# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  Birthright citizenship

## TaftFan

Donald Trump has come out against birthright citizenship. In response, so did Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal. Looks like Rand has opposed it in the past.

Judge Napolitano says it is part of the Constitution: http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/08/1...itano-explains

Can we get rid of birthright citizenship? Is it a matter of an original intent vs. textual interpretation?

----------


## William R

Sorry but the Judge is flat out wrong on this.  The 14th amendment was about newly freed slaves after the War.  They were American citizens.  It has nothing to do with some woman running across the border and dropping a kid.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## William R

14th Amendment Doesn't Make Illegal Aliens' Children Citizens

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...ldren-citizens

----------


## William R

Many legal scholars believe that changing the policy would require changing the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, on which birthright citizenship is based. But “many” legal scholars is not the same thing as “all.”

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment begins this way: “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.”

The key phrase here is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” say some experts. 

Illegal immigrants are not subject to US jurisdiction, in the sense that they cannot be drafted into the US military or tried for treason against the US, said John Eastman, a professor at the Chapman University School of Law, in a media conference call Monday. Their children would share that status, via citizenship in their parents’ nation or nations of birth – and so would not be eligible for a US passport, even if born on US soil, according to Dr. Eastman.

Furthermore, federal courts have upheld the right of Congress to regulate naturalization policies over and above the basic constitutional guarantee, according to Eastman. Taken together, he says, all this means lawmakers, if they choose, could deny birthright citizenship to the children of parents here illegally.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...e-Constitution

----------


## CBC4L

Technically there is no birthright citizenship, it is a misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment.

We are working with 2 levels here: Constitutional Law and Statutory Law

Constitutional Law defines a Natural Born Citizen as a person born to a citizen father of the United States.

Statutory law citizens as all those born or naturalized under the jurisdiction of the US or among the states.  This includes naturalized at birth.  

Congress can define statues, but not constitutional law.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## William R

> I have two friends from India who were in the US on student visas. They never became US citgizens. *They were not subject to the military draft laws.* Their children, born on US soil, are US citizens (have all the government issued paperwork based simply upon their birth on US soil). The family returned to India while the children were still in elementary school. The children returned to the US to attend college and didn't require student visas to do so. The children are old enough to vote in US elections and do so. The children continue to reside in the US as US citizens - and, in fact, are now the US side of a US/India import/export business.



And they shouldn't be.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## oyarde

> Donald Trump has come out against birthright citizenship. In response, so did Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal. Looks like Rand has opposed it in the past.
> 
> Judge Napolitano says it is part of the Constitution: http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/08/1...itano-explains
> 
> Can we get rid of birthright citizenship? Is it a matter of an original intent vs. textual interpretation?


 In case no body has been paying attention , the Communist Dem party rules. The Pubs barely beat Gore , Kerry and lost to Obummer twice while Obummer care became law. This tells me , the current immigration as a whole will continue on as is .The next economic collapse may continue to cut the numbers of illegals coming in, that is the best hope for any who consider this issue a top priority.Any person of sound mind should easily understand that at least one parent should be a citizen for a child born here to be a citizen .This does not help the ruling party of the senate though and you have a supreme court that cannot read law.

----------


## thoughtomator

Birthright citizens' advocates never touch the topic of no other nation in history ever granting citizenship on this basis and why that may be.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

We should amend the Constitution and make it perfectly clear.

----------


## Southron

The 14th amendment was never intended to apply to foreigners.

----------


## AuH20

> In case no body has been paying attention , the Communist Dem party rules. The Pubs barely beat Gore , Kerry and lost to Obummer twice while Obummer care became law. This tells me , the current immigration as a whole will continue on as is .*The next economic collapse may continue to cut the numbers of illegals coming in, that is the best hope for any who consider this issue a top priority*.Any person of sound mind should easily understand that at least one parent should be a citizen for a child born here to be a citizen .This does not help the ruling party of the senate though and you have a supreme court that cannot read law.


Yes. The Truth has Been Spoken. We need to destroy the cursed village to save it.

