Birthright citizenship

[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/artic...-doesnt-make-illegal-aliens-children-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/showth...tizenship-policy-makes-us-a-nation-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...

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx