Page 1 2
Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Lawyers, Guns and Money  |
This issue has been brought up in the Trump thread... but it got swamped. It's an important issue, worth fighting. Birthright Citizenship: A Novel Way To Say No By Anony Mee The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, as it applies to birthright citizenship, is brief. The first line of Section 1 states, “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.” With Trump having brought the issue to the forefront, the matter needs to be put to rest once and for all. I earlier penned Rethinking Citizenship—Is Born In The U.S.A. Enough? In it, I proposed that a child born in the United States should have the same legal status as its parents. If the parents have no legal status, neither should their child. https://www.americanthinker.co..._the_usa_enough.html Almost all discussions I see on this topic focus solely on “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The rest mostly address the distinction drawn in both Article 3 Section 2 and in the 11th Amendment of the Constitution between subjects and citizens of foreign states and others. Subjects and citizens of foreign states should be enough to disqualify the children of aliens based on their subjection to a foreign power, although it may not be for the children of some United States citizens. However, no one pays much attention to the last two words of that famous sentence: “they reside.” The law holds “A resident is a person who lives in a particular place for the indefinite future.” Following the principal rule of statutory construction, this definition must be applied to all aliens. It is a novel way to say no to birthright citizenship for the children of aliens. Foreign-born United States citizens can reasonably be expected to live in the United States indefinitely, as can their children. Lawfully admitted Permanent Residents (LPRs or green-card holders) intend to live in the United States until they naturalize or move elsewhere. While their children might reasonably be argued to intend to live in the United States indefinitely, while they are minors, they are under their parents’ control. LPR status should be granted to them until their parents naturalize or they reach the age of majority and apply to naturalize on their own. Conditional LPRs are expected to convert to LPR status after two years or leave the country if their conditions change. Their children should have the same status and be expected to convert or depart with them. Refugees and asylees are admitted temporarily to the United States. If conditions change within one year, they may be required to return home. After one year, they are required to apply for LPR status, which can be denied on various grounds. Their children also should have the same status and be expected to convert or depart with them. Now we come to Obama’s and Biden’s patently unlawful admission categories. Temporary Protected Status (TPS), including for the thousands upon thousands to whom TPS has been “extended,” is just that—temporary. The humane and wise thing to do would be for the 119th Congress to allow original (long-term) registrants under TPS to convert to life-long conditional LPR status, order the removal of the rest, and halt all admissions to the US and visa issuances to nationals from those countries. (A fuller discussion is here.) Humanitarian Parole, like the CBP-1 program, is just another type of TPS. Send them home and halt any new admissions. DREAMers status is technically deferred deportation. As with TPS, original registrants should be allowed to convert to life-long conditional LPR status. By law, these categories are temporary. Thus, the children of aliens in each of them should have their parents’ status. Children of conditional LPRs should be able to convert to permanent LPR status upon reaching their majority. The United States admits millions of visitors every year for a wide variety of purposes—visiting, school, temporary work, athletic events...all sorts of reasons. All stated under penalty of law, both when applying for their visa and when presenting themselves for admission at a port (land, sea, or air) of entry, that they were coming for a limited time and purpose. Therefore, there is no expectation of indefinite residency in any state. Children born to them while in lawful status should be granted the same status. Until the disastrous Biden-Harris administration, more than 2/3 of all illegals in the US were those who had been lawfully admitted on a temporary basis and failed to return home at the termination of their allowed stay. As they were not admitted to have any legally recognized indefinite nature residence in the United States, their children born while they are outside of legal status should also have no legal status. When they depart, on their own or via governmental action, their children certainly should be going with them. Those who were never lawfully admitted to the United States have no business being here. Their presence can have no validity when considering indefinite residency in any state, as they are always on the point of being apprehended and deported. Thus, their children born here should also have no legal status except as the children of their parents, who are expected to care for them and take them home when they depart. (More on the damage illegal aliens can cause here.) And for those who whine that these children don’t know the culture of their parents’ homeland—that is bunk. They live in the culture of their homes, eating the food their parents prepare for them and speaking the language of their parents to them. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment says, “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” The 119th needs to take care of this quickly so we can move on. Let the courts wrangle it out after the law is enacted, as they inevitably must. However, it is imperative that this be addressed with alacrity so that it can get to the courts and be verified as the law of the land while We the People are adequately represented in both Congress and the White House. https://www.americanthinker.co...l_way_to_say_no.htmlThis message has been edited. Last edited by: chellim1, "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." -- Justice Janice Rogers Brown "The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth." -rduckwor | ||
|
| Lawyers, Guns and Money |
"Imported" from the Trump thread:
"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." -- Justice Janice Rogers Brown "The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth." -rduckwor | |||
|
| Lawyers, Guns and Money |
