarily a 'natural born citizen' for the purpose of Constitutional Presidential eligibility.
Exactly. They were executing the 14th Amendment as written and intended. Trumbull and Howard were quite clear about the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement's meaning in the Congressional Record.
Absolute, total, complete, unmitigated nonsense.
Trumbull and Howard WERE quite clear about the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement.
They intended to exclude the historical exceptions - children of ambassadors, etc., and Indians in tribes. But THEY NEVER, EVER EXPRESSED ANY INTENTION WHATSOEVER TO EXCLUDE THE CHILDREN BORN ON US SOIL OF NON-CITIZEN IMMIGRANT PARENTS.
In fact, the discussion in both houses touched upon such persons, and it was generally agreed that THEY HAD ALWAYS BEEN BORN UNITED STATES CITIZENS.
So when others later came along and interpreted their words to exclude such people, THAT WAS AN ABSOLUTELY CLEAR MISINTERPRETATION.
I'm sorry if you don't like that, but historically, that's the way it is.
Your first quote in 139 is from Samuel Roberts, who was a little judge in Pennsylvania who presided over several counties. He had no national responsibility or stature whatsoever, and was completely contradicted by those who did (e.g., Rawle, Tucker, etc.)
As for your second quote - CONGRATULATIONS. You have successfully found someone who declared people born on US soil to alien parents not to be a citizen, prior to 1880. I didn't think any such cases existed, but they do.
They don't very far before 1880 - I think the declaration you referenced was in 1876. And the judge in question wasn't even an American. It was an international commission, and he was the British foreign minister to the United States. But yes, he misread "subject to a foreign power" in the same way that birthers do, and made a (wrong) judgment on that basis.
The fact is, "subject to a foreign power" really did not say what they intended to say, so that same year when they introduced the 14th Amendment, they changed the wording to "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." As far as I can tell, history does not record exactly why they changed the wording, but it seems pretty obvious to me. "Subject to a foreign power," from a straightforward reading of that term, really wasn't what they meant in the first place.
If he falls under Wong Kim Ark, then he's a natural born citizen. The question is whether WKA covers the children of temporary residents.
If it does, then he's good. If not, then he might or might not be.
Neither U.S. Secretaries of State nor the International Arbitration Panel agrees with you.
The FACT is that those born in the U.S. to aliens temporarily residing in the U.S. were NOT born U.S. citizens. They DIDN'T meet the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement. Two different U.S. Secretaries of State and an International Arbitrator have CONFIRMED such.
Here’s my personal view — If the 14th Amendment’s Interpretation is UNCLEAR and DEBATABLE, then I believe an amendment to it is in order today.
If we only want to limit babies born of US citizens or LEGAL permanent residents to have birthright citizenship ( as I do ) and exclude those babies born of parents who are here illegally, WE OUGHT TO CLEARLY STATE THIS IN THE CONSTITUTION.
This cannot be done by mere legislation from Congress.
RE: The FACT is that those born in the U.S. to aliens temporarily residing in the U.S. were NOT born U.S. citizens.
As I said before, if the above is the case, then Bobby Jindal ought to go through the process of naturalization.
His parents were not permanent residents of America at the time of his birth. They only applied for residency later.
Every US Secretary of State since US v. Wong Kim Ark has agreed with me. And every US Secretary of State prior to 1880 has agreed with me.
So if you're talking about Secretaries of State between sometime in the 1880s, and 1898, then you're correct. If you're talking about Secretaries of State from any other point in our 225+ year history, no.
The FACT is that those born in the U.S. to aliens temporarily residing in the U.S. were NOT born U.S. citizens. They DIDN'T meet the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement. Two different U.S. Secretaries of State and an International Arbitrator have CONFIRMED such.
I've said before that there's a case to be made for the children of aliens temporarily here. I think it's a weak case, but it's possible to make it. But I think there's a case to be made for the children of illegal aliens.
But there's no case to be made for anyone who has a citizen parent. Virtually everybody in the country considers that to be absolutely settled law, and they would've regarded it as such at any point in our history. And there's no case to be made for children of resident aliens. That case was made and decided more than a century ago.
No. Wong Kim Ark wasn't ruled a natural born citizen. He was ruled "a citizen" ONLY.
Gray had been given the perfect opportunity to redefine U.S. born citizen and even 'natural born citizen' as native-born without regard to parents' status when writing the ruling. But after all the verbal meandering and quotes, he specifically did not do so:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
Remember that those born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent, if they meet nationality law requirements, are ALSO at the time of their birth a citizen of the U.S. That does NOT make them 'natural born citizens' for Constitutional purposes. The U.S. State Dept confirms such:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86757.pdf
Okay, here's what I think, ultimately.
I think people here on tourist visas are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I really do not think that a credible argument can be made that they are not.
That being the case, under the 14th Amendment, the children of birth tourists are citizens.
I don't think birth tourism is an enormous problem, but it's not anything we want to encourage. I think we could find ways legislatively to penalize and discourage it. We could require tourists to disclose whether they expecting to have a baby during their stay in the US, for example. Impose fines, and such.
On the other hand, I think there is some argument to be made that illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." That argument might well fail in court as well, but I think it's worth making.
