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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 201-204 next last
To: AuntB

With the right lawyer and the right Supreme Court this incorrect interpretation of The Fourteenth Amendment would have been voided out years ago. I am mystified why no conservative lawyers have ever challenged it, say funded by the Heritage Foundation


101 posted on 04/25/2013 2:56:42 PM PDT by dennisw (too much of a good thing is a bad thing - Joe Pine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
Not everybody born in the US was a US citizen, but some or most of those particular people, legally speaking, actually were. Even if the State Department denied the fact.

Jeff, the U.S. Secretaries of State explicitly cited the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement in determining those men weren't U.S. citizens even though born in the U.S.

102 posted on 04/25/2013 2:58:22 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge

The government has chosen to consider them citizens. They did so contrary to the decision on what NBC & the 14th mean. Someone here illegally is NOT living under the jurisdiction of our laws. They are not domiciled here. They are the functional equivalent of an invading army - here without the permission of the government. That is a long recognized exception to citizenship by birth.

“There is no requirement that your parents must be citizens in order to become a citizen of the US.”

I never said they did. But the parents must be here in amity with the government - because the government accepts them as living here legally, under our laws.

Why do you keep twisting it around to suggest I’m imposing a citizenship requirement for the parents?


103 posted on 04/25/2013 3:02:21 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (Liberals are like locusts...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: AuntB

Question: Was Birthright Citizenship enshrined in their constitution, or was it simply a matter of passing a law by legislation?

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part,

“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 “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause has always been understood to be - If you are born and still live here, you are under US jurisdiction.

Now, is it simply a matter of RE-INTERPRETING the clause? Or should we AMEND the constitution?

If the latter, you know the lengthy process it will take...


104 posted on 04/25/2013 3:05:59 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
There is no longer any such wiggle room when it comes to the children of aliens who actually reside here.

The U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling actually requires more than simply residence. It requires the parents to have an established permanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of the child's birth.

And in Obama's case, he had a citizen mother. So there's no argument there.

There actually is no law that supports your assertion. U.S. law covers derivative citizenship to those born overseas to a U.S. citizen parent but the requirement for birthright citizenship for those born in the U.S. is either that they are not subject to a foreign power at birth, or that their alien parent(s) was/were permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of their birth.

The circumstances of Obama's birth fit neither of those criteria.

105 posted on 04/25/2013 3:13:05 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause has always been understood to be - If you are born and still live here, you are under US jurisdiction.

No, it hasn't. Why would you think such a thing?

Judiciary Committee Chairman Trumbull in the Congressional Record, 1866:

"The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That 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."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14
106 posted on 04/25/2013 3:21:09 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

RE: Jurisdiction

Aren’t babies born in the United States subject to US jurisdiction?


107 posted on 04/25/2013 3:28:42 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Aren’t babies born in the United States subject to US jurisdiction?

If they're subject to a foreign power at birth, they owe allegiance to a foreign power and are not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the U.S. as required by the 14th Amendment.

How do you not know this?

108 posted on 04/25/2013 3:36:15 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

If children of illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, can they be tried in an American court?

The intent of the 14th amendment is to prevent the creation of second-class citizens via legal obfuscations that pretend that some of the people in the United States are not the full kind of “person” who is entitled to the rights it guarantees.

We had some problems with that sort of thing for a century or so.

Babies brought into this world on American soil are exactly who this amendment is designed to protect. They start their lives here, they grow up here, and therefore they are called citizens BY LAW.

Now if you don’t want them to be citizens by virtue of their birth on American soil because their parents are not citizens or illegal, I am with you.

But the 14th amendment CANNOT BE USED for this purpose.

The constitution has to be amended.


109 posted on 04/25/2013 3:57:21 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

Perhaps the defining Supreme Court ruling in this area is US v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 case in which justices upheld the US citizenship of a child born on US soil to Chinese immigrant parents. The parents were in the US legally, however.


110 posted on 04/25/2013 4:00:34 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Because you are? The 14th explicitly rejects this interpretation.


111 posted on 04/25/2013 5:23:05 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

Yes, there is a reason for it to prevail. It is how dual citizenship works in the United States at least. This way the child is entitled to her rights as an American, and Americans give precedence to these rights over her rights and obligations as a British subject.


112 posted on 04/25/2013 5:24:37 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: AuntB

And how’s that workin’ out for them? Not well! You want to model America’s immigration system after the UK?


113 posted on 04/25/2013 5:25:27 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Rides3

“In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.”

Which is not the case here.


114 posted on 04/25/2013 5:35:32 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
If children of illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, can they be tried in an American court?

Those who are born to an alien parent whose country has a nationality law that automatically makes them a citizen/subject of the alien parent's country are not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the U.S. and are therefore NOT born U.S. citizens.

U.S. Secretaries of State have been quite explicit about that.

See post 93:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3011750/posts?q=1&;page=51#93

115 posted on 04/25/2013 6:06:02 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Perhaps the defining Supreme Court ruling in this area is US v. Wong Kim Ark

Indeed, it is. Gray (the Justice who wrote the majority opinion) specifically stated that the ruling was based on the fact that Wong Kim Ark's alien parents were permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of his birth, among other facts agreed upon by all parties in the case.

116 posted on 04/25/2013 6:26:32 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
Yes, there is a reason for it to prevail. It is how dual citizenship works in the United States at least.

For those who meet birthright citizenship requirements, yes. Not everyone born in the U.S. meets those requirements. See post 93:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3011750/posts?q=1&;page=51#93

117 posted on 04/25/2013 6:29:40 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
“In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship.”

Which is not the case here.

Indeed, it's not. Obama never qualified for birthright U.S. citizenship to begin with. He doesn't meet the 14th Amendment's requirements. See post 93:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3011750/posts?q=1&;page=51#93

And his alien father was not permanently domiciled in the U.S. at the time of his birth per the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling.

It is possible that he may have naturalized as a U.S. citizen at some point after the time of his birth. However, naturalized citizens are ineligible to be President.

118 posted on 04/25/2013 6:34:05 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Rides3
Jeff, the U.S. Secretaries of State explicitly cited the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement in determining those men weren't U.S. citizens even though born in the U.S.

It doesn't matter whether they cited it in support of their claim or not. "Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" was never intended to exclude domiciled aliens. Period.

That they misused the phrase it in support of their denial of citizenship to children of domiciled aliens really doesn't matter in terms of what it meant.

The U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ruling actually requires more than simply residence. It requires the parents to have an established permanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of the child's birth.

Arguably. Arguably, it didn't. It's arguable either way.

There actually is no law that supports your assertion.

There may not be any STATUTE that supports my assertion, but the rule of citizenship which has always applied supports it. The very definition of "natural born citizen" supports it.

119 posted on 04/25/2013 6:53:29 PM PDT by Jeff Winston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Winston
It doesn't matter whether they cited it in support of their claim or not. "Subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" was never intended to exclude domiciled aliens. Period.

Actually, that's not true. Birthright citizenship wasn't extended to the children of some aliens until the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision. And even then it was only extended to those whose parents had an established permanent domicile in the U.S. at the time of the child's birth

120 posted on 04/25/2013 7:12:27 PM PDT by Rides3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 201-204 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