The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans

Immigration News ^ | February 1, 2005 | P.A. Madison

[elbucko]

I think illegals contribute far more then they take away from society and boost our economy.

Just remember that the next time you pay a large rent for a small apartment, too much for too little of a house and your property taxes. The housing problems in the USA , shortage and cost, are in no small part, being driven by excessive immigration.

[traviskicks]

Just remember that the next time you pay a large rent for a small apartment, too much for too little of a house and your property taxes. The housing problems in the USA , shortage and cost, are in no small part, being driven by excessive immigration.
--

So your saying that adding tens of thousands (or more) dollars to the value of every house and property across America is a bad thing?

It makes our GDP more, it enables productive citizens to raise more capital for their businesses. It makes America more valuable and prosperous then ever.

In effect, you make my point even stronger. People are moving to midwestern states for cheaper new housing.

New housing would be even cheaper their if the Federal government would give up owning 90% of states like Nevada. Again, it's a Big Governement problem.

[ScreamingFist]

I had, until I was 18, both United States (born to a serviceman overseas) and German citizenship. Of course I picked the US citizenship, but this isnt just a US thing.

Same for me, born in Germany and got my U.S. citizenship around 9 years old. You and I were neither German nor American until receiving citizenship, so claiming U.S. citizenship just because one happens to drop out on American soil is bogus, IMHO.

[elbucko]

So your saying that adding tens of thousands (or more) dollars to the value of every house and property across America is a bad thing?

Yes, because it is not a realistic value. It is actually not "value", but an inflation brought about by too many people chasing too few dwellings.

[traviskicks]

Yes, because it is not a realistic value. It is actually not "value", but an inflation brought about by too many people chasing too few dwellings.
---

You've stated the definition of how value is generated. Supply and Demand set the market price for a good or service.

Inflated value would be the false perception that there is either less supply or more demand then actually exists, or unrealistic expectation that either one will occur in the future.

Since there actually is more demand for housing this isn't the case.

[elbucko]

Inflated value would be the false perception that there is either less supply or more demand then actually exists, or unrealistic expectation that either one will occur in the future.

The perception is not false. It is the reality. The supply of dwellings is less than the demand. Real Estate does not succumb to the platitudes of "Free Market" theories that can be supposed upon commodities. Housing has complications, not the least of which are interest rates, the money supply and the long term effects of the deficit.

[fella]

It seems to me that the Mexicain government is and has been demanding a say in any capitol case that involve one of their citizens in our courts. Is not that a claim of a jusidiction outside of our own? That claim has also been approved by The world Court in the Hague.

[Hoplite]

If I remember correctly and we're thinking of the same case, that's not a jurisdictional dispute, but one over due process involving Consular officials.

The State Dept makes reference to the applicable treaty on their webpage devoted to Americans arrested abroad.

[middie]

Absolutely. For a group of intelligent folks who consistently clamor for a plain reading of the organic document to ascertain its meaning, there seems to a contrary movement here to read a meaning into the Constitution that is directly contradictory to the exact language in the text.....And, by the way, it would be exciting to learn how Congress can amend the Constitution by an act alone without the amendatory process of ratification.

First, the plain language says anyone born in the US is a citizen. Second, the 5th and 14th Amendments prohibit government to deny any "person" (not "citizen") equal protection of the laws.

[middie]

Yes they do.... The Constitution refers to "persons" - not citizens who are entitled to equal protection of the law. There are dozens of Sup. Ct. cases holding that priciple.

[canalabamian]

Could you please site some? I'd be interested in educating myself a bit. Thanks.

[moehoward]

The Constitution refers to "persons" - not citizens who are entitled to equal protection of the law. There are dozens of Sup. Ct. cases holding that priciple.

Yes "persons" born or naturalized in the United States, and subject . "And" as in "both". Illegal Aliens are not subject to our jurisdiction. Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, stated in 1866, "Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

[canalabamian]

site = cite...hukt on foniks wurks.

[jslade]

bump for later.

[middie]

I do not intend to be insulting when I say that you could not be more wrong. No doubt you wish it were otherwise, but our constitutional doctrine says that you're wrong.

[Publius6961]

If you're on American soil, you're under American jurisdiction unless specifically granted other status.

Explain, then, how a participant in the original legislation clearly thought otherwise:

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...[6]

Further, are you then arguing that British soldiers and mercenaries during the War of 1812 were under the "jurisdiction" of the United States and thereby any children born here to them were also citizens?
How about any children that might have been fathered by the mass murderers of 911 ?

[traviskicks]

The supply of dwellings is less than the demand.
---

Yes, which is why prices are rising. I'm not sure what your getting at, I think we're going around in circles.

"Housing has complications, not the least of which are interest rates, the money supply and the long term effects of the deficit."

That may be, but it's not relevant to your argument that immigrants are unfairly increasing the price of housing. Unless you can prove that immigration has an effect on 'interest rates, the money supply, and the long term effect of the deficit.' Infact, I'd say they probably do have an impact on these things, but in a beneficial way (whatever that is).

[moehoward]

You say it's wrong despite Jacob Howard confirming that is the exact intent of the amendment. Why?

[ran15]

I can just imagine a young Tesla trying to immigrate here today.. the professional associations and protectionists would try to stop him.

[Hoplite]

S 61 wasn't the finished product - all that matters is what appears under the 14th Amendment, and the language therein is explicit:

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.

Let's leave the fanciful interpretation thing to others, shall we?

The only question here is who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

I can't answer for conditions back in 1812, but as of today, my understanding of American jurisdiction relevant to this matter is that it encompasses the area within our National borders, excluding foreign embassies and the like, so any children born of the 9-11 hijackers on our soil would become citizens, and it is that same understanding of jurisdiction which has allowed Zaccharias Moussaoui, a French citizen, to be arrested on our soil and tried in our courts - he has plainly fallen under our jurisdiction.