Posted on 10/31/2018 7:18:32 AM PDT by LavaDog
History, as the saying goes, is a lie agreed upon, and there has perhaps been no bigger lie detrimental to the future national security and economic well-being of the United States that the 14th Amendment, clearly written to protect the rights of African-American slaves liberated by the first Republican President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, somehow confers citizenship on the offspring of anybody whose pregnant and can sneak past the U.S. Border Patrol.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
At least the issue is being brought up. The left calls it voter suppression. I call it gaming the system.
Is there an editor in the house??
There is surprisingly little germaine to the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase. Like the 2A militia reference, it was apparently so commonly understood at the time that it needed no debate. Such as there was revolved mostly on whether or not Indians on reservations subject to tribal law were covered.
Relevant discussion begins on p.44 of the linked document. Some excerpts:
Sen Howard, who introduced the amendment to the floor understood it not to include children of foreigners. In fact, he understood it not to include Indians on reservations as the reservations were quasi-foreign states.
Sen. Trumbull asserts: "What do we mean by "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?" Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Sen. Johnson observes: "Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to someforeign Power— for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us — shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of theUnited States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth,and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the UnitedStates, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States."
Error 404 - Editor not found.
Two-fer!
the difficulty that we are all having on the issue of “subject to the jurisdiction” is that the world has changed so much since the 19th century....back then, the issue of which tier of government has jurisdiction over a person and to what extent was very much a live issue.
First year law students deal with this in civil procedure, and it seems to be very confusing and is very confusing if approached historically...beginning with an awful case called Pennoyer v Neff
In any event....fast forward. This phrase...subject to the jurisdiction strikes us as a bit meaningless because we aren’t used to the jurisdictional reach of the government ever having any limits and aren’t used to the idea that the jurisdictional reach of the government lacks definition.
But back then it did.
All of which is to say.....what?
Well, I think minimally, we have to say that the text is not being redundant. One must be both born in, AND subject to.
Otherwise, and many have pointed this out, they could have stopped at born in.
Accordingly, logically, there is a class of people who could be both born in and not subject to. Just reasoning through the jurisprudence related to Pennoyer v Neff and everything that follows it....my memory is that in order for someone to be subject to, you have to have “minimal contacts” with the United States.
The point being, there is an actual substantive analysis that must go into determining if someone is “subject to” and therefore in the 14th amendment context, is a citizen.
The final point being....it is NOT a matter of RIGHT...any more than someone being born in the US is automatically subject to its jurisdiction. (Btw...what federal laws are applicable to children? Not many, right? So what does a baby being subject to the laws of the US even mean, in the real world?).
This seems to me to be in an ideal world an area that there should be helpful legislative clarification as to who is subject to, and therefore a citizen.
But I am very confident that given the issues of the 19th century when personal jurisdiciton was a big deal....I am very confident that we can say that just being born in the US did not then make someone subject to....therefore citizenship is not a matter of right.
That seems pretty clear to me.....even though it has (thankfully) been decades since I read Pennoyer :)
Many don’t even have to bother sneaking in, they fly in, stay, have the baby, apply for the baby’s US passport and fly home with their US citizen child.
The first half-hour of this Tucker Carlson show goes into baby tourism to USA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LzUMLf6YYM
Here’s the awesome thing for people who have been “woke” for decades. The conservative “movement” has finally caught up with us.
You’re over thinking it. The author of the amendment said exactly who the amendment covered when asked. It’s all part of the record.
Not clearly written at all. It's precursor, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was much more clearly written and easier to understand. The 14th is a horrible collection of subjective gobbledygook, and it has caused a nightmare of bad judicial decisions (Gay marriage, Abortion, banning prayer in public venues, Anchor babies, and re-writting "Natural born citizen" ) as a consequence.
Those who have studied the Constitution recognize one very meaningful thing: The Constitution uses concise wording and is NEVER guilty of verbosity. Each and every word of the Constitution has a concise reason for being there so it is impossible to disregard the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” it means what it says!
Like sheana said, you are overthinking it. Thinking anything through is a very good thing, though, and I commend you for that.
In this case, we have the text of the 14th Amendment AND the actual deliberations and comments of the people who authored it, so we don’t have to guess at all.
The authors of the 14th Amendment specifically said it was not applicable to aliens or diplomats. If we take it with the entire language, there is no issue with misunderstanding.
There is only an issue with intentional misunderstanding, which is what we have on the Left.
Sorry, couldn't help my self. ;)
I think that was a completely appropriate clarification!
who's (who is)
Geez...
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.