Why Paul Ryan is Wrong About Birthright Citizenship October 30, 2018 Daniel Greenfield

Front Page ^ | October 30, 2018 | Daniel Greenfield

[detective]

Speaker Ryan is completely wrong about Birthright Citizenship.

But being wrong never stopped him before.

[JME_FAN]

Paul Ryan does not know his ass from a hole in the wall.

[mass55th]

The title of the article should be “Why Paul Ryan is Wrong About Everything.”

[nopardons]

LYIN’Ryan is damned, dead WRONG 99.99999% of the time.

[pingman]

So, is the wrinkle being disputed the “...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...” phrase? Is a non-citizen on US soil not subject to our laws, or am I missing something? (No great legal mind, I.)

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Paul Ryno has been a huge part of the problem!

[LegendHasIt]

Paul Ryan: "As a conservative, I’m a believer in following the plain text of the Constitution, .."

At least two lies, right there.

[Carriage Hill]

Ryan is a bathhouse “glory hole” aficionado; he loves holes in the wall.

[nesnah]

Ryan couldn’t find his way out of a wet paper bag if he was holding an ice pick in each hand.

[_Jim]

Ryan is an idiot.

[Xenodamus]

I could be wrong as well, but the way I understand it is that you are subject to the jurisdiction of your country until you become a citizen of this one but are still held accountable to our laws. This would be similar if I, as an American citizen, got in trouble in Germany. I would be held accountable to their laws but still under U.S. jurisdiction. Anyway, the whole point of the 14th was to allow slaves and their children, born here, the right to be citizens. They were property so if their owner was a citizen they fell under the jurisdiction of America.
I am sure some legal mind will rip me to shreds.

[_Jim]

Oh, and note to Paul Ryan:

“The [US] Constitution is not a suicide pact.”

- Justice Robert Jackson

[Ozymandias Ghost]

The phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” at the time it was written meant the SOLE JURISDICTION of the United States. This meant it did NOT apply to illegal aliens or transient legal aliens or their children; as they were subject to the jurisdiction of the country from which they came; thus, NOT under the SOLE JURISDICTION of the U.S. (It also did not apply to the children of foreign dignitaries residing in the U.S. or children whose parents were governed by Treaties (i.e.: “Native Americans” and Chinese at the time; although this were later changed)

Link: http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

[CondorFlight]

The congressional debate established that the law did not apply to those born here illegally, to the children of diplomatic families, or native americans.

IOW, the mere presence here of the birth mother did not confer citizenship on her child.

[RainMan]

an illegal immigrant has, by definition, not subjected themselves to our jurisdiction. If they had, they would not be illegal. Therefore, an illegal immigrant is not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Think of it this way ... how do you subject yourself the the jurisdiction of a country? Well, if you are a visitor, you fill out a lot of paperwork and get a Visa. If you intend to live here, you go to Immigration and fill out a bunch of paperwork. If you are seeking asylum, you present yourself at thru a regular Port-of-Entry, and fill out a bunch of paperwork, and make your claim. The reason for the paperwork is so that you can be vetted, for all sorts of things, not the least of which being ... DO WE WANT YOU IN THIS COUNTRY! Now, if you do not do any of the above, you have not subjected yourself to our jurisdiction, and therefore, you are not eligible for plopping a baby out on our soil and calling it a citizen.

[Brilliant]

I think it’s very unlikely the Court will uphold Trumps argument. If they did millions of people who were born here and were treated as Americans all their lives would suddenly not be Americans. It would cause a huge disruption. ...Bigger than Roe and the Court is already under fire for Roe. I can’t see it happening.

[Yosemitest]

We need to require that schools TEACH that word meanings do NOT change.
We need to REQUIRE that students AND VOTERS UNDERSTAND the Constitution.
They must actually READ THE CONSTITUTION !

Rush make the details of this discussion VERY CLEAR today.

EXCERPT ...

