quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
But I think I agree with those that think that the only aliens not subject to the jurisdiction are diplomats. In which case, the language seems clear - children born here are citizens, unless they are diplomats' kids.

Can people here illegally serve on juries or fight in wars as US soldiers? For example, if we had a draft, could the illegal aliens be drafted? I honestly do not know, that is why I am asking.

Citizenship, as far as I've seen, is universally a requirement for sitting on juries. Could illegals be drafted? As a practical matter, that would depend on whether they have 'real' social security cards and drivers' licenses (or else you couldn't find them), on whether they wouldn't desert (no country will extradite its own citizens for not serving in a foreign army) and whether they could be trusted with weapons, secured information, and so forth (being that they're in the military for being foreign felons and all).

Paul Ryan has been such a disappointment.
So much opportunity.... wasted!

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Paul Ryan has been such a disappointment.
So much opportunity.... wasted!

Agreed! I had much higher hopes for him a few years back.

quote:

Originally posted by 1967Goat:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jhe888:
Can people here illegally serve on juries or fight in wars as US soldiers? For example, if we had a draft, could the illegal aliens be drafted? I honestly do not know, that is why I am asking.

No.
“A non-citizen must meet certain requirements to be eligible to join the military. The must have an Alien Registration Receipt Card (stamped I-94 or I-551 Green card/INS Form 1-551) as well as a bona fide residence established with an established a record of the U.S. as their home. If the non-citizens comes from countries with a reputation of hostility towards the U.S, they may require a waiver. The federal government cannot petition on behalf of an illegal immigrant so that they can obtain legal status and be able to enlist in the military.

In order for an immigrant to join the United States military, they must first go through the immigration process of the USCIS (previously known as the INS - Immigration and Naturalization Services) and then and then begin the enlisting process. Another requirement is that the Green Card and/or visa of the immigrant desiring to join the military must be valid for the entire period of their enlistment. Undocumented immigrants may not enlist in the U.S. military.”
https://www.thebalancecareers....armed-forces-3353965

quote:

Originally posted by 1967Goat:

Can people here illegally serve on juries or fight in wars as US soldiers? For example, if we had a draft, could the illegal aliens be drafted? I honestly do not know, that is why I am asking.

Non-citizens cannot be jurors, but I don't know about the others.

But that isn't the same as "subject to the jurisdiction." Different ideas.

quote:

But that isn't the same as "subject to the jurisdiction." Different ideas.

Yes. Partial, territorial jurisdiction or complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the U.S. government as well?

The fact that tourists or illegal immigrants are subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws means that they are subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. and can be prosecuted. But it does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

The amendment was intended to give citizenship only to those who owed their allegiance to the United States and were subject to its complete jurisdiction. Sen. Lyman Trumbull, R-Ill., a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant not owing allegiance to any other country.

Today many people do not seem to understand the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction – which subjects all foreigners who enter the U.S. to the jurisdiction of our laws – and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the U.S. government as well.

So, the guy who actually wrote the 14th amendment clearly spelled out exactly what he meant by the term "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

But naturally, everyone who didnt like that definition, including some here, want to ignore that ancient old definition in favor of their own modern, "common language" definition.

Thats what im seeing.

quote:

Originally posted by Ken226:
So, the guy who actually wrote the 14th amendment clearly spelled out exactly what he meant by the term "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

But naturally, everyone who didnt like that definition, including some here, want to ignore that ancient old definition in favor of their own modern, "common language" definition.

Thats what im seeing.

You got it! (So what else is new?)

flashguy

There are nearly 300,000 children of illegal aliens born in the United States every year, exceeding the total number of U.S. births in 48 states.
New wide-ranging analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies‘ Steven Camarotta reveals that there are roughly 297,000 births per year to illegal immigrants in the U.S.

The children of illegal aliens are commonly known as “anchor babies,” as they anchor their illegal alien and noncitizen parents in the U.S. and eventually are allowed to bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the country through the process known as “chain migration.”

The analysis notes that the nearly 300,000 anchor babies born every year in the U.S. exceed the total number of all U.S. births in all but two states: California and Texas. Likewise, the annual number of anchor babies born in the U.S. exceeds the number of births in 16 states plus the District of Colombia, combined.

There are more than 30 times as many anchor babies born every year than the total number of children born to native-born Americans in the state of Delaware. Similarly, there are more than 22 times as many anchor babies born every year in the country than there are children born to native-born Americans in the state of South Dakota.

The anchor baby population in the U.S. is almost twice the amount of residents living in the U.S. territory of Guam and more than double the population of the U.S. Virgin Islands, where a projected 107,000 residents live.

As Breitbart News reported, in the Los Angeles, California metro area, illegal alien births make up nearly 18 percent of all births in the region. In the Las Vegas, Nevada metro area, illegal alien births account for about 17 percent of all births.

California — a sanctuary state for illegal aliens — has the largest number of illegal alien births with about 65,000 illegal alien births every year. Texas has about 51,000 illegal alien births every year, while Florida has about 16,000 illegal alien births every year.

