" 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 all of the controversy about the Birthright Citizenship issue, it's interesting that the notion has just been blindly accepted of late. Yet, strangely I haven't seen anyone take much of a look at the actual amendment or the intent of the writer of the amendment.
As for the amendment itself, it seems clear that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is the key phrase. Obviously this is why tourists, diplomats, and military members children are not automatically US citizens. So where does that leave illegal aliens. The most logical argument is that by failing to follow the proper pathway to immigrate to the US legally, the illegal alien has placed themselves outside of the "jurisdiction" of the US and therefore should not get automatic citizenship for their children.
Jacob Howard, the author, seemed pretty clear on this as well. "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, ...".
This is an issue I've changed my mind on. Rather, I simply assumed the previous conclusion and never questioned it. At this point, I am convinced that "birthright citizenship" for "foreigners and aliens is not a thing. The very fact that so people of so many nationalities have cynically taken advantage of this policy tells me that, at a very minimum, there needs to be an extended pause in this policy. That we as a country are giving one of our most precious privileges away to those who don't have the best interests of the US at heart is disturbing. To be fair, this is a problem that's been exacerbated by the open borders policy of the last 4 years, and might remain a non issue if the numbers were smaller.
I fully support Trump's decision to overturn this poor interpretation of the 14th amendment, even though it might not be fully litigated for years. It is the right thing to do given the current situation.
Art has a comment that relates to this. The NYT (one of the most revered practitioners of real journalism) seems to have given us an interesting dichotomy in their headlines.
When writing a story critical of a pro-life law in GA, they refer to a "Fetus", in regard to an article in favor of birthright citizenship for any and everyone, they refer to an "Unborn Child".
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/digital/birthright-citizenship-a-response-to-my-critics/
An excellent piece on the issue, loaded with direct quotes from those who debated the 14th amendment.
38 comments:
It seems obvious to me the very use of this amendment to allow anyone to become a citizen without so much as declaration of intent...particularly given the infant is incapable of doing so...suggests a fraud.
Well, thankfully, we have legal scholars like you and the pervert clown to tell us what the Constitution means, even in spite of the reality that the SCOTUS has repeatedly been clear about what it means. But some guy on the internet can set them straight.
[rolls eyes. again.]
Tell us you didn't read the post, without telling us you didn't read the post.
We literally have the exact words of the person who WROTE the freaking amendment, but let's ignore those.
The amendment itself is pretty simple and clear as well, but let's ignore that.
What are these vast number of cases where this specific issue has been ruled on by SCOTUS? Please provide the specific cases.
Had you read what I wrote, you'd have known that I was pretty clear that this will be litigated and SCOTUS will likely rule on the issue, which literally rules out your comment being accurate. Further, if you knew how the US legal system worked, you'd know that those alleged previous rulings are not carved in stone, and are not unchangeable. Fortunately, you've previously demonstrated a lack of understanding of how the legal system works, and I know to not take your input on legal issues seriously.
Art, I'm not sure it's fraud, but it seems clear that the person in question must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US in order to be given birthright citizenship. I'd argue that someone who's intentionally chosen to avoid being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US would be disqualified under the plain language of the amendment. Let alone clear and definitive guidance from the author of the amendment.
Don't you love how Dan wants to prevent anyone from having an opinion on anything, by ridiculing others from a position of ignorance.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/presidents-cant-end-birthright-citizenship
Craig...
"The most logical argument is that by failing to follow the proper pathway to immigrate to the US legally, the illegal alien has placed themselves outside of the "jurisdiction" of the US and therefore should not get automatic citizenship for their children. "
THAT is where YOU tried to place yourself as The Decider, siding with the deviant rapist felon, Trump.
Y'all are just NOT the judicial scholars who have the answers, as reality demonstrates. What you and the pervert might find "logical" is just a steaming pile of trump.
Dan
My point was that the infant can't declare intentions, and the moment it can, it's difficult to imagine the child wouldn't want to be what its parents are. Thus, if the parents are Indonesian, the child would want to be Indonesian as well. In fact, if the parents said to the child, "No. You're an American", the child would likely despair and feel disconnected from its parents. And I doubt if the parents are waiting until the child is 18 (at least) before suggesting the "chain migration" thing.
Oh, it's a blatant fraud, allright!
"Pervert clown"? Are you trying to tell us what the Constitution means, as if you're not already well known for perverting Scripture to make it say what most pleases you personally?
Many legal scholars totally contradict what you need the Constitution to say even though it doesn't say it.
