Birthright citizen ship only occurs when a parent is under the jurisdiction (legal jurisdiction, ie citizen) when the child is born.
Or at least that is HOW/WHY the 14th was written.
PING
This isn’t just about illegal aliens - ‘birthright citizenship’ shouldn’t be conferred upon the children of legal non immigrant aliens either.
Below is an expanded argument showing why denying citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is fully consistent with the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. There is actual constitutional analysis going on here. That is rare these days. Link at the bottom.
[The law itself:]
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.
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.”
The Civil Rights Act [1866] included a definition for national citizenship, to guarantee that former slaves would forever be free of the infamous Dred Scott decision which declared black people were not American citizens. That provision read, “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”
That was the original meaning of the jurisdiction language in the Fourteenth Amendment. A person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States is a person who is “not subject to any foreign power”—that is, a person who was entirely native to the United States, not the citizen or subject of any foreign government.
Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution, Congress has absolute power to make laws for immigration and for granting citizenship to foreigners. Congress’s current INA is far more generous than the Constitution requires.
[In case law:]
In 1884, the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins noted that the language of the Civil Rights Act was condensed and rephrased in the Fourteenth Amendment and that courts can therefore look to the Civil Rights Act to understand better the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that if a person is a foreign citizen, then their children are likewise not constitutionally under the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore not entitled to citizenship. In fact, the Court specifically then added that this rule is why the children of foreign ambassadors are not American citizens.
That is why Congress can specify that the children of foreign diplomats and foreign soldiers are not Americans by birth. They’re not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Congress’s INA does not grant them citizenship; federal law never has.
So then according to Levin Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio are not citizens at all, much less natural born citizens?
US citizenship rules should be the height of simplicity.
1. A person born and one or both parents are US citizens. The only birthright citizenship.
2. A legal entrant to the US who goes through the naturalization process.
Someone might think of an odd exception, but those two conditions would cover 99% plus situations. And that’s probably what was intended until a misinterpretation here and a judicial activist there confused matters.
I don’t watch Rino Rove Fox ‘news’......have any of the idiot talking heads like Judge Nappy and Yosemite Sam issued a retraction yet?
It is ABUNDANTLY clear that they do. Levin is flat wrong. I’ve done my share of SCOTUS and 4th Cir and E Dist arguments on Constitutional issues. The language is plain as day.
Do I like it? Not at all. But there it is.
Thank God for The Great One.
All the big radio hosts are railing against it.
Savage just read Senator Howard’s word’s verbatim written in the Congressional record about the intent and meaning behind the 14th Amendment.
The Establishment will not be able to obscure this issue with nonsense like have in the past and other related issues.
Bookmarking this thread. Man this is good stuff.
Even if you hate Levin it is worthwhile to download and listen to at least the first hour of his podcast from 8-18 There, you will learn even the actual intent of the guys that wrote the amendment
Of course, we should all realize that one of the implications of Levin’s argument is that Obama is not a natural born citizen, and, therefore, not eligible to hold office.
Mark is right.
Here are Mark’s comments:
These classes of people, even if born here, are NOT American citizens under the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952:
a child born on American soil to a:
(1) foreign ambassador,
(2) head of state,
(3) foreign military prisoner
So what prevents Congress from simply adding another class of people to the list?
Here’s a good background primer on this issue:
Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3326736/posts
So maybe it needs to be re-stated that the children of freed American slaves are automatic citizens?
Face it, people: In America, the law is whatever the media and politicians say it is on any given day. There is no justice here, only tyranny.