Posted on 12/01/2023 5:55:53 PM PST by River Hawk
One of our country’s most insane policies is that of automatic birthright citizenship for babies born to illegal aliens on U.S. soil.
People in the Third World certainly know about this policy and take advantage of it.
A surprising recent action taken by the U.S. government sheds some light on the issue.
The U.S. State Department, under the Biden administration, rejected the citizenship of Siavash Sobhani, a 61-year-old doctor in Virginia who was born in the United States in 1960.
Current birthright citizenship policy is based on an interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, enacted in 1868, a few years after the Civil War ended in 1865.
The Citizenship Clause in that amendment was placed there to ensure that recently-freed black Americans would be U.S. citizens. It wasn’t placed there to invite the Third World to colonize our country.
The clause, in Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment, stipulates, “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.”
Defenders of birthright citizenship for illegal babies stress the “born” part but skip over the “and subject to the jurisdiction" part.
However, it’s that very clause which was utilized by the Biden administration's State Department to strip Sobhani of his citizenship.
(Excerpt) Read more at borderhawk.blog ...
Tehe way you ignore the constitution is to ignore the spirit and context in which it was created.
And thats what they did here.
As I understand it his parents were members of the Iranian embassy so he is not U.S.born and therefore not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
He should be able to obtain citizenship and deporting him does not make sense when so many invaders get to stay.
Barack, you payin attention?
Morons. My handy dandy calculator tells me that someone born in 1960 is not 61 years old.
??????????
Everyone is missing the obvious here.
one of two things have happened.
Either the Govt is/has digitized all US birth records and done a deep dive into them, or this guy has done something to really piss them off and then they did so
take your pick.
He had no birth rights to begin with...
This is a long overdue correction...
Next they need to address Obama as well...
U.S. citizenship has been in a jumble for years. This case raises some interesting issues and ought to get us to asking the tough questions and correcting the system, before U.S. citizenship becomes totally globalized.
As I recall from my classroom days many, many years ago; the intent for the Constitutional amendment used was to guarantee all former slaves were citizens - nothing more, nothing less.
This guy was born here and spend most of his life here.
Yet, somehow, they could undo his citizenship, because it was a mistake.
So, they obviously can undo any permits or even citizenship to anybody.
What I hear often seems to be - well, they are here, we cannot do anything to them!
BS!
“This case raises some interesting issues....”
Frankly, I don’t think it does. It’s always been the law that ambassadors and members of their immediate families have diplomatic immunity. If they commit a crime here, they can’t be prosecuted for it. Therefore, they’re not “subject to the jurisdiction” and ambassadors’ children born here don’t acquire citizenship.
By contrast, consider a child born here to two illegal immigrants. That child grows up and commits a crime. Unlike the ambassador’s kid, the child of illegals can be prosecuted. The child is “subject to the jurisdiction” and is therefore a natural-born citizen.
I don’t see where they ignored anything. The “Spirit” was to ensure citizenship to freed slaves. It was not to give citizenship to “anchor babies”.
No. Subject to the jurisdiction means a citizen or subject of a jurisdiction. Not simply subject to the laws of a jurisdiction. If I, a United States citizen, go to Germany, I am subject to German laws. But I am not a German subject or citizen, and have no rights as such. The people who come here to drop anchor babies are not citizens, and are not subject to the jurisdiction of any of the several United States, and should not be able to confer citizenship status on a kid they squeeze out two steps over the border.
As far as I know, this is settled law, based on cases that date back to the late 1800s.
Children born in the United States to accredited foreign diplomatic officers do not acquire citizenship under the 14th Amendment since they are not "born... subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."
Yeah. Or maybe as a doctor he has been experimenting with his anti-aging miracle drug. (Or - the article is based on two-year old events).
In Paraguay, for decades the gangster element has sent pregnant wives to Houston, Texas, to have a United States citizen in the family and a pied-a-terre when things get hot at home.
The interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment that has been accepted over the years is that a child born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen regardless of the immigration status of the parents. This is from the SCOTUS decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). IYAS9YAS advances the contrary view – that a child born in the U.S. to aliens should not be a U.S. citizen. There have been attempts to amend the Constitution to that effect. https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/6/text
My point is that that argument is unaffected by the case of Dr. Sobhani. He enjoyed diplomatic immunity as of the moment he first drew breath. He was therefore clearly not “subject to the jurisdiction” and even the Wong Kim Ark decision excluded such children from citizenship.
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.