Posted on 10/30/2019 7:31:06 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The US code says anyone owing allegiance to the US can be charged with treason.
"It is a well-established rule that an alien owes to the country in which s/he is domiciled, local and temporary allegiance that continues throughout period of his/her residence in return for protection s/he receives. For breach of temporary allegiance, aliens can be punished for treason.In Fletes-Mora v. Rogers, 160 F. Supp. 215 (D. Cal. 1958), the court observed that “the United States recognizes an alien's obligation of "temporary allegiance" to a country while he is within its territory. The term "temporary allegiance" refers to the alien's duty to obey all laws of a country not immediately relating to citizenship so long as he remains in that country”.
Right, and Scalia and other textualists feel the proper way to do that is to look at the words of the law as written.
There's nothing in the words of the 14th that speaks to the immigration status of the child.
You agree we must understand the law as it was understood by the lawgiver but then, improperly IMO, apply textualist views to the matter (Scalia's).
Legislative history in this instance is not relevant. Neither is the intent of the Constitutional language or the fact the language does not refer to immigration.
As you stipulate, the issue is what was understood by the authors of the language they used (which is the concern of originalists, I would add).
IMO, the dissimilar language used in the two references to jurisdiction makes it clear there is no ambiguity in the use of the first ("subject to"), that the reference addresses citizens.
Thus, the second reference ("any person...within") clearly provides that any entrant shall be denied Constitutional protections of due process, equal protection of the law, etc
Neither reference, of course, should be construed as conveying unspecified rights or benefits such as immunity to criminal laws, to any unnamed individuals.
Under this view, an anchor baby born within as the result of unlawful entry and yet under the jurisdiction of a foreign country is not automatically entitled to citizenship.
It has been fun, you can have the last word.
“not denied”
The bottom line is this:
It does NOT say “Anyone born in the USA is a citizen”
They knew that would be disastrous, you can read their words on it.
They included “..AND... etc etc”..
Do illegal aliens meet the additional “and” clause? No.
I'm sorry but I don't understand your point.
Are you saying that only the children of citizens are granted birthright citizenship?
Yes
The founders never intended a rulijg in Savannah by a local federal magistrate to affect Albany necessarily
However we had almost no federal laws then
You are certainly correct, what is does say is quite specific. Unfortunately, even specific language can lend itself to an unintended interpretation if strained (as by anchor baby advocates) or not understood.
The 14thA doesn't say that, nor do I.
The 14thA doesn't say that, nor do I.
OK, in that case could you please rephrase this statement? I'm not getting your point.
IMO, the dissimilar language used in the two references to jurisdiction makes it clear there is no ambiguity in the use of the first ("subject to"), that the reference addresses citizens.
Thus, the second reference ("any person...within") clearly provides that any entrant shall be denied Constitutional protections of due process, equal protection of the law, etc
My immediately following post provided "shall not be denied". No rephrasing necessary. Recommend you also see Mr. K's relevant and succinct post.
Have a nice day.
When a child is born in the United States of America to a Mexican mother, that child inherits their foreign mother's foreign citizenship by birthright (Mexican Constitution).
That baby is a Mexican citizen at birth regardless if they are born in Los Angeles or the Lincoln bedroom of the White House.
Since that child is born a Mexican citizen, they are naturally not subject to the complete jurisdiction of our country.
That person could not be subject to a draft into our armed forces since Mexico has a claim on that person. They could appeal for the help of a foreign country to intervene. Something a U.S. citizen not subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign country could do.
That person could not be subject to the death penalty without the possibility of Mexico intervening.
That person commits a crime in a 3rd country. Does the U.S. have involvement or responsibility in any way? Does Mexico? Do both? Who's embassy get's involved?
Those are just a few examples of how that person does not have complete allegiance owed to the U.S. They have, at least, partial allegiance owed to Mexico. The U.S. does not have complete jurisdiction over that person in all matters. Their allegiance, and the jurisdiction of the U.S., is incomplete.
As for what allegiance is and why it's owed by citizens, here are a few SCOTUS cases found via a quick search:
“Every citizen of a State owes a double allegiance; he enjoys the protection and participates in the government of both the State and the United States.” Houston v. Moore: 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 1, at 33; concurring opinion of Justice Johnson (1820).
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/18/1.html
"Every citizen of the United States is also a citizen of a State or territory. He may be said to owe allegiance to two sovereigns, and may be liable to punishment for an infraction of the laws of either.” Moore v. State of Illinois: 55 U.S. (Howard 14) 13, at 20 (1852).
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/55/13.html
"We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other.
...
It is the natural consequence of a citizenship [92 U.S. 542, 551] which owes allegiance to two sovereignties (federal & state), and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. In return, he can demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction. " Slaughter- House Cases, 16 Wall. 74. " United States v. Cruikshank: 92 U.S. 542, at 549 (1875)
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/92/542.html
"But an emigrant from any foreign state cannot become a citizen of the United States without a formal renunciation of his old allegiance, and an acceptance by the United States of that renunciation through such form of naturalization as may be required law." Elk v. Wilkins: 112 U.S. 94, at 101 thru 102 (1884)
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/112/94.html
The original intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment was that those who are foreigners...those that do not have full and complete allegiance owed to the U.S. and who the U.S. does not have full and complete jurisdiction over...are not to be considered citizens at birth if born in our country/territory.
Just say No to the bastardization of the 14th Amendment and say Yes to the original intent!
I don't know Mexican citizenship law but I don't doubt what you say.
Since that child is born a Mexican citizen, they are naturally not subject to the complete jurisdiction of our country.
No, they are fully US citizens and now hold dual citizenship.
That person could not be subject to a draft into our armed forces since Mexico has a claim on that person.
Nonsense. They're as subject to the draft as any other citizen.
Could I pay a corrupt country to grant me dual citizenship and become ineligible for the US draft?
They could appeal for the help of a foreign country to intervene. Something a U.S. citizen not subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign country could do.
Anyone can appeal for help from Mexico. Mexico will be more likely to try to help one of their citizens but anyone can ask.
The key point, though, is the US is under no more obligation to listen to Mexico's requests for a Mexican citizen than for anyone else.
That person commits a crime in a 3rd country. Does the U.S. have involvement or responsibility in any way? Does Mexico? Do both? Who's embassy get's involved?
Both may get involved but the fact that the person may be a dual citizen won't affect the US's response.
The U.S. does not have complete jurisdiction over that person in all matters.
What aspect of US jurisdiction is missing?
Every sovereign country determines who is a citizen.
Under your scenario Iran could grant me Iranian citizenship, whether I wanted it or not, and thereby affect the jurisdiction my own country has over me.
That's ridiculous.
...here are a few SCOTUS cases found via a quick search:
Your citations simply state that dual citizens have obligations to two entities. No one contests that.
What I do contest is that my status as a citizen of my state in any way alters the jurisdiction the US has over me.
"But an emigrant from any foreign state cannot become a citizen of the United States without a formal renunciation of his old allegiance, and an acceptance by the United States of that renunciation through such form of naturalization as may be required law."
Children born here aren't emigrants.
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.