The Supreme Court, however, has never explicitly ruled that the children of illegal aliens must be granted automatic citizenship and many legal scholars dispute the idea. There are at least 4.5 million anchor babies in the U.S. — exceeding the annual roughly 4 million American babies born every year.

Many leading conservative scholars argue the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide mandatory birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens or noncitizens, as these children are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction as that language was understood when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.

https://www.breitbart.com/poli...births-in-48-states/

quote:

Many leading conservative scholars argue the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide mandatory birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens or noncitizens, as these children are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction as that language was understood when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified.

And that is the rationale on which President Trump is basing his action. I was not aware of Senators Howard's and Trumbull's statements prior to this discussion, but they certainly could cause "originalist" SCOTUS Justices to give the matter very serious consideration.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by Monk:
I'm fine with it. We can either hide behind the sanctity of the Constitution, ...

Are you insane?

Here is a more thorough treatment of the history of the 14th Amendment:

quote:

Dismantling a Fake Argument Against Birthright Citizenship
In 1866, the drafters of the 14th Amendment clearly intended to grant it. Don’t believe anyone who claims that they didn’t.

By Justin Fox
July 24, 2018, 1:00 PM EDT

I think it would be possible to construct a reasonable argument for getting rid of birthright citizenship. After all, times have changed since 1868, when the ratification of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution guaranteed that

| 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.

Full article: Dismantling a Fake Argument Against Birthright Citizenship

Many of you won't like the conclusion, but like it or not: It is what it is.

There is a possibility SCOTUS could see its way clear to kill birthright citizenship, but I suspect that'd end up looking a lot like Roe v. Wade in its tortured reasoning.

Or like those who insist "shall not be infringed" only applies to militias.

Insane? No. Pragmatic? Yes. I value winning the fight we're currently in over maintaining a section of the 14th Amendment that does nothing but strengthen the opposition. People constantly gripe about the state of the nation, the direction it's headed, and how the liberals are corrupting our way of life. Want to stop them? This is what stopping them looks like. It's not pretty, it's not playing nice, and it's not maintaining a dogmatic approach to our political traditions or the sanctity of the Constitution. We can continue doing those things, but we're going to lose if we do.

You can sacrifice a little now to save a lot later, or sacrifice nothing now to sacrifice everything later.

quote:

Originally posted by Monk:
...and it's not maintaining a dogmatic approach to ... the sanctity of the Constitution.

Your CUT is good advice...

Paul Ryan needs to engage in self immolation immediately followed by defenestration.

I say the babies born here to illegals stay citizens but have the parent(s) make a choice: take your baby back with you to wherever the hell you came from or give them up here while you go back to wherever the hell you came from. No more anchor babies.

BTW, I'm a legal immigrant.

Despite the fact that I agree that the premise of "anchor babies" needs to end...

And despite the fact that I WANT it to be the law of the land that "Only children born of parents in the country LEGALLY will be granted citizenship"


I don't think President Trump's executive orders would be lawful, legal, or constitutional...

IMO we need to amend the constitution, and especially that specific clause, to change this.

It would not take an amendment to the US Constitution. Although an executive order would probably not survive the USSC, according to Andrew McCarthy, if Congress enacted a law to end birth right citizenship, that would likely be upheld. Again, citizenship under the 14th Amendment is not an absolute right just by being born here.

Ann Coulter has a great piece on the subject:

THE TRUE HISTORY OF MILLSTONE BABIES
by Ann Coulter
October 31, 2018


Having mastered fake news, now the media are trying out a little fake history.

In the news business, new topics are always popping up, from the Logan Act and the emoluments clause to North Korea. The all-star panels rush to Wikipedia, so they can pretend to be experts on things they knew nothing about an hour earlier.

Such is the case today with "anchor babies" and "birthright citizenship." People who know zilch about the history of the 14th Amendment are pontificating magnificently and completely falsely on the issue du jour.

If you'd like to be the smartest person at your next cocktail party by knowing the truth about the 14th Amendment, this is the column for you!

Of course the president can end the citizenship of "anchor babies" by executive order -- for the simple reason that no Supreme Court or U.S. Congress has ever conferred such a right.

It's just something everyone believes to be true.

How could anyone -- even a not-very-bright person -- imagine that granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is actually in our Constitution?

The first question would be: Why would they do that? It's like being accused of robbing a homeless person. WHY WOULD I?

The Supreme Court has stated -- repeatedly! -- that the "main object" of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment "was to settle the question ... as to the citizenship of free negroes," making them "citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside."

Democrats, the entire media and House Speaker Paul Ryan seem to have forgotten the Civil War. They believe that, immediately after a war that ended slavery, Americans rose up as one and demanded that the children of illegals be granted citizenship!

You know what's really bothering me? If someone comes into the country illegally and has a kid, that kid should be an American citizen!

YOU MEAN THAT'S NOT ALREADY IN THE CONSTITUTION?

Give me a scenario -- just one scenario -- where the post-Civil War amendments would be intended to grant citizenship to the kids of Chinese ladies flying to birthing hospitals in California, or pregnant Latin Americans sneaking across the border in the back of flatbed trucks.