I'm aware of one case from long ago involving a Chinese guy where the court ruled in favor of his citizenship by virtue of his having simply been born on United States soil. But despite not being fully studied of the situation, it does seem to totally conflict with the intention of the amendment's author and those who thereafter ratified it. That happens sometimes and rulings, even those which establish a precedent, can be overturned later.
That is one option. I think what's driving this movement is that people are seeing the abuse of this. When you see "birth tourism" or when a woman waits to cross until contractions start just to get the birth certificate and citizenship is where people get annoyed.
Obviously Dan, the legal/constitutional expert is going to tell us that he knows what the constitution means, while bitching at me for expressing an opinion. I'm sure he'll find one instance of a link that agrees with his position, without really understanding what the constitution, the author of the amendment, of my post actually says.
Which is the point. Previous rulings are not carved in stone and can be overturned. IMO that is the entire point. Trump has likely been advised that his EO will be challenged, and he's presumably looking for the opportunity to challenge this in court.
Called that one. Dan roots around until he finds one link that he believes supports he opinion and calls it good.
Brilliant riposte to my most logical argument. The way that you went into detail
and demonstrated my argument to be wrong based on extensive research and legal precedent is impressive.
Or you could just make shit up and lie about me, I guess that works in your tiny little brain.
Given the fact that you are not a "judicial scholars", (legal scholars would probably be the right ones to consult, but...), and actually have no answers either, I find your response divorced from reality. That you found one example of an organization named after a liberal SCOTUS justice that "agrees" with you predetermined point of view is not surprising.
I'll simply note that the brief piece Dan linked to doesn't actually delve into any specifics about the legal and constitutional aspects of the issue (do illegal aliens children get citizenship automatically). It merely asserts that Trump does not have the power to end the practice by EO. Which seems like an entirely different, but related conversation.
It seems like it is possible to agree with Trump's position, yet disagree with his choice of solution.
In any event, what Trump[ really did was set in motion the chain of events that will end with this issue before SCOTUS where it will be decided for the time being.
What Dan hasn't done is provide one tiny bit of proof of the specific claim he made in an earlier comment, but no one is surprised by that.
The answer is, according to legal and constitutional scholars, that this is a decided matter. Humans born in the US ARE US citizens. It's been settled.
Did you not know?
Dan
If you'd read the article I provided more closely, you'd have seen:
"The Supreme Court affirmed this interpretation nearly 130 years ago in an 1898 case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark. "
It's already been litigated and decided.
Dan
The Reagan-appointed judge who has blocked the felon's edict....
"I am having trouble understanding how a member of the bar could state unequivocally that this order is constitutional," the judge told a U.S. Justice Department lawyer defending Trump's order. "It just boggles my mind."
Dan
Given that you've provide absolutely ZERO evidence of this bold claim, I really can't take it seriously. Further, given your ignorance of how the US legal system works, my ability to take you seriously just dropped even further.
1. You specifically claims that this has been decided "repeatedly". One case isn't repeatedly.
2. In 1857 SCOTUS ruled in Dred Scott that enslaved people were not citizens of the US. This decision was overturned.
3. Again, your ignorance about how the government/legal system work is staggering.
4. Laws and SCOTUS decisions are not ever set in stone and are always subject to being overturned.
Over the years we've regularly seen states and other entities pass laws with the stated intent to overturn a particular SCOTUS decision. Particularly with regards to Roe v. Wade. It's my opinion that Trump promulgated the EO with the intention of litigating this matter in 2025 and beyond, not in 1898. You may be unaware that things have changed since 1898, and sometimes laws and court decisions have to change to fit current circumstances.
I know it must be difficult trying to be so definitive about an area in which you are pretty ignorant.
FYI, one opinion piece from one left leaning group named after one of the most liberal judges in the history of SCOTUS is hardly definitive proof.
Your inability to understand how the legal system works is mind boggling given the adamant claims you make about it. This judge temporarily blocked the EO pending an actual trial. His opinion is not an official legal judgement as he has not actually heard a case presented to him. It's his personal opinion which has no legal standing. Again, this is the first step in a long process.
Craig:
1. You specifically claims that this has been decided "repeatedly". One case isn't repeatedly.
Sorry, that should have said it has been DEFINITIVELY decided. The SCOTUS doesn't often review cases where the matter has been settled unless there is some basic reason to do so (as in the clear harm and human rights atrocity of the Dred Scott decision). THIS basic human right question is NOT the Dred Scott decision.
More:
The first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment — one of a trio of post-Civil War “Reconstruction Amendments” to the Constitution — is clear: “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.”
