14th Amendment

[acesfull]

If two illegal aliens give birth on American soil to a child, the question would be, is the new born child a US citizen, since the two adult parents are in fact illegal, does being illegal make the new born also illegal? Hence since said parents are illegal by definition, all their acts in this country are illegal and should be rendered "null and void"... I am not saying that the G should take possession of the illegal child, I am only suggesting that Mom. Dad and baby should be sent back to where they came.
This topic is a real slippery slop... However two illegals cannot produce a "legal"... And no one wants to fit the bill for the child if the parents are departed... WE have enough of our own children to take care of...
My .02
Acesfull

 

[Zippyjuan]

Hence since said parents are illegal by definition, all their acts in this country are illegal

So if an illegal immigrant goes to the grocery store and buys food, that is an illegal act? Can they be arrested for "shopping illegally"? Do we need to start checking immigration status at the grocery to be sure nobody is breaking the law?

If a bank robber has a kid is the kid considered illegal? He committed an illegal act and aren't all his actions after that illegal?



What about children of legal immigrants? Say a tourist or student? They are in the country legally. Their kids are automatic citizens? What about if a citizen and a non- citizen have a baby? Citizen or not?

 

[William R]

Don't be sorry William R., just show me where in the 14th Amendment it says "political" jurisdiction. Or show me a majority SCOTUS opinion that says that. We could throw authoritative links at each other all day long, but much smarter and more knowledgeable minds than mine, (I would say yours too, but I don't know you), have been at this debate for a long time - and we still have anchor babies.

I agree the 14th intended something else, but it doesn't say something else, and I am doubtful you can produce a more legitimate affirmation of your interpretation than the actual text of the Amendment.

ps. If the Amendment does not say what it appears to say in plain text, then why does your expert "most cited" judge add; "But the way to stop that abuse of hospitality is to remove the incentive by changing the rule on citizenship.”?

GA

You show me where it says anyone born here is a citizen.

 

[OReich]

Sorry but that's not what's written. By being in the United States they are subject to our jurisdiction. Our laws. But they're not under our political jurisdiction. That's why they excluded diplomats and indians. Well the same holds true with illegal aliens.

"Political jurisdiction" does not exist. Anyone walking through the borders of the US is under US jurisdiction, except diplomats and foreign soldiers (because they're in our country for the very purpose of serving their own country, not as an individual), and Indians (because of specific treaties where Indians were in their own territories, with their own courts and laws, and hence it was their own jurisdiction). Your sources which talk about "complete" and "full" jurisdiction are referring to the governance of Indian territories. The Supreme Court held in Wong Kim Ark that the 14th amendment gives citizenship to anyone born here when their foreign parents were legally here, even temporarily; this means that your concept of "political jurisdiction" or "full jurisdiction" for permanent residents doesn't exist. Anyone legally within our borders is 100% within our jurisdiction, fully and completely, there is no difference between jurisdiction and political jurisdiction. Your quotes which show otherwise are instead referring to the governance of Indian territories under Indian jurisdiction, not US jurisdiction. I'm not saying Wong Kim Ark would at all apply to illegal immigrants, the court specifically said it wasn't ruling on them. But, the ruling demonstrates that (according to those five justices) there is no such thing as "political jurisdiction," unless that's just jurisdiction. Political jurisdiction and full/complete jurisdiction do not exist, AND do not appear in the 14th amendment. Your quotes which are supposed to show the existence of those terms are actually talking about Indian jurisdiction over Indian territories.

 

[William R]

The Civil Rights Act included a definition for national citizenship, to guarantee that former slaves would forever be free of the infamous Dred Scott decision which declared black people were not American citizens. That provision read, “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

That was the original meaning of the jurisdiction language in the Fourteenth Amendment. A person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States is a person who is “not subject to any foreign power”—that is, a person who was entirely native to the United States, not the citizen or subject of any foreign government. The same members of Congress who voted for the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 then voted to define citizenship for freed slaves in a federal law in 1866, then voted again months later in 1866—using only slightly different language—to put that definition of citizenship in the Constitution, language that was ultimately ratified by the states in 1868 as the Fourteenth Amendment.

In 1884, the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins noted that the language of the Civil Rights Act was condensed and rephrased in the Fourteenth Amendment and that courts can therefore look to the Civil Rights Act to understand better the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that if a person is a foreign citizen, then their children are likewise not constitutionally under the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore not entitled to citizenship. In fact, the Court specifically then added that this rule is why the children of foreign ambassadors are not American citizens.

That is why Congress can specify that the children of foreign diplomats and foreign soldiers are not Americans by birth. They’re not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Congress’s INA does not grant them citizenship; federal law never has.

So why is a child born on American soil to foreign parents an American citizen by birth? Because the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause is a floor, not a ceiling. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution, Congress has absolute power to make laws for immigration and for granting citizenship to foreigners. Congress’s current INA is far more generous than the Constitution requires. Congress could expand it to grant citizenship to every human being on earth, or narrow it to its constitutional minimum.


JRichard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is America’s most-cited federal judge — and, by the way, no friend to conservatives. In 2003, he wrote a concurrence simply in order to demand that Congress pass a law to stop “awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States.”

The purpose of the 14th Amendment, he said, was “to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves,” adding that “Congress would not be flouting the Constitution” if it passed a law “to put an end to the nonsense.”