RUSH: ... I don’t think any elected Republican other than Trump…
Even if they had made the promises Trump made,
I think all of them would have caved by now.
But Trump hasn’t.
He doubles down.
“Right. I’m gonna issue an executive order;
I’m gonna end birthright citizenship.”
Let me read to you the 14th Amendment and how it begins.
“All persons…”



Now, the 14th Amendment goes back to 1866.
I think it was ratified by Congress in 1866.
It was passed by Congress; ratified by the states two years later.
So in 1866, it was passed by Congress and ratified by the states in 1868,
and its original intent was

to grant citizenship to slaves and their descendants.
It was part and parcel of the post-Civil War era of America fixing itself.
It was a good thing.
Our Constitution was written so that mistakes at the founding could be corrected.
The vast majority of people knew slavery at the founding was untenable,
but they needed the union in order to fight the Revolutionary War.
They needed the southern states.
They needed unity to do that
so they had to accept slavery,
but they built in safeguards to wipe it out,
and it happened in 1868 when the 14th Amendment passed.

It begins this way:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the U.S. and of the state wherein they reside.”
It was clearly intended to be referring to slaves and their descendants.
The parts that birthright citizenship, uh, freaks have to delete are
“naturalized”
and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
You are not naturalized and you are not subject to the U.S. jurisdiction if you’re here illegally !
You cannot be !

You’re under some other country’s jurisdiction.
If you’re here illegally, you cannot possibly be naturalized.
Well, the birthright citizenship crowd —
which wants to water down American culture and destroy Western civilization
— conveniently leaves out “naturalized” and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
So your born-here child absolutely is not a citizen.
This is what Trump is saying.
Trump is finally pushing back against an assumption that has been made because
it was the path of least resistance, if you will.
But now it’s make-or-break time.

As my friend McCarthy says,
“You need somebody to break the furniture.”


Sometimes, you gotta remodel the house.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Okay, a little bit more background on the 14th Amendment here
’cause it’s gonna be relevant as the issue going forward.
Again, it was added after the Civil War.
Its purpose was to overrule the Dred Scott Decision !
Which was a horrible decision.
Dred Scott sanctioned slavery.
Roger Taney was the chief justice, forever the immortalized in infamy.
It held that black slaves were not citizens.
So Congress got into gear and passed the 14th Amendment.

It guaranteed that freed slaves would have all the privileges of citizenship by providing, quote,
“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,”
which means
the drafters of the 14th Amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born here.
In fact, the very author of the citizenship cause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said…



This is why the original intent of founding documents is so important.
Quote, “This,” meaning the 14th Amendment…

“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers…”
It was expressly intended to confer citizenship to slaves and their descendants.
There was an 1884 case, Elk v. Wilkins.
The Supreme Court ruled the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Native Americans
because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

Well, an illegal alien here is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
They’re under the jurisdiction of where they came from if they’re here illegally.
Guess when this all changed ?
In the 1960s !
Concomitant with Senator Kennedy wanting to reopen…
We had shut down all immigration from ’21 to ’65.
Along comes Senator Kennedy in the pre-Chappaquiddick days wanting to reopen it
for the express purpose of
making sure the Democrat Party always had a permanent underclass of voters dependent on them and the government.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: And, by the way, and even according to our leftist brothers and sisters at NPR report
no nation in Europe confers birthright citizenship.
Liberals love to say we should emulate Europe, right ?
Okay !

BREAK TRANSCRIPT ...

[hinckley buzzard]

Anyone who agrees with Ryan should be asked, "If a Russian ambassador to the US and his wife had a baby while serving his post here, would his baby be an American citizen, or Russian?

[pissant]

“why Paul Ryan is wrong”?

If his lips were moving, you can just about guarantee the noise emanating was 180 degrees wrong.

[Pravious]

Paul Ryan does not know his ass from a hole in the wall.

—

Sure he does. He’s staring into it every time he looks into a mirror.