----------


## klamath

> Donald Trump has come out against birthright citizenship. In response, so did Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal. Looks like Rand has opposed it in the past.
> 
> Judge Napolitano says it is part of the Constitution: http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/08/1...itano-explains
> 
> Can we get rid of birthright citizenship? Is it a matter of an original intent vs. textual interpretation?


 Trump wants to get rid of birthright citizenship retroactively or deport by force US citizens.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## TaftFan



----------


## Dianne

Actually it would really piss me off if my parents were vacationing in Uganda, delivered me early and now I was a Uganda citizen.    This entire birthright law doesn't make sense whatsoever.   It seems to me if your parents are citizens of a certain country, wherever you are born, you are a citizen of the same country your parents are; not where the chicken layed the egg.

----------


## erowe1

The 14th Amendment begins:



> 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.


The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is not a redundancy. It is there to distinguish the persons born in the USA who are citizens from those born in the USA who are not.

----------


## erowe1

> The children returned to the US to attend college and didn't require student visas to do so. The children are old enough to vote in US elections and do so. The children continue to reside in the US as US citizens - and, in fact, are now the US side of a US/India import/export business.


All of this is good. Right?

----------


## thoughtomator

> The 14th Amendment begins:
> 
> 
> The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is not a redundancy. It is there to distinguish the persons born in the USA who are citizens from those born in the USA who are not.


It is there so that former slaves could not be denied the privileges of citizens.

"Birthright citizenship" for illegal aliens is like saying that if you rob a bank you can keep the money.

----------


## Voluntarist

xxxxx

----------


## erowe1

> "Birthright citizenship" for illegal aliens is like saying that if you rob a bank you can keep the money.


I'm not for birthright citizenship.

But that's not a good analogy, since illegal immigration is not a crime.

----------


## TommyJeff

> Sorry but the Judge is flat out wrong on this.  The 14th amendment was about newly freed slaves after the War.  They were American citizens.  It has nothing to do with some woman running across the border and dropping a kid.


100% correct

----------


## TommyJeff

> Can we get rid of birthright citizenship? Is it a matter of an original intent vs. textual interpretation?


There is nothing to get rid of, other than the wrong view that the 14th amendment includes the children of aliens. Similarly we don't need to have the first amendment include bloggers as a people to retain the freedoms of speech.

----------


## TommyJeff

> 14th Amendment Doesn't Make Illegal Aliens' Children Citizens
> 
> http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...ldren-citizens


Good article.  In part saying 


> Many today assume the second half of the citizenship clause ("subject to the jurisdiction thereof") merely refers to the day-to-day laws to which we are all subject. But the original understanding referred to political allegiance. Being subject to U.S. jurisdiction meant, as then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lyman Trumbull stated, "not owing allegiance to anybody else [but] subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States."

----------


## TommyJeff

> We should amend the Constitution and make it perfectly clear.


This just makes the opposition's argument legitimate.  Do we need an amendment to the other amendments when some say the language isn't clear?

----------


## Warrior_of_Freedom

are children born in U.S. territorial waters U.S. citizens?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> This just makes the opposition's argument legitimate.  Do we need an amendment to the other amendments when some say the language isn't clear?


It doesn't make the oppositions case legitimate, but it could completely eliminate their case.

But, yes, the original intent is clear, and the Courts should interpret it according to the original intent.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Birthright citizenship policy makes us a nation of suckers:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ion-of-suckers

----------


## thoughtomator

> I'm not for birthright citizenship.
> 
> But that's not a good analogy, since illegal immigration is not a crime.


It is a crime whether you like it or not. Not only is it the law, but it's a legitimate law pursuant to the Constitution (unlike say, federal drug laws, which violate the Eighth through Tenth Amendments, or the income tax amendment which was not properly ratified).

The Constitution delegates very few, enumerated powers to Congress - and immigration laws are at the top of the list.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Edit: In the past it had occurred to me that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was probably a new U.S. replacement for "subject of the crown". The law professor in the video confirms that.

Language changes over time, and it must be interpreted in it's proper context, including the current definitions of the time.