Facts are facts and the facts are the 14th amendment doesn't grant automatic birthright citizenship. Never has. This is one of the biggest scams the government has ever pulled on the American people.

The above quotes are from articles I've linked to on this thread and another one.

 

[OReich]

The Civil Rights Act included a definition for national citizenship, to guarantee that former slaves would forever be free of the infamous Dred Scott decision which declared black people were not American citizens. That provision read, “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

That was the original meaning of the jurisdiction language in the Fourteenth Amendment. A person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States is a person who is “not subject to any foreign power”—that is, a person who was entirely native to the United States, not the citizen or subject of any foreign government. The same members of Congress who voted for the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865 then voted to define citizenship for freed slaves in a federal law in 1866, then voted again months later in 1866—using only slightly different language—to put that definition of citizenship in the Constitution, language that was ultimately ratified by the states in 1868 as the Fourteenth Amendment.

In 1884, the Supreme Court in Elk v. Wilkins noted that the language of the Civil Rights Act was condensed and rephrased in the Fourteenth Amendment and that courts can therefore look to the Civil Rights Act to understand better the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that if a person is a foreign citizen, then their children are likewise not constitutionally under the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore not entitled to citizenship. In fact, the Court specifically then added that this rule is why the children of foreign ambassadors are not American citizens.

That is why Congress can specify that the children of foreign diplomats and foreign soldiers are not Americans by birth. They’re not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Congress’s INA does not grant them citizenship; federal law never has.

So why is a child born on American soil to foreign parents an American citizen by birth? Because the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause is a floor, not a ceiling. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution, Congress has absolute power to make laws for immigration and for granting citizenship to foreigners. Congress’s current INA is far more generous than the Constitution requires. Congress could expand it to grant citizenship to every human being on earth, or narrow it to its constitutional minimum.


JRichard Posner of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is America’s most-cited federal judge — and, by the way, no friend to conservatives. In 2003, he wrote a concurrence simply in order to demand that Congress pass a law to stop “awarding citizenship to everyone born in the United States.”

The purpose of the 14th Amendment, he said, was “to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves,” adding that “Congress would not be flouting the Constitution” if it passed a law “to put an end to the nonsense.”


Facts are facts and the facts are the 14th amendment doesn't grant automatic birthright citizenship. Never has. This is one of the biggest scams the government has ever pulled on the American people.

The above quotes are from articles I've linked to on this thread and another one.

The Elk v. Wiggins did NOT say anything about foreigners walking through US territory, it was about Indians. Again you cite a case/quote about Indians and say its about foreigners. The Indians were in their own jurisdiction, the court explained this. Not only did the Supreme Court NOT say anything about foreigners (other than diplomats/soldiers), but the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark then said that a temporary, legal foreigner could drop an anchor baby. They didn't say illegals could drop an anchor baby, they didn't rule on that, but they did rule that anyone legally here, even a temporary foreigner, could drop an anchor baby. So again, you're misinterpreting language that is exclusive to Indians and diplomats/soldiers, and projecting that onto foreigners and illegal foreigners.

And the Civil Rights Act wasn't the 14th amendment. So no, you can't use one law to enforce the 14th amendment to say that's all it was about. And, Elk v. Wilkens, which you cite to show that the CRA's language should be used to understand the 14th amendment, is the case you're misinterpreting, it was about Indians. Again and again, you take quotes about Indians or diplomats/soldiers and generelize that into a broader category that doesn't exist. The Supreme Court even ruled after Elk v. Wilkens, in Wong Kim Ark, that temporary (legal) foreigners could drop anchor babies, and so your repeated notion foreigners were not under our jurisdiction is just false. Your quotes from Senators and the Supreme Court are all taken out of context from discussions involving Indians, and you're ignoring the later Supreme Court case that DID rule that temporary, legal foreigners could drop anchor babies.

I met Posner, he's a smart guy, he was nominated (or almost nominated?) for the US Supreme Court but admitted in testimony that he smoked weed since college. Cuz apparently everyone in college did it.

 

[William R]

"Not only did the Supreme Court NOT say anything about foreigners (other than diplomats/soldiers),.

They didn't say anything because millions of people weren't breaking into the country back then. You're a clown But they feared an invasion from a foreign government and that's why they included soldiers. During the Civil War Lincoln feared that France would enter the war on behalf of the Confederacy. Well today we are experiencing an invasion from south of the border. 2/3rds of Mexicans think Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California belong to Mexico. Mexico is deliberately sending its citizens North. Replace soldier with illegal aliens.


IF an Indian and his Squaw left the Indian territories and had a kid in Boston the child would not have been granted citizenship. Because the parents were not American citizens.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[TommyJeff]

I'm talking about the constitution, you're talking about something you made up. Jurisdiction is the power of a state to exercise its laws over a person, period.

This isnt true at all.
Just because that's how the term is used today, doesn't mean that's how the term was used in the past. Your dramatic use of the word period is unnecessary and your statement people to that term period, is false.
This is from wiki "The word "jurisdiction" is also used, especially in informal writing, to refer to a state or political subdivision generally, or to its government, rather than to its legal authority".
Period. Lol

 

[TommyJeff]

Facts are facts and the facts are the 14th amendment doesn't grant automatic birthright citizenship. Never has.

this is absolutely correct. But there was no need to cloud up these facts with Supreme Court opinions. The courts don't make law. Just stick with the facts about the law congress passed.