Posted on 08/18/2015 4:03:12 PM PDT by dennisw
Parts of Trump’s immigration plan may raise serious constitutional questions, but the part that launched a media firestorm—ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens—does not.
The Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment does not confer citizenship on the children of foreigners, whether legal or illegal.
Media commentators have gotten this dead wrong. Judge Andrew Napolitano says the Fourteenth Amendment is “very clear” that its Citizenship Clause commands that any child born in America is automatically an American citizen.
That’s not the law. It has never been the law.
Under current immigration law—found at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)—a baby born on American soil to a (1) foreign ambassador, (2) head of state, or (3) foreign military prisoner is not an American citizen.
How is that possible? This is from the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (INA), as it has been amended over the years. Is this federal law unconstitutional?
No. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides: “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.” Today’s debate turns on the six words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
As captured in the movie Lincoln, the Thirteenth Amendment—which ended slavery—barely passed Congress because many Democrats supported slavery, and it was only through the political genius and resolve of Republican President Abraham Lincoln that the proposed amendment passed Congress 1865, sending it to the states for ratification.
In 1866, Congress passed a Civil Rights Act to guarantee black Americans their constitutional rights as citizens, claiming that the Constitution’s Thirteenth Amendment gave Congress the power to pass such laws. But many voted against the Civil Rights Act because they thought it exceeded Congress’s powers, and even many of its supporters doubted its legality.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Yea, good luck with that.
I thought this only applied to children of slaves as there was a question of their citizenship.
The law should require that the mother be here LEGALLY.
No more anchor babies!!!
Mark Levin layed out the case why the constitution does not gave grant birthright citizenship in the first hour of his show, and why Judge Nap is wrong.
The debate is already underway: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3326273/posts
Judges like Nappy is one reason why we are beginning to fail as a country.
“that guy” is also pro homosexual based marriage.
Read the whole thing if you want to know where the truth lies on this.
It can be argued under United States v. Wong Kim Ark , 169 US 649 (1898) that only children born here to people admitted legally can be considered US citizens. This is the case that “legal scholars” (lawyers) are talking about currently.
8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)—a baby born on American soil to a (1) foreign ambassador, (2) head of state, or (3) foreign military prisoner is not an American citizen.
Which of these categories do illegals fall under?
What nitwit wrote that? A law trumps the Constitution?
Good grief how foolish and ignorant.
The 14th Amendment is about as clear on this issue as anything in the Constitution.
You are correct.
And the fact that they are arguing a Statute over the Constitution is amazing in it’s ignorance.
Yes, he IS wrong. And the Fox News “talent” is becoming increasingly wrong. Marching orders have been given.
There IS a difference between children born in the US to a US citizen or to folks LEGALLY residing here (i.e., with a “green card”) and those here illegally. The law-breakers here illegally (and those who are here on “birth tourism”) ARE NOT “AMERICAN SUBJECTS” and therefore don’t fall under section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
14the Amendment Section 1: “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....”
Mark Levin pointed out that the 14th did not apply to American Indians (who did not want American citizenship at that time) because they did not fall under US jurisdiction since they still lived under tribal law.
He contends that any other foreigner giving birth in the US would have been treated the same as American Indians as they also were subject to laws of another nation. Therefore it was not the intent behind the 14th to grant citizenship to children born in the US to foreign parents.
And also the the constitution gives Congress the power to set the terms of immigration and naturalization policy.
Wrong
“The Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment does not confer citizenship on the children of foreigners, whether legal or illegal.”
The Consitution gives power to Congress to naturalize citizens not THE COURTS.
The Contitution gives Congress the power to define what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.
Napolitano doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Exactly!
I think that’s a stretch.
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.