This provision, known as the Citizenship Clause, grants automatic citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., regardless of the citizenship status of their parents.
Three decades after its adoption in 1868, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the 14th Amendment’s promise of birthright citizenship in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.
Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese parents living in the U.S. His parents were not U.S. citizens and returned to China in 1890. After a trip to China to visit his parents in 1895, Wong Kim Ark was denied re-entry into the United States and told he was not a U.S. citizen.
In 1898, the SUPREME COURT ruled that he was, in fact, a U.S. citizen under the “clear words and manifest intent” of the 14th Amendment.
“Citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution,” the majority wrote. “Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.”
The court also clarified who is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States: “Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.” The only exceptions, the court ruled, were foreign nationals in the U.S. in a diplomatic capacity, and those born to non-citizens in U.S. territories under hostile control.
https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/ag-brown-challenges-unconstitutional-order-birthright-citizenship
Why do you all fight SO VERY HARD against decent hard-working fellow humans who merely are trying to make their living in a safe place of their own choice AND when they have children, expect their children to be citizens of that nation according to settled law?
You're on the wrong side of justice and decency (and Christianity, for what it's worth) on this one, my friend.
I'm curious: Do you recognize that there is NO biblical case to try to keep immigrants away from a safe nation and that, indeed, the entirety of the various biblical authors repeatedly make the case that we should welcome the stranger/immigrant? Not only is it demanded that we just leave them alone and let them be.... no. There are teachings throughout the entirety of the text of the biblical stories saying go BEYOND merely leaving them alone. We're too welcome them.
"Sorry, that should have said it has been DEFINITIVELY decided. "
Except no SCOTUS case is ever "definitively" decided. FYI, I don't believe that you accidentally said "repeatedly" when you meant "definitively".
I've read the relevant portions of the Ark case, but thanks for your expert legal analysis and copy/paste skills. Outstanding.
"Why do you all fight SO VERY HARD against decent hard-working fellow humans who merely are trying to make their living in a safe place of their own choice AND when they have children, expect their children to be citizens of that nation according to settled law?"
I'm not fighting against your made up version of my position, because it's made up bullshit. Again, there is no SCOTUS opinion that is exempt from being overturned. Especially in light of the changed situation between 1898 and 2025.
"You're on the wrong side of justice and decency (and Christianity, for what it's worth) on this one, my friend."
One of Dan's greatest hits. His "I'm on the right side of X, and you're not." bullshit. Unless you can definitively prove that a "right side" objectively exists, you're bullshit is just one more thing to ignore.
"I'm curious: Do you recognize that there is NO biblical case to try to keep immigrants away from a safe nation and that, indeed, the entirety of the various biblical authors repeatedly make the case that we should welcome the stranger/immigrant? Not only is it demanded that we just leave them alone and let them be.... no. There are teachings throughout the entirety of the text of the biblical stories saying go BEYOND merely leaving them alone. We're too welcome them."
Do you realize that I'm not arguing your made up bullshit? Do you realize that when you lie about my positions, it makes you what you bitch about? Do you realize that the US isn't a theocracy and doesn't make laws based on your guesses about a cherry picked Bible passage?
I am impressed by your repeated insistence of ignoring what's happening in Europe and how those events might be instructive for those of us in the US. But, of course, you've talked to a few immigrants independently verified their stories, and feel qualified to extrapolate your tiny sample size across tens of millions of immigrants from across the globe.
I haven't asked you many questions, because I know that there is little chance that I'll get an answer. So here's one.
A woman from south of the US border is pregnant, she waits until her contractions start, crosses the border, has the baby at US taxpayer expense, takes the baby and the birth certificate back across the US border. 18 years later the child, who's never set foot in the US shows up at the border and announces that they are a citizen. Is this sort of thing in alignment with the letter or spirit of US immigration law or with the Biblical admonition against theft?
Ultimately the fundamental problem with your entire premise is that the US is the only country obligated to accept any and all immigrants, with no real plan to help them fix their countries of origin.
One other question.
If a "refugee" applies for asylum based on their lack of safety or potential of harm in their country of origin, would them returning to that country for a vacation be prima facie evidence that they are able to return to their country without danger?
To address/answer your questions...
"A woman from south of the US border is pregnant, she waits until her contractions start, crosses the border, has the baby at US taxpayer expense, takes the baby and the birth certificate back across the US border..."
So, there is a pregnant fellow human... a beloved child of God Almighty, who is pregnant and nearly ready to give birth... what should she do..? What should we encourage her to do, if we are the sort of decent people who love other people... even poor strangers?
