Rewriting the Fourteenth Amendment

Wall Street Journal ^ | October 30, 2018

[reaganaut1]

...

The right to citizenship for anyone born on U.S. soil is derived from the Fourteenth Amendment adopted in 1868: “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.” This is the common law doctrine of jus soli, or right of the soil.

Opponents of birth citizenship try to obscure this plain meaning by interpreting “subject to the jurisdiction” as applying only to those who owe allegiance to America. Because alien parents owe allegiance to a different sovereign, the argument goes, their children have no right to citizenship.

But “jurisdiction” is well understood as referring to the territory where the force of law applies, and that means it applies to nearly everyone on U.S. soil. The exceptions in 1868 were diplomats (who have sovereign immunity) and Native Americans on tribal lands. Congress later granted Native Americans birth citizenship while diminishing tribal sovereignty.

The jurisdiction of U.S. law surely applies to all immigrants, or they could not be prosecuted for breaking even immigration laws. As for owing allegiance, do we really want to set a precedent that has the government defining which American residents owe allegiance to the U.S. and which don’t? What would that mean for American citizens who are also citizens of another country?

The very purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to prevent politicians from denying citizenship to those they thought weren’t American enough. This meant former slaves, but in the debate over the amendment the question of citizenship for immigrant children was raised directly. As David Rivkin and John Yoo have recounted, Pennsylvania Sen. Edgar Cowan asked: “Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen?” Sen. John Conness of California responded yes.

[Jonty30]

If so, then the Constitution is a suicide pact, because people by the hundreds of millions can just show up and they are citizens.

[MuttTheHoople]

WSJ pandering to their Chamber of Commerce cronies. They want cheap labor/

[Right Wing Assault]

Here is a post from three years ago:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3329246/posts

"What Did the 14th Amendment Congress Think about “Birthright Citizenship”?"

What was the INTENT of the author?

[MamaTexan]

From the co authors of the 14th Amendment:

"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."
- Jacob Howard, May 30, 1866
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11%20

“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, 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. ”
- John A. Bingham, March 9, 1866
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332

(empahsis mine)

---

The 14th Amendment was to provide citizenship to those who had none - the freed slaves.

It was NEVER intended to supplant the sovereignty of other nations who's citizens were born on our soil.

[USS Alaska]

It was NEVER intended to supplant the sovereignty of other nations who's citizens were born on our soil.

So true, but since that conflicts with the WSJ and other deep state actors, you will never see that written in their paper.

[trebb]

WSJ proving they are a left-wing entity.....

[stanne]

Tucker and Mark levin talked about this last night on their respective shows. The WSJ is taking tge 14tg out of context.

We’re supposed to think that in 1868 the writers were thinking beyond reparations, ahead, to an immense mob of foreign military-aged men with, I’ll will, much less, no intention of ever assimilating, marching toward our border to trample over it that they and their offspring, (?) deserve citizenship? Because the contemporary congress wished up over former
Slaves

The WSJ is FOS and they think we are stupid

[NativeSon]

Funny how there are battles over a comma in the 2nd but the 14th is settled.

Not to mention laws passed in direct conflict with the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th,10th.

If the 14th cannot be clarified, how can any other be challenged or restricted ?

[piasa]

As for owing allegiance, do we really want to set a precedent that has the government defining which American residents owe allegiance to the U.S. and which don’t? What would that mean for American citizens who are also citizens of another country?

Yes. It'd mean they have to schnit or get off the pot.

[Political Junkie Too]

But “jurisdiction” is well understood as referring to the territory where the force of law applies, and that means it applies to nearly everyone on U.S. soil.

Suppose that a vacationing couple, say from France, seeks refuge in the French embassy after accidentally killing someone in their rented car. While inside the French embassy, they are no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. No natural born American citizen can do this.

If a person can seek refuge here in the USA in another country's embassy or consulate where they are not subject to our jurisdiction, then they are not fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Now suppose this French couple had a baby inside the United States. Is this baby entitled to the protection of the French embassy, just like its parents?

Is there any place inside the United States where you or I can avoid the jurisdiction of the United States? Why should other "citizens" (like this French baby) be afforded this right? Why should "birthright" citizens have more protections against United States jurisdiction than natural born citizens?