If it passed Constitutional muster, fine. If it didn't, then we could pass a Constitutional amendment.
All of this, again, presumes the will to do something. I don't think that exists. Clearly, it doesn't.
And I doubt it ever will. If it does, then this discussion becomes more than just theory. Until that day, it's really just academic.
You clearly do not understand legal precedent.
Precedent is not made up of the final declaration only. It includes all of the core reasoning of the case.
It does NOT include side comments, but it includes all of the core reasoning used to reach the decision.
So legal precedent does NOT include (for example) the one-or-two-sentence total side comment made in Minor v. Happersett about the children of aliens. Sorry, it just doesn't.
It DOES include the dozens of pages of careful analysis and core reasoning in Wong Kim Ark, since all of that was key to and led directly to the decision in the case.
And all of that core reasoning had to do with who was and was not a natural born citizen.
Earlier, I wrote this regarding US v. Wong Kim Ark:
Here are some of the major points that the Supreme Court made in that case::
"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.
III. 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."
So what is this rule, when applied in the United States? That the children of aliens are "natural born SUBJECTS?"
Not exactly. The Court also clearly specifies:
The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before was a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."
In other words, the rule, applied in the United States, is that:
"ALIENS, WHILE RESIDING IN THE DOMINIONS POSSESSED BY THE UNITED STATES, ARE WITHIN THE ALLEGIANCE, THE OBEDIENCE, THE FAITH OR LOYALTY, THE PROTECTION, THE POWER, THE JURISDICTION OF THE COLLECTIVE BODY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND THEREFORE EVERY CHILD BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN 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."
That is a simple substitution of everything the Court has explicitly told us we can substitute.
First they said the SAME RULE has always applied in England and then in the United States. So if we want to know the rule in the United States, we can take the wording of that rule and substitute "the United States" every place where it originally said "England."
Then they told us that "citizen" was a PRECISE ANALOGUE to "subject." So that means that when writing out the rule as it applies in the United States, we can absolutely substitute the word "citizen" every place where we see the word "subject."
And they also told us that the sovereign, or KING has been substituted for the collective body of the people of the United States. So we can make that substitution as well, when writing out what they are telling us the rule is FOR THE UNITED STATES.
All of this is very elementary use of the English language. It is unavoidable. It is inescapable, and to pretend this is not what the Court is saying is absolutely disingenuous.
It's all very straightforward. An elementary school child could understand it.
This, then, is the ruling of the Wong Kim Ark Court:
THEREFORE EVERY CHILD BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IS A NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN 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.
Wong Kim Ark was not the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state. He was not the child of an alien enemy in hostile occupation.
It is absolutely, CRYSTAL CLEAR that Wong Kim Ark fulfilled the rule that the Supreme Court said applied here, and that had ALWAYS applied here.
This is why the dissent expressed their understanding that the majority had ruled Wong Kim Ark eligible to become President. Because it is crystal clear.
It also explains why courts have repeatedly ruled Barack Obama to be a natural born citizen, and why the Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to hear any appeals from any such cases.
Because THEY ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE, in 1898.
It also explains why everybody with any knowledge or authority looks upon birthers as absolute kooks and nutjobs.
Some people have argued that since the Supreme Court did not explicitly state in the ruling, "Wong Kim Ark is therefore a natural born citizen of the United States," they "fell short" of finding him a natural born citizen, and only found him to be "a citizen" instead.
This claim completely and absolutely misunderstands or misrepresents how legal precedent works.
In any Supreme Court case, the core reasoning of a case, thoroughly analyzed, holds just as much precedent-making power as the final statement.
In other words, they don't have to restate a conclusion in the final statement, if they have thoroughly argued it during the reasoning of the case, and if it is central to the final conclusion. That is the case here.
We should also note that while birthers make this "they stopped short of saying Wong Kim Ark was a natural born citizen in the final statement" claim for US v Wong Kim Ark, they take the EXACT OPPOSITE approach with their pet case, Minor v. Happersett.
That case contains roughly TWO SENTENCES of side commentary which they think supports their claim. These TWO SENTENCES are not in the final summing up statement of the case. And the status of people born to non-citizens is COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT to the resolution of that case, because nobody EVER suggested that Virginia Minor was the child of non-citizen parents.
Still, they insist that those two sentence of side commentary in Minor are "binding precedent," although they are completely unsupported by any authority or argument whatsoever, although they are completely irrelevant to resolving the case, and their conclusion is not explicitly stated in the final statement.
Meanwhile, they claim that the dozens and dozens of pages of careful analysis in US v. Wong Kim Ark, although absolutely core to the case's final disposition, are entirely irrelevant.
It is 100% clear to any honest person that this is a thoroughly dishonest approach to the two cases.
Or to put it another way, it is simply a way of LYING about what these cases said.
The truth is that Minor had virtually nothing to say on the subject, and US v Wong Kim Ark handed down an absolutely clear precedent that natural born citizenship does not require citizen parents for persons born on US soil.
All of this is completely unavoidable, except by going to great contortions to twist the ruling. Which of course birthers do, every day, since that is the only way they can possibly try to maintain the fantasy.
So... you can deny it all you want. But from a legal point of view, it's crystal clear that Wong was a natural born citizen.
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.