Well, of course, decent people would want to see her get the help she needs to safely deliver that beloved by God little baby. Agreed? I mean that's sort of an obvious answer.
If there is an unsafe hospital where she is (or, NO hospital), then if at all possible, she should get herself to safe, healthy medical services.
Agreed?
And if the choice she makes as a human with the God-given right of self-determination is to go to a US hospital, then, yay, she helped birth a beautiful child. And, by the established law of the land, that baby is a citizen of the US and, presumably of Mexico.
We on the same page so far?
Dan
Craig...
"has the baby at US taxpayer expense, takes the baby and the birth certificate back across the US border. 18 years later the child, who's never set foot in the US shows up at the border and announces that they are a citizen. Is this sort of thing in alignment with the letter or spirit of US immigration law or with the Biblical admonition against theft?"
Yes. As long as nations make rules that protect the category of "citizen," providing benefits to citizens that are denied to other humans, that's an important designation. Many nations have created laws that designate babies born in their nation as citizens and it seems reasonable and, as noted, IS the law in our constitution.
What is wrong with that baby-turned-teenager being granted citizenship rights?
Where is the harm in it?
Dan
Dan's right, so long as the legal and constitutional scholars agree with him. Not all do and it's not proved that most of them do. Dan just ignores those who argue against the fraudulent birthright citizenship position as perverts like Dan interpret it.
"Reagan appointed" has no value. That is, Reagan appointing the guy doesn't guarantee he's going to get every ruling right.
I would also add that it a president EO which better aligns with the original intent of the Constitution would therefore be constitutional. But as Craig suggests, the main idea may be to get the issue in front of the Supremes to get it right. Given the fact of the original intent of the 14th, as Craig's link clearly presents, it seems the 1898 ruling was the unconstitutional position.
It's so amazing how far you will go to posit some fanciful narrative in order to ignore the fact that what we're talking about is intentionally taking advantage of the US system solely for the purpose of getting a US birth certificate for their child.
Well, if this woman passes by multiple hospitals in Mexico (for example) just so she can give birth on the taxpayers dime in the US, get citizenship for her kid, and goes back to wherever for 18 years then it's a simple case of fraud or theft. She should go to the closest hospital and give birth, not travel hundreds or thousands of mile late term and risk harm.
It's hilarious that your contention is that there are no safe hospitals between the US southern border and Central America. We should encourage her to give birth without undergoing an arduous journey solely for the purpose of defrauding or engaging in theft.
No, that's not the obvious answer at all.
No, there are safe hospitals in Mexico. Mexican hospitals and midwives manage to deliver almost 2,000,000 children per year. To try to pretend that this "birth tourism" is about a lack of "safe" hospitals in Mexico or elsewhere, is stupid.
Excellent, you've just endorsed the theft of the time and resources of the US hospital, and a fraud committed against the state and the US. You are literally justifying women traveling past safe hospitals that deliver around 2,000,000 per year in a country that provides "public" (free, taxpayer funded, socialized medicine) for it's citizens, taking the extreme risk of traveling late in the term of pregnancy, risking death or injury, for the sole purpose of getting a US birth certificate for her child.
But hey, you sort of answered one question. That's better than usual.
It's a cynical manipulation of the system which requires theft and fraud on the part of the mother. If Mexico (or wherever) is safe enough to raise the kid for 18 years, then stop the "it's not safe" bullshit.
I get it, you're willing to justify pretty much anything so y'all can keep a permanent underclass to frame your houses and pick your vegetables as long as they vote the way you want.
I can't imagine that anyone thought this could be solved by an EO. The only possible conclusion is that the goal is to get it through the court system and get a ruling based on conditions in 2025, not 1898.
Of course, nothing in the US has changed since 1898, right?
I accused Dan of regarding all migrants as little innocent angels and here he is speaking of a pregnant illegal as a "fellow human...a beloved child of God Almighty"...something Scripture describes as a person who believes in and obeys the commandments of God, but whatever. The point is that he's doing what he says I'm wrong to identify as his intentional way...to deify the migrant (much as he does Jimmy Carter and all others who tickle his fancy).
But this goes to an earlier comment of mine, wherein I referred to the practice as a fraud upon our nation. To wait until the heifer's about to drop, cross the border by whatever means just to be able to exploit the false citizenship status of the child later is indeed a fraud. What of all the thousands of other beloved children of God Almighty who just stay put and have their children in the place of their home country?
