Posted on 11/03/2018 6:30:05 AM PDT by Sean_Anthony
Read and understand what the founders and writers meant, especially when it is clear, and give the Supreme Court a break
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”....
Illegal immigration is a red-hot topic of conversation these days made even hotter recently by thousands of migrants heading towards the United States southern border, determined to break through.
This should be under “Spam.”
Problem is, the leftist, Godless people who have been coming to this country and have established a foothold do NOT want that to happen now and will fight it as they must by population overwhelm the God-fearing populace that is left and overcome them. The Democrat Party over the years more and more realize that these people vote for them and it is the key to subjugating the population left that fears God.
It was very interesting listening to this on NPR this morning and how suddenly the commentator was real concerned with following the constitution, when his supporters, the liberal leftist Democrats, have been wanting to toss the constitution aside on 2nd amendment matters. What hypocrisy.
Um, no it shouldn't.
Sad when the CANADA Free Press has to school us on the Constitution.
It's important to note that no laws were passed implementing birthright citizenship in the first place. The 14th Amendment was clearly written to apply only to the slaves freed by the Civil War. It did not even include Native Americans. Native Americans were only granted full citizenship by a law passed in the '20s. Birthright citizenship was implemented by a State Department executive order in the '60s.
Issuing an executive order rescinding this order, would force the media to explain that birthright citizenship is not only NOT a part of the constitution, it is not even a law. It was simply implemented by executive order quite recently, and can be removed the same way.
The 14th was never intended to apply to foreigners.
Any foreigners.
The Supreme Court stretched it to cover the children of foreigners here legally in Wong Kim Ark, but did not extend it to illegal aliens.
That was done administratively sometime in the 1960’s.
An executive order can remedy that.
Children of foreign nationals inherit the nationality(ies) of their foreign national parent(s).
That’s why the children of foreign nationals are NOT natural born citizens.
The same principle is also how Ted Cruz acquired US citizenship being born in Canada. A citizen by extension of his mother’s citizenship, but not a natural born citizen.
‘That was done administratively sometime in the 1960’s’
Do we know WHO did this? Likely LBJ?
Key elements are in CFR 30 515.329 nS 515.330 as I recall. These are administrative rule makings by the state department conveniently defining or redefining persons subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It is a corruption of the original meaning for the convenience of the immigration reformers such as toady kennedy. The rule making runs in advance of the immigration reform act of 1965 that ended quotas and began opening the flood gates to all who wanted to enter.
Why do you say that? Please explain yourself.
Thank you for that.
This is the State department regulation I have been referring to but not aware of the actual CFR title. Had only heard of it, it’s not directly referenced under passport issuing rules.
You are absolutely right, it redefines “subject to the jurisdiction of” to meaning only residence, which is not what was meant.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.329
Says nothing about political jurisdiction or nationality, just a banal reference to residence and some corporation law, which is an even longer discussion...
I’m no legal expert, I leave that to others who may be, but I have dealt with regulations in industry and these are interpretations of the “law” for administrative purposes. They are changed at will and as necessary but they are not laws that have to be changed by congress. They go through the charade of some formal legal process by issuing notices to the public for comment but usually just do whatever the agency making the change wants to do.
This was pushed in back in the day when there was no internet, only the public or parties of interest monitoring the Federal Register for notices. Basically, it slipped through without notice and crept into being accepted as THE LAW under the 14th Amendment which is a myth. Many of us studied this and for some we were educated about it when in school because it was a hot topic for some of our teachers. I have known since I was in grade school that the 14th has been wrongly applied because I had a teacher who led us in a study of the Constitution and Amendments.
This whole charade has been hidden in plain sight while some of us screamed at the top of our lungs that it is wrong but we were ignored as crackpots. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP FOR ILLEGALS IS WRONG!!!!!!!! So is birth tourism.
This was done by a notice in the Federal Register and it can be completely reversed by a similar notice as directed by the Chief Administrator, The President, President Trump. There is no room for doubt or debate in my mind and I suspect in the minds of at least two justices of the SC, the two newest members who have written on the subject in the Federalist Blog.
Birthright Citizenship is a steaming crock of crap that has made a huge contribution to chain migration and the ruin of our contry.
Yeah. We’ve all learned how the bureaucrats use the NPRM process to subvert the laws that Congress passed and do what they want to do.
They get a few comments back on the average NPRM, usually from the interest group that pushed the rule in the first place, and then they publish it and that’s that. No dissent from the proles allowed.