It will be a legal battle that will have to be decided by the Supreme Court. But it's a fight worth having... Birthright Citizenship Isn’t Real Donald Trump yesterday issued a new executive order declaring that so-called “birthright citizenship” does not apply to the children of foreign nationals residing illegally within the United States. The order reads, in part: (a) It is the policy of the United States that no department or agency of the United States government shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents issued by State, local, or other governments or authorities purporting to recognize United States citizenship, to persons: (1) when that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the United States and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth, or (2) when that person’s mother’s presence in the United States was lawful but temporary, and the person’s father was not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of said person’s birth. There is a common misconception in the United States that the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution mandates that the US government grant citizenship to anyone and everyone born within the borders of the United States. This misconception is largely due to the fact that, for several decades, US courts and technocrats have conspired to redefine the original meaning of the amendment, and thus apply it to every child of every tourist and foreign national who happens to be born on this side of the US border. Some have even attempted to define access to birthright citizenship as some sort of natural right. This is a common tactic among some libertarians who have twisted the idea of property rights to extend the idea of a “right” to the governmental administrative act known as “naturalization.” Even when looking at the issue strictly in terms of procedural legal rights, however, it is clear that the current definition of birthright citizenship is in conflict with the law as originally intended and interpreted. To understand the central point of contention, let’s note the text of the Fourteenth Amendment itself, which states that citizenship shall be extended to: “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” Note that there are two qualifying phrases here. The persons in question must be both born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It is this second qualification that remains a matter of debate. What does it mean to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? This issue is explained by legal scholar Hans Spakovsky who notes that advocates of granting birthright citizenship to anyone born in the United States erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike. But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual. The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws 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 “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens. Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country. The courts themselves have historically recognized this distinction, noting that the whole purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to grant citizenship to former slaves who obviously were not connected to any other country or sovereign. In the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872), the court ruled: That [the Fourteenth Amendment’s] main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States. That second sentence is key: ”The phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation ... citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was further confirmed by the Court in 1884 (in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94) when the Court stated that the idea of birthright citizenship did not apply to Native American tribes which were nonetheless within the borders of the United States: “[The Fourteenth Amendment] contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one of the Indian tribes (an alien though dependent power,) although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.” In short, the court recognized that the tribal lands were within the legal jurisdiction of the United States, but this did not mean that everyone born within those borders was automatically granted citizenship. Those tribal members believed to be subjects of “foreign” tribal governments were therefore not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in a way that conferred automatic citizenship. Congress further reinforced the court’s interpretation by adopting new legislation granting citizenship to all tribal members in 1924. Had the Fourteenth Amendment really granted automatic citizenship to everyone born within the borders of the United States, no such legislation would have been necessary. In the year 2024, however, advocates of the new and novel interpretation of “birthright citizenship” insist that the child of foreign nationals automatically becomes a citizen of the United States based entirely on the location of birth. This is a rather odd way of doing things. In historical practice nearly everywhere, citizenship depends largely on the citizenship of parents, or on the parents’ place of birth, and not on the place where parents happen to temporarily reside when the child is born. Thus, historically and globally, the child of foreign nationals is himself a foreign national. This is true, for instance, of children born to American nationals overseas. Only in the United States does there appear to be widespread confusion about this. Of course, some libertarian or “classical liberal” readers might argue that such legal precedents are meaningless, and that everyone “deserves” the legal “right” of citizenship. How citizenship is any sort of natural right or property right, however, remains a mystery. Has the child somehow “homesteaded” his citizenship? Obviously not. Has the child entered into a contract with a legitimate property owner to acquire the “property” of citizenship? To ask these questions is to see the absurdity of them. On the other hand, it is important to note that a lack of citizenship in any particular place does not negate anyone’s property rights. Real property rights—what Rothbard called “universal rights”—exist regardless of one’s citizenship, where he lives, or where he happens to have been born. Read more: https://mises.org/power-market...itizenship-isnt-real "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." -- Justice Janice Rogers Brown "The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth." -rduckwor | |||
|
delicately calloused |