Why would the Constitution create a class of citizen with more protections than other citizens?

-PJ

[Louis Foxwell]

WSJ and libs make a specious argument in isolation, portraying a solution to a specific problem as if it were a principle applicable to all cases in all times. Following the CW Democrats refused to recognize the citizenship of former slaves born and raised in slavery in this country.
As it has done since its birth under Lincoln, the Republican party in support of former slaves put a Constitutional amendment before the states that provided the guarantees of citizenship to those who were born in this country in slavery. This was passed into law, albeit with substantial opposition from the Democrat party, the party of racism.

[Sequoyah101]

wsj has been dead to me for a long long time.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

How about birth right employment?

I break into a business, pick out a nice cubicle, put my feet on the desk and demand full employment.

How about birth right Lakers tickets?

I break into Staples Center, pick,out nice court side seats, and am allowed to stay even when the actual season ticket holder shows up.

[Cowboy Bob]

As David Rivkin and John Yoo have recounted, Pennsylvania Sen. Edgar Cowan asked: “Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen?” Sen. John Conness of California responded yes.

Magic word: "Immigrant"

Not tourist, not illegal alien.

[AndyTheBear]

There is a logical problem with this analysis. Say a woman is a citizen of China. She visited the US briefly to have an anchor baby. Then she went back to China with the baby. The baby grew up in China and eventually died there. Now what jurisdiction is the person born subject to? Breifly he was subject to US jurisdiction. But that is true of anybody just visiting the US at one time or another. What is so special about the time of birth in describing what jurisdiction a person is subject to. I visited other nations, but dont consider myself a person subject to their jurisdiction, that would be an absurd discription. Im subject to US jurisdiction pretty much all the time. The 14th amemdmemt does not specify that people born under US jurisdiction are citizens. It says that people that are both born here, and that are under US jurisdiction are. People who just visit, even if they just visit when they are born are not genrally subject to US jurisdiction.

[richardtavor]

President Trump is forcing a new discussion about “anchor babies”. Most people haven’t read the 14th Amendment and rely on Ted Kennedy’s interpretation in 1966, which opened up the flood of illegal aliens to this country. There had never been a “birthright citizen” until then (1868 to 1966), but the Republicans have allowed the Democrats to force their own interpretation. I suggest you actually read it! Why this emphasis on open borders? The Democrats have always controlled the Urban areas, but needed a new “base” to control Middle America. It doesn’t work with real Americans, but might with work for them with a new foreign base occupying Middle America. That is the plan because they can’t win in flyover country.

[semimojo]

What was the INTENT of the author?

Yep. I’ve always felt that SCOTUS, when interpreting laws, should sort of skip over the text of the statute, the language that all of Congress voted for, and instead go look at the statements of the people presenting the legislation.

For instance, if looking at Dodd Frank they should watch MSNBC reruns to see what Barney Frank said about the legislation before it was voted on. That should be the guide.

It seems to be even more important with an amendment like the 14th which had to be ratified by the states.

Why look at the actual language that the entire country voted for when you have an ambiguous speech by one Senator to rely on?

[Adder]

No, their children are, if born here.

[Dana1960]

The WSJ is wrong.

On this website, you can see - country by country, about how THEY view THEIR OWN CITIZENSHIP LAWS control things, regardless of where they are born.

http://multiplecitizenship.com/

I want a few things, all of which the administration can do RIGHT NOW:

I want ICE uncorked on interior enforcement on all companies
that employ illegals. NOW. Big & small. I want to see 10 raids a day, on a front page.

I want them to continue to fruition the enforcement of the “public charge” laws, which have been on the books forever.

I want Ben Carson to reverse the rule that Bush enacted, which allowed entire families of illegals to occupy subsidized housing. If one person - even a newborn - is the citizen that “anchors” them to the program, according to GWB, that’s okay. Think about this, someone too young to sign a lease, provides the basis for this kind of benefit. This means if mom & dad are illegal and they have 4 kids they dragged over the border and then had a baby in the US, they are eligible for this. Outrageous.

I find it completely repugnant that an amendment intended to fully empower former black slaves is now being used to overwhelm and outnumber the progeny of those same blacks.

* spit *