Posted on 07/11/2018 4:13:04 PM PDT by EXCH54FE
Were my grandparents, born in New York or Connecticut to foreign nationals, subjects of the Emperor of Germany or Queen Victoria, citizens at birth or were they not?
Children born in the US are US citizens. We might prefer that they weren't, but the question isn't, what would we prefer? The question is, what is the law?
"Their parents are subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico. That's why we jettison them back to Mexico."
That's a misunderstanding of "jurisdiction". If they are on US soil they are in our jurisdiction, not Mexico's.
"They are not subject to the laws of our nation other than to be deported or arrested for crimes..."
That's absurd. An illegal alien is subject all of our laws, just like anyone else. They can be charged with crimes just like a citizen or legal resident, and have been many times.
"Mexico screams bloody murder every time we put one of it's favorite sons or daughters on death row. It says we have no right to do that."
That's got nothing to do with jurisdiction. It's got to do with the death penalty.
"Once a foreign national becomes a citizen, they are then "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
No. As I've said, that's not what jurisdiction means. Jurisdiction means that the laws applies to you. Our laws apply to everyone on our soil, whether one has legal status or not. The only exceptions are those with diplomatic immunity.
Incorrect. One side has legal support, one doesn't.
"To me, the key is the phrase, " . . . subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . ."
Thank you Captain Obvious. :-)
"What about fugitives from justice? Have they rejected the jurisdiction of the US, and not be ''under' that jurisdiction since they are fugitives?"
No. You can't "reject" jurisdiction. It's not up to you.
If you are not "under the jurisdiction" then you are not subject to the law.
"I'm not going to provide my own opinion on that question, except to say that the answer is not black and white. It is subject to interpretation."
Actually it is black and white. Just read the Wong decision, it's pretty much laid out. Those not "under the jurisdiction" are diplomats with diplomatic immunity, invading soldiers operating under the laws of war, and Indians on sovereign indian territory. What these all have in common is that they are not subject to US law. Everyone else is.
It is irrelevant. A speech in Congress does not override the words written in the Constitution.
https://www.fairus.org/issue/societal-impact/birthright-citizenship
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/birthright-citizenship-two-perspectives
The most you can say is that it has become common to accept the 14th Amendment does say children of illegal immigrants born here are automatically citizens.
Having never been ruled on by the SCOTUS, there has been no determination that you are right. Further, there are good arguments against it as well.
Sorry you didn’t know that.
Find/link the law...since you don't give the year of their birth...and we'll go from there.
Then I should just throw away my copy of the Federalist Papers despite their explanations and thinking of the day of the proposed Constitution?
My grandparents were born in 1893, 1894, and 1895 (x2).
They were never naturalized. The WW I draft cards of my two grandparents refer to each as “natural born”, to which the alternative was “naturalized”
Some may claim they were Citizens under the 14th Amendment, but Citizenship as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.
The law woulod have been the Naturalization Law of 1802.
Statutes at Large, 7th Congress, 1st Session
My grandparents were born in 1893, 1894, and 1895 (x2).
They were never naturalized.
You need to step back one more time.
Were the parents of your grandparents naturalized?
2 of the 4 were eventually, but not at the time their children were born.
My point was, all four of them lived their entire lives as US citizens and were so recognized by the US Navy, the US Army, the Board of Education of the City of New York, and the Board of Elections of New York State.
The only mechanism by which they acquired their citizenship was that they were born here.
Now, it is true, when THEIR parents stepped onto the ships that brought them here, they never intended to return to Ireland or Germany and they intended for their children (if any) to be Americans.
It's also true that when I studied the US Constitution in 1966 (thank you Mr. Benofsky) I was taught that being born here conferred citizenship.
I concede that in 1895, or 1966, the number of people here illegally was tiny (there were ads on the TV in NY right after Christmas every year when I was a kid reminding aliens to register by January 1, and asking citizens to turn in ones who didn't).
I think there is a case to be made that the children of illegals as presently defined do NOT acquire citizenship at birth - I just think it's a case that no US court will ever recognize, so an Amendment will be needed to solve the problem.
Hardly. But you decide what the Constitution says based on the words in the Constitution. Not by ignoring the words there in favor of some other source.
Here's what Scalia had to say:
“Even beyond the unreliability of almost all legislative history...as an indication of intent, it seems to me that asking what the legislators intended rather than what they enacted is quite the wrong question."
"Statutes should be interpreted, it seems to me, not on the basis of the unpromulgated intentions of those who enact them...but rather on the basis of what is the most probable meaning of the words of the enactment, in the context of the whole body of public law with which they must be reconciled."
Scalia Speaks- Reflections on Law, Faith, and Life Well Lived Antonin Scalia
Not true. The most you can say is that the words of the 14th Amendment are clear, and they are.
"Having never been ruled on by the SCOTUS, there has been no determination that you are right. Further, there are good arguments against it as well."
Not having been material to the holding of a particular case does not mean the court hasn't written about this subject. It has. For one, go actually read the Wong decision. It covers the subject quite thoroughly.
"Sorry you didn’t know that."
Oh I know all about the arguments, from fighting with silly Birthers.
Yeah, like saying it's a fact the Earth is round is an arrogant, smug statement.
Sometimes things are just true, and it's appropriate to say so. That's not arrogant or smug, it's honest. This is one of those things. There is no serious legal dispute over "under the jurisdiction". It's questioned only by people hoping for an activist court to make something come out they way they wish for.
A statute covering naturalization has no bearing on someone that is already a citizen by fact of birth.
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.