Based on the clarification of the jurisdiction clause by Sen. Jacob Howard in the congressional record, Sen. Howard the author of the jurisdiction clause, I respectfully disagree that the children of foreigners born in the USA are citizens. (The Supreme Court got Wong Kim Ark wrong imo.)
Sen. Howard argued for the jurisdiction clause to be included in the 14th Amendment to make it clear that a person born in the US is not automatically a US citizen.
"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 [emphasis added], 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country." A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875 Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session Page 2890 of 3840 (See about bottom half of middle column.)
Sen. Howard had also made the point concerning the jurisdiction clause that Indians were not recognized as citizens regardless that they were born in USA.
In fact, note that the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 declared Indians to be citizens.
Indian Citizenship Act
We’re having this discussion because desperate Democrats see birthright babies as future Democratic voters imo.
Clarifications, insights welcome.
Yes. That is how it usually works unless someone is on guard and finds the “notice” then mounts a campaign in a very loud and public way. I’ve done that before and it really catches the bureaucraps off guard like, “This is not supposed to happen to us!” It is really a hoot if you can get to a sympathetic congress critter or spinator who goes ballistic for political gain and goes all AS on the agency.
Large companies have whole floors of legal wonks who do very little but scour the pages of the Feral Register and other “public notices” for things that may affect them.
Much of the time though, the notice either goes unanswered by the public or if it does make notice the agency collects comments, holds a secluded hearing, responds in some banal way tot he comments and goes right on with their plans.
If the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 is not precedent setting against the premise of birthright citizenship nothing would be.
Four justices decented in the case of Wong but even the ones who found for Wong were specific in noting that Wong was a citizen by birth right ONLY because the parents were both here legally and in the process of becoming citizens having REJECTED allegiance to their former nation of citizenship and committed to the United States.
Birth tourism babies arise because the mother is here legally having scammed the system by hiding her pregnancy and, in a normal and correct circumstance, should have never been granted a visa into the US. The State Department is supposed to protect US against this fraud.
Anyone know which EO and who signed it?
Thanks for that information.
One problem that I have with the Court’s decision in Wong is that he would arguably be NBC, therefore arguably qualified to be president when he was old enough.
Or what am I overlooking?
Another problem that I have with Wong is where is the US jurisdiction?
If Wong’s citizenship-pending parents were paying federal taxes when he was born then ok, give him citizenship. In fact, Sen. Howard had noted in conjunction with USA-born Indians not being citizens that neither did Indians pay federal taxes.
But problem that I have with Wong’s parents paying federal taxes is not only that the Supremes had previous clarified that Congress is prohibited from appropriating taxes in the name of state power issues, the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Congress now wrongly ignoring that prohibition, but that the 16th Amendment did not exist at that time either.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States."—Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Also, Wong wasn’t under jurisdiction of federal peacetime civil penal laws imo. This because the congressional record shows that Rep. Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14th Amendment, had clarified that the states had never expressly constitutionally delegated the specific power to make such laws to Congress, the 14th Amendment giving Congress limited power to do so.
"Our Constitution never conferred upon the Congress of the United States the power - sacred as life is, first as it is before all other rights which pertain to man on this side of the grave - to protect it in time of peace by the terrors of the penal code within organized states; and Congress has never attempted to do it. There never was a law upon the United States statute-book to punish the murderer for taking away in time of peace the life of the noblest, and the most unoffending, as well, of your citizens, within the limits of any State of the Union, The protection of the citizen in that respect was left to the respective States, and there the power is to-day [emphasis added].”—Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe. (See bottom half of third column.)
Was Wong possibly member of militia?
Again, how was Wong born under US jurisdiction?
Insights welcome.
You have mentioned this interesting fact in a number of your posts to support your arguments, and I thank you.
Do you have a link?
I will trade you. I had earlier thought that the concept arose out of LBJ's 1960's State Department bureaucracy (which included John Kerry's father) but there is this:
"The anchor baby scam was invented 30 years ago by a liberal zealot, Justice William Brennan, who slipped a footnote into a 1982 Supreme Court opinion announcing that the kids born to illegals on U.S. soil are citizens. Ever since, so-called constitutional scholars have been treating Brennan’s crayon scratchings on the Constitution as part of our precious national inheritance."
https://atlasspeaksblog.wordpress.com/2018/01/12/birthright-citizenship/
The case, of course, was Plyler v Doe 1982
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.