Posted on 10/31/2018 3:28:18 AM PDT by reaganaut1
What a MAROON!
ANYONE looking into this, even a little bit, would know that “birthright citizenship” is NOT what they think it is.
Supreme court, here we come!
The author forgets another clear example of who cannot claim citizenship by birth - the children born to an invading army. Sound relevant?
The US Supreme Court has already said “under the jurisdiction” requires the parents to be her “in amity” and in “obedience” to the US government. In what sense is someone here in violation of the law here in friendship and obedience to the government?
If the USC stated the sky is blue ..them Lefty Media would argue the didn’t mean the sky is “blue”.
Just add the short phrase “legally present in the United States with intent to seek citizenship” to the verbiage. That will serve the desirables and curb the undesirables.
“Why do you think Jacob Howard’s quote on intent is the only one you read in these internet discussions, and why do we assume that his spin was the way the ‘phrase was interpreted at the time?’”
___________________
Because Sen. Howard was the co-author of the 14th Amendment. Suggest you read the following, it has ample discussion and citations:
http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/
No, that doesn’t stop the tourism baby mills, where pregnant Russian and Chinese women come to the US just to have their babies here to gain citizenship. How do you determine “intent to seek citizenship”? They can argue they had intent to seek citizenship when they were here. You can’t legislate intent.
The 14th is the giant truck-sized hole that the left used to completely reinterpret the Constitution. Squint hard, and lo and behold, women have the right to kill their own kids. Squint hard, and yep, two people here illegally can have a baby who is a US citizen. Squint hard, and merit-based hiring must take a back seat to race and gender based hiring.
They can be drafted into the Army if they have been in the country legally for 6 months.
A one year residency requirement prior to application and a declaration of intent, with rules about being self-sufficient through work or wealth would deal with almost all of that.
Nothing you do will prevent ALL misuse of the laws, but should we do NOTHING? A lot of people who come here the right way are “keepers”.
Not my area of expertise, but I'm thinking of college students or people on H1-B visas. They may be from India or China or wherever. They are in the country legally. Their stay may be more than 6 months. You're saying that the US Government is empowered to just draft them into the Army if it chooses? I would think that India or China might see that as kidnapping one of their citizens.
WSJ uses this in their argument but notice that the question was asked about "the child of the "Chinese immigrant", implying a legal Chinese immigrant, not an "illegal Chinese immigrant".
I seriously doubt that the writers of the 14th Amendment meant to grant citizenship to the children of people in the country illegally.
They can be drafted into the Army if they have been in the country legally for 6 months. Also one does not have to be a United States citizen to enlist in the Army or the Navy.
Yes the govt. can draft them if they have been in the country for 6 months. During the Vietnam war I knew two foreign nationals that were drafted into our army. One was a Brit that had been in the country for 18 months. The other was Canadian, he volunteered to be drafted.
Oh, I’m not saying we do nothing. I definitely like the one year and self-sufficiency clauses you added in. I was just observing that your original comment didn’t seem to go far enough. New Zealand has some interesting requirements about proving you either have a job or worthwhile skill or are independently wealthy before they allow you in. I’m for something like that. Considering we are currently allowing in 4.1 million legal immigrants each year with little regard for what benefit they bring, I think we need to tighten that up, as well.
They can be drafted into the Army if they have been in the country legally for 6 months.
Of course, if they are here illegally, they aren’t going to register for the draft, but that doesn’t affect their specific liability to serve.
NONETHELESS, the US does not have jurisdiction over that person for purposes of the 14th Amendment. This was not an issue at all for 100 years after it was ratified, it only became one in the late 1960s when Leftists and Chamber of Commerce types started acting to bring in as many people as possible, each for their own reasons. I look forward to the day when the Supreme Court invalidates that treatment (though I expect that there will not be any retroactive revocation of anyone’s citizenship).
I certainly agree with that. I think one needs to look at all of it. Obviously, we have written laws because the words are supposed to matter. And the meaning of the words (or phrase) when the law (in the case, amendment) was adopted should be the same meaning applied today. (That is, instead of judges coming up with their preferred new meaning to fit the times, we should go through the process of changing the law, such as by amendment.) So what is the original meaning? I think the idea is what a reasonable person (presumably a reasonably educated person) would have thought the words meant at the time.
Would any reasonable person at the time the 14th Amendment was adopted have understood the amendment to provide automatic citizenship to a child born to parents whose presence in the USA was illegal at the time of the birth? Now, one might say “no”. Or one might say nobody back then was thinking of illegal immigration so “I don’t know”. But personally I can’t see the answer being “yes”.
I understand and agree with you.
It wasn’t the intent to grant citizenship unless you were here legally, ie, under the jurisdiction of the US.
So my grandparents were here legally...through Ellis Island and my father was born here, a citizen.
But we allowed all that to be turned on it’s head...now just show up, drop a kid and the whole dang family can waltz right in.
Having been forced to suspend their efforts to import socialists with a “there shall be open borders” Constitutional amendment, the WSJ now wants us to ignore original intent on the 14th Amendment. These libertarians for socialism are clueless
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.