----------


## jj-

> Edit: In the past it had occurred to me that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was probably a new U.S. replacement for "subject of the crown". The law professor in the video confirms that.
> 
> Language changes over time, and it must be interpreted in it's proper context, including the current definitions of the time.


It is an open and shut case that anchor babies aren't citizens. Children of ambassadors aren't citizens even if born in the U.S. The 14th Amendment makes no distinction between illegals and ambassadors, therefore children of illegals aren't citizens either.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> It is an open and shut case that anchor babies aren't citizens. Children of ambassadors aren't citizens even if born in the U.S. The 14th Amendment makes no distinction between illegals and ambassadors, therefore children of illegals aren't citizens either.


Another case of activist courts and bureaucrats changing the intent and meaning of the law.

----------


## jj-

> Another case of activist courts and bureaucrats changing the intent and meaning of the law.


If there is a court case, I think SCOTUS might rule correctly. They would have to do extraordinary legal gymnastics to do otherwise, although they have done that with Obamacare.

----------


## William R

One huge scam pulled over on the American people.

----------


## TommyJeff

> are children born in U.S. territorial waters U.S. citizens?


If their parents are citizens, of course.

----------


## erowe1

> It is an open and shut case that anchor babies aren't citizens.


No it isn't. It may be an open and shut case that the 14th Amendment doesn't require that they be citizens. But, according to the law, as it now is, they are citizens.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Establishment shill Carly Fiorina would never get rid of birthright citizenship...

----------


## Zippyjuan

> It is an open and shut case that anchor babies aren't citizens. Children of ambassadors aren't citizens even if born in the U.S. The 14th Amendment makes no distinction between illegals and ambassadors, therefore children of illegals aren't citizens either.


What about the child of a citizen and an illegal immigrant?  Would they be citizens or illegals?

Who does the 14th Amendment say it applies to? Are specific classes of people included or excluded?  Here is what the 14th Amendment says: 




> Section 1.
> 
> *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.* No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States*; nor shall any state deprive *any person* of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv





> and subject to the jurisdiction thereof



This is the catch- the only restriction.  They are citizens *if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.*   Ambassadors are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States by international treaty. Native Americans were also similarly exempted from US jurisdiction- considered their own nations within the boundaries of the US until Congress changed it.  Are immigrants (legal or not) subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?  Do our laws apply to them while they are in the country?  If they break a law, can they be arrested or charged with a crime?

----------


## TommyJeff

> Judge Napolitano says it is part of the Constitution: http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/08/1...itano-explains


the judge has many great things to at about the constitution so it confuses me how he can get this point so wrong. 






> Can we get rid of birthright citizenship? Is it a matter of an original intent vs. textual interpretation?


You ask two important questions.   
No we can't get rid of it.  It's not even a debate between intent or text.  There is strong reasoning behind why the president needs to be a person, familiar with our culture, and having zero allegiance to another land.  When a parent has allegiance to another land, there is a chance the president (as a child) would be taught a similar allegiance to that foreign land.  That's part of the reason natural born is the phrase used and not naturalized.  That's also why it's not only about a person being born inside the US, but that the parents are citizens too.  The president's job includes a lot of foreign relations and that's why allegiance to only the United States is so important.

----------


## Aratus

> 


Here is a video from 2015

----------


## Stratovarious

> Sorry but the Judge is flat out wrong on this.  The 14th amendment was about newly freed slaves after the War.  They were American citizens.  It has nothing to do with some woman running across the border and dropping a kid.


I agree, I love the Judge,  he nails 9 out of 10 , but not 100%,
he sometimes misses the mark by a mile.

----------


## Stratovarious

> Here is a video from 2015


-

@ 00:11
Stossel: ''You want to get rid of the law that says ...child of illegal...is a citizen...''
Ron Paul:  ''I think...14th ... is misinterpreted...''
-
Stossel is a sharp guy, my guess is that he knew better but
phrased this question as if he were speaking 'as'/'for' the 
majority of Americans, those that have no idea what is presented
in the 14th amendment, and  are only familiar' 
with what CNN et al has told them.

----------

