We Can Apply the 14th Amendment While Also Reforming Birthright Citizenship

National Review ^ | 08/24/2015 | John Eastman

[itsahoot]

I'll restate my point with your remark in mind. I expect the court to conflate "subject to the laws" with "subject to the jurisdiction," and hold that children of parents who are here illegally are natural born US citizens, because that's what "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th amendment means.

Restate away, you are just wrong.

[Cboldt]

Do you think the courts will get it right?

[Terry L Smith]

dear dsc,

I was born the morning after Ike was nominated for President.

I do thank you for the fill-in on the lack of history on this subject.

Your last written line, says it all.

Have a nice day. It’s 110 degrees in the swamp.

[itsahoot]

Do you think the courts will get it right?

Not a chance.

[Cboldt]

Then you and I are in agreement. I was describing what I believe the courts would do, not what I think the correct legal interpretation is. I accept that my initial remark was slightly ambiguous in attribution of belief and action, especially the “because” clause. That meant to describe the courts’ rationale, not mine.

[Liz]

To hear the gullible MSM report on Latino organized pressure groups, they would have us believe Latinos control a huge voting bloc...

.....but election results show ......obviously they don't... not even a little.......

The latino agit-prop is calculated....stupid Dems actually believe it.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Still, it is an option, not commanded by the Constitution to occur (the Senate may refuse leaving said treaty null and void).

[HiTech RedNeck]

The courts have stopped being legal forums and have started being zeitgeist forums. That cannot end well.

[HiTech RedNeck]

And anyhow your comparison is inapt, with suspicion applicable as to being deliberately disingenuous. It would be Congress’ legal dominion over DOMESTIC affairs that would apply to DOMESTIC affairs. One DOMESTIC affair is, who qualifies to be a citizen. That doesn’t need to be negotiated with, say, Mexico. Only the USA wallows in such folly today.

[itsahoot]

I was describing what I believe the courts would do, not what I think the correct legal interpretation is.

Me too sigh.....

[semimojo]

And anyhow your comparison is inapt, with suspicion applicable as to being deliberately disingenuous. It would be Congress’ legal dominion over DOMESTIC affairs that would apply to DOMESTIC affairs. One DOMESTIC affair is, who qualifies to be a citizen. That doesn’t need to be negotiated with, say, Mexico. Only the USA wallows in such folly today.

Not sure where you're going with this but I was just responding to the question "what established diplomatic immunity?"

Of course you don't need a treaty if it's a purely domestic matter.

[magellan]

Dingy Harry Reid actually tried to do this back in 1993:

Flashback: Sen. Reid on Birthright Citizenship

Here is a link to the actual bill:

S.1351 -- Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993 (Introduced in Senate - IS)

I would need to look at the rest of the bill, but the section on birthright citizenship (SEC. 1001. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED.) is well written:

In the exercise of its powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth.

This is reasonable and sensible.

[kindred]

[.” The welcome mat to American citizenship is open to anyone in the world regardless of race or ethnic background, as long as they adhere to the legal rules set out by Congress for immigration to this country. ]

That is it indeed. Intent is always important in discernment of any legal or moral application, and intent of the Congressional forefathers was to eradicate the Dread Scott decision by the evil Supreme Court of that day, when they decided that black lives did not matter as much as white lives and gave them partial human standing, even them unjust judges were in power. Not withstanding, the 14th ammendment was written for the black slaves who were now free so that their children, only their children were then made U.S. citizens of a country which had illegally and wrongfully used forign slaves as their property. It was not written for illegal armies crossing the borders and being made citizens by arrogant politicians who want votes and who hate white Americans because of their citizenship status. And one should but study what the evil Mexican government citizenship requirements are to truly understand some of the politicians of today who hate Americans who work for a living and whom they live very luxurously as recipepiants of over taxation. And the dems are the dregs and criminals of the lot, the rinos are the fools and liars of it.

[TiaS]

What would be the status of a small child taken from another country illegally and held as war broke out — never repatriated at the end of the war and raised mostly by military through out its life time with out knowledge or consent of it’s true identity?