Now if an alien woman has need of our medical resources to deliver a child her own has no ability to do successfully because the pregnancy is difficult and her own medical facilities are lacking (as if there aren't better facilities elsewhere in her own country), that doesn't mean citizenship must be bestowed (or justly is) by virtue of the fact the kid's born here. And in this scenario, the mother might not even be concerned about such a thing, but only to have the child successfully delivered before returning home with a healthy child.
But in any case, there's no "established law of the land" so much as a perversion of it, and Dan, being a pervert, is more than happy to pervert whatever he may find pleasing to himself to do so, and f**k what best serves the people of the United States. We don't matter.
"Many nations have created laws that designate babies born in their nation as citizens and it seems reasonable and, as noted, IS the law in our constitution."
Perhaps. But do they have the same law as written and ratified as the 14th, which rightly interpreted according to its authors does NOT confer citizenship to any foreigner who happens to give birth while here. And given that's how it's explained by its authors, how much more unlikely is it to suggest the those who enter illegally are worthy of their infants having citizenship bestowed upon them simply for the birth taking place on our soil?
I insist that even if the 14th's authors made allowances for ANY foreigners, it's wholly unlikely they'd abide illegals abusing the law for this purpose, but also that as one can abuse the law by simply taking a vacation here when the birth is most likely, they had absolutely no intention that should be allowed. It's absurd how the left has abused this amendment, but they abuse the Constitution whenever it best serves them to do so. It's how they roll and damn the consequences.
I've been doing a lot of "research" on this birthright citizenship issue, and there's plenty of constitutional scholars who argue against the leftist interpretation of the 14th in very compelling ways. I'm deciding on whether to post what I've found here, or do a post of my own specific to the issue.
I suspect that his "fellow human" comment is more about his belief that one doesn't need to be a woman to give birth.
I think it's hard to compare between 1898 and now. Back then they didn't have people who literally crossed the border for the day or two necessary to get a birth certificate for their kid. Back then the US needed immigrants, and immigrants planned to assimilate, now that's not the case.
I agree that manipulating or abusing the law was likely not something the authors or those who passed it, even considered. Personally, I'd be pretty happy if it was possible to end the abuse, or get more immigrants through the legal process. Acknowledging that running more people through, probably means more people who don't get approved.
Like any legal issue that hasn't been litigated since 1898, it's likely that there are plenty of arguments on both sides of the issue. This is why I believe that litigating this, based on conditions in 2025, is the best possible option. Obviously, it's possible that the decision might not be what I think it should, and that's the risk that you take. It's also possible that there is some sort of compromise that deals with the fraud and abuse, while maintaining some form of birthright citizenship, for those that are serious abut immigrating and assimilating. Go for a post if you'd like. It'll probably be worthwhile.
I just read the link from Michael Anton and thought it excellent. I have one problem, and it's the notion of there's some actual stripping of citizenship of those who are already here because their non-citizen mothers happened to have been here when they were born. By all the arguments and accurate, intelligent, honest interpretation of the original intent of the 14th, there's no citizenship to strip, since those born here of non-citizens are clearly not citizens. It would be too bad if any of them were sent back with their parents, unable to speak the language of their parents or feel comfortable in the culture of their parents' home nations. But whose fault is that?
But if we were to allow these anchor babies citizenship they don't actually have, it must be without the parents ever being able to gain citizenship, specifically those who came here with the intent to exploit the perverted interpretation of the 14th for their benefit. They should not profit by their chicanery. As to those who were born because their parents just happened to be here at the time, with no such intention of doing so for the purpose of ensuring their offspring will have citizenship, there's no real problem insisting the kids aren't citizens.
As to my post, as much as I feel much more properly educated on the truth of the issue, my zeal in doing such a post has waned, and it's not at all likely that progressives would be altered in their thinking by being exposed to the truth. They don't operate that way. We'll see. I'm not yet sure if I will or won't.
Personally, I'd want to look carefully at children of illegal aliens who were born here. I'd suggest that living here from birth, where the parents are employed and paying taxes might qualify as under the jurisdiction of the US and therefore qualify for citizenship. But I also place a pretty high value on assimilation, so that might sway my opinion. In any case, I'd argue that those people would be low on the list in terms of priority. I'd agree that regardless of the status of the children, that the parents should not ever qualify for citizenship.
Probably not, but it'd save others of us the work.
I'll post the exact piece elsewhere, but hypothetically if I'm traveling in China and my wife gives birth there, is there ever any thought that the child would be a Chinese citizen? I'd guess that there is a reasonably large number of non citizens who give birth in the US, who have no intention of their child being a US citizen.
Post a Comment