This will need to be settled by the Supreme Court. Both sides of the argument think they have it right. As with 2a decisions, I have my fingers crossed since I’ve seen Supreme Courts get it wrong before. You’re a lying dog-faced pony soldier | |||
|
| No ethanol! |
This ^^ emphasis added, is the meaning which will further the debate. There is a reason those words were added. ------------------ The plural of anecdote is not data. -Frank Kotsonis | |||
|
Corgis Rock |
Recall the case of a child born to a diplomat in the U.S. wasn’t a citizen. The term is “Jus Soli” “ Certain individuals born outside of the United States are born U.S. citizens based on jus sanguinis, which holds that the country of citizenship of a child is the same as that of his/her parents. U.S. Congress is responsible for enacting laws that determine how citizenship is conveyed by a U.S. citizen parent or parents, according to the principle of jus sanguinis. These laws are contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act.” With diplomats there are “blue list” and “ white list.” Thus, according to the State Department, blue-list babies, born in the U.S. to parents with greater privilege and immunities are not “subject to the jurisdiction,” of this country and therefore not automatically American citizens. But somehow white-list offspring, with comparatively less arrest protection, are “subject to the jurisdiction” and the babies are entitled to a U.S. passport. It is an insignificant distinction that opens an illegitimate back door to American citizenship.” https://cis.org/Oped/Stop-Auto...en-Foreign-Diplomats It seems that there are way to deal with “anchor babies.” “ The work of destruction is quick, easy and exhilarating; the work of creation is slow, laborious and dull. | |||
|
| Member |
I’m not sure this needs to be so complicated. Assuming birthright citizenship exists and is enshrined in the constitution, that does not stop the government from deporting the parents. They’re welcome to take the child along or, if they are able to provide care for the child here, to leave them behind. | |||
|
His Royal Hiney |
No. That's more complicated than as simple as what you think it is. First, you have precedence that children are better off with their parents. An American citizen cannot be "deported" from the U.S. That's how the anchor baby system has been put in place. It would be unfair to the American baby to be out of parents through no fault of the baby. I'm for getting it settled by SCOTUS. "It did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life – daily and hourly. Our answer must consist not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual." Viktor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning, 1946. | |||
|
| It's pronounced just the way it's spelled |
If two citizens who are parents commit a crime, are both convicted and sentenced to jail time, we don’t say, well, their baby would be better with them, so we don’t put the parents in jail or alternatively put the child in jail with them. The parents go away and the child goes into foster care if no legal relatives can take care of them. | |||
|
| Political Cynic |
This is apparently complicated only to democrats. To everyone else it seems quite simple. | |||
|
| Lawyers, Guns and Money |
Well... that's an awfully big assumption. There's a big difference of opinion on that question. That's what the thread is about. "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." -- Justice Janice Rogers Brown "The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth." -rduckwor | |||
|
Member |
Yall wanna hear some bullshit? My youngest, born to two U.S. citizens, on a U.S. Army base overseas, while on active duty orders, was not considered a U.S. citizen until my wife and I both proved our citizenship, reason for being overseas, etc. Bullshit. 10 years to retirement! Just waiting! | |||
|
| Staring back from the abyss  |
I think that this falls back on intent. I think that we pretty much know what the intent of the Founders was with regard to the 2nd Amendment. Similarly, we know that the intent of the 14th was to its authors. It was clearly meant to include blacks/slaves in an attempt to atone for the Civil War. It could not, in anyone's imagination at the time, include anchor babies from El Salvador, or anywhere else for that matter. The conservatives on the Supreme Court will rule the correct way, and the delusional ones will rule otherwise. ________________________________________________________ "Great danger lies in the notion that we can reason with evil." Doug Patton. | |||
|
| Savor the limelight |
Reside is not residency, so the whole arguement is flawed. | |||
|
| Imagination and focus become reality |
There has already been a Supreme Court decision on this issue in 1898: It asserted that birthright citizenship should have been applied to Wong Kim Ark in United States v Wong Kim Ark. https://constitutioncenter.org...-v-wong-kim-ark-1898 | |||
|
Member |
He wasn’t an “anchor baby”. His parents weren’t even eligible to be citizens at the time, but were residents of the US (during a period with no distinction between legal and illegal immigration.). It’s not as if they were in the country for a day and had the kid, his dad owned a firm in San Francisco. | |||
|
| Imagination and focus become reality |
Nevertheless, the ruling is what it is. I think it will be difficult to get around that ruling. If you are trying to say that the Constitution is a living breathing document that changes with the times then... well... I don't think that's what we want. Of course that ruling could be overturned. Maybe. | |||
|
| Member |
I said nothing of the sort. Please reread what I wrote. He was born to “non-illegal”, permanent residents. The US didn’t have any of the laws and restrictions around immigration and residency that they do now. The case was about a US resident having a child, not someone who stepped off a ship or plane and had a baby. It is not precedent in any way. | |||
|
| Imagination and focus become reality |
Nonsense! Illegals in the country today are US residents. He was born to parents that were not citizens of the United States. Your contortions about "non-illegal" don't make sense. The simple point is that the parents were not US citizens, he was born in the US, therefore the US Supreme Court ruled that he was a citizen of the United States. Did you not read the decision? | |||
|
safe & sound |
It makes perfect sense. Ark was born to parents who were not illegally present in the US. The debate today relates to children born to parents who are illegally present in the US (in most cases), or who are otherwise attempting to game the system. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2025