You can make it up. It doesn't have to be a true scenario. Any scenario!

As the court has explained again and again and again:

"(N)o one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in (the 13th, 14th and 15th) amendments, lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him."

That's why the amendment refers to people who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States "and of the state wherein they reside." For generations, African-Americans were domiciled in this country. The only reason they weren't citizens was because of slavery, which the country had just fought a civil war to end.

The 14th Amendment fixed that.

The amendment didn't even make Indians citizens. Why? Because it was about freed slaves. Sixteen years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court held that an American Indian, John Elk, was not a citizen, despite having been born here.

Instead, Congress had to pass a separate law making Indians citizens, which it did, more than half a century after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. (It's easy to miss -- the law is titled: "THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924.") Why would such a law be necessary if simply being born in the U.S. was enough to confer citizenship?

Even today, the children of diplomats and foreign ministers are not granted citizenship on the basis of being born here.

President Trump, unlike his critics, honors black history by recognizing that the whole purpose of the Civil War amendments was to guarantee the rights of freed slaves.

But the left has always been bored with black people. If they start gassing on about "civil rights," you can be sure it will be about transgenders, the abortion ladies or illegal aliens. Liberals can never seem to remember the people whose ancestors were brought here as slaves, i.e., the only reason we even have civil rights laws.

Still, it requires breathtaking audacity to use the Civil War amendments to bring in cheap foreign labor, which drives down the wages of African-Americans -- the very people the amendments were written to protect!

Whether the children born to legal immigrants are citizens is controversial enough. But at least there's a Supreme Court decision claiming that they are -- U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. That's "birthright citizenship."

It's something else entirely to claim that an illegal alien, subject to deportation, can drop a baby and suddenly claim to be the parent of a "citizen."

This crackpot notion was concocted by liberal zealot Justice William Brennan and slipped into a footnote as dicta in a 1982 case. "Dicta" means it was not the ruling of the court, just a random aside, with zero legal significance.

Left-wing activists seized on Brennan's aside and browbeat everyone into believing that anchor babies are part of our great constitutional heritage, emerging straight from the pen of James Madison.

No Supreme Court has ever held that children born to illegal aliens are citizens. No Congress has deliberated and decided to grant that right. It's a made-up right, grounded only in the smoke and mirrors around Justice Brennan's 1982 footnote.

Obviously, it would be better if Congress passed a law clearly stating that children born to illegals are not citizens. (Trump won't be president forever!) But until that happens, the president of the United States is not required to continue a ridiculous practice that has absolutely no basis in law.

It's often said that journalism is the first draft of history. As we now see, fake news is the first draft of fake history.

http://www.anncoulter.com/colu...10-31.html#read_more

Levin and Horowitz: Yes, Trump can end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants with an executive order

Tuesday on his radio program, LevinTV host Mark Levin spoke with Conservative Review senior editor Daniel Horowitz about birthright citizenship — and that President Donald Trump is entirely within his rights to interpret and enforce the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Horowitz told Levin that President Trump has the authority to issue an executive order clarifying how the executive branch will interpret the 14th Amendment concerning the citizenship status of children born in the United States to illegal aliens. He said that those who say otherwise, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., are “constitutionally illiterate.”

“Let’s put this in plain English here,” Horowitz said. “Basically they’re saying, Mark, I could break into your home, kick down the door, drop a kid there, and he has the right to live there for the remainder of his life and there’s not a darn thing you can do about it.”

“The reality is that even if we agree to the notion of birthright citizenship … there is no way you could extrapolate that to people who came here without consent. The key words are ‘consent’ and ‘sovereignty.’ Nothing ever supersedes that. Nobody could unilaterally assert jurisdiction and make it that there’s nothing we can do to stop this,” he continued.

Listen:



At Levin’s request, Horowitz explained how an executive order issued by Trump ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants would not be lawless because the order would be pursuant to law. It is not like Obama’s illegal DACA amnesty, which was an order contrary to law.

“For 130 years there’s an uninterrupted stream of case law, including cases written by the Wong Kim Ark justice, Horace Gray, saying that if you come here without consent and you do not have legal status, it is, in the most literal and physical sense, as if you are standing outside of our boundaries in terms of access to the courts, in terms of rights, in terms of everything,” Horowitz said. This means that the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.

Horowitz made the point that our modern concept of birthright citizenship came about not as the result of a court decision, not by an act of Congress, but by the executive branch’s lax enforcement of immigration law. Levin pointed out that if birthright citizenship is a bureaucratic creation, as the chief of the bureaucracy, President Trump has the right to correct years of extra-constitutional behavior by the executive branch.

“He’s not changing the Constitution by executive order. He’s not reinterpreting the Constitution by executive order. He’s getting the executive branch under control and saying, ‘This is what the 14th Amendment means,'” Levin said.

https://www.conservativereview...-an-executive-order/

^^^ You realize that all that line of argument does is open the door to an even longer argument over the definition of "consent", right? The loosest cog in the machine is the degree to which the US really hasn't bothered to police immigration across our land borders and through the Pacific Coast except insofar as the people coming in illegally were Chinese.