Constitution doesn’t mandate birthright citizenship

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Aug 18, 2015.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780
    Parts of Donald Trump’s immigration plan may raise serious constitutional questions, but the part that launched a media firestorm—ending birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens—does not.

    The Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment does not confer citizenship on the children of foreigners, whether legal or illegal.

    Media commentators have gotten this issue dead wrong. Fox News’s Judge Andrew Napolitano says the Fourteenth Amendment is “very clear” that its Citizenship Clause commands that any child born in America is automatically an American citizen.

    That’s not the law. It has never been the law.

    Under current immigration law—found at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)—a baby born on American soil to a (1) foreign ambassador, (2) head of state, or (3) foreign military prisoner is not an American citizen.

    How is that possible? This is from the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (INA), as it has been amended over the years. Is this federal law unconstitutional?

    No. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides: “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.” Today’s debate turns on the six words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

    As captured in the movie Lincoln, the Thirteenth Amendment—which ended slavery—barely passed Congress because many Democrats supported slavery, and it was only through the political genius and resolve of Republican President Abraham Lincoln that the proposed amendment passed Congress in 1865, sending it to the states for ratification.

    In 1866, Congress passed a Civil Rights Act to guarantee black Americans their constitutional rights as citizens, claiming that the Constitution’s Thirteenth Amendment gave Congress the power to pass such laws. But many voted against the Civil Rights Act because they thought it exceeded Congress’s powers, and even many of its supporters doubted its legality.

    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.

    Media confusion on this issue is puzzling, because the greatest legal minds in this country have discussed the issue. (Just none of them were put on camera to explain it.) Scholars including Dr. John Eastman of Chapman University, and even Attorney General Edwin Meese—the godfather of constitutional conservatism in the law—reject the myth of birthright citizenship....

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...enship/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
     
  2. DMorgan

    DMorgan
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2014
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    9
    If Trump could win the Presidency, which he will not, this would be a fascinating arguement to watch work its way through the judicial process. Unfortunately the courts are so heavily politicized that getting a fair ruling is just about impossible.
    Personally, i think the automatic citizenship by birth is rediculous.
     
  3. church mouse guy

    church mouse guy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2002
    Messages:
    10,988
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trump is starting to look like a serious candidate since the other Republicans seem to be owned by the Democrat Party.
     
  4. Reformed

    Reformed
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    1,227
    Likes Received:
    57
    I am for strong immigration laws. I am for deporting illegal immigrants back to their country of origin and penalizing them from coming back to the United States. I am for securing the border and empowering our border agents so that they are well-staffed and able to do their job. But as a Christian I am not as black and white as some on the children of illegal immigrants. A child born in this country to illegal immigrants is not a one-sized-fits-all problem. An argument can be made that children while in infancy are more easily sent to their parent's country of origin since the child is not adapted to life in the United States. But what if the child is 10, 11, or 12 years old? What if the child is a teenager? Is it moral to deport a child who has only known this country? I know this seems to defend the "anchor baby" position, but not really. I could see infants and toddlers being deported along with their families, but children in their teens?
     
  5. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,458
    Likes Received:
    136
    If their parents are here illegally, that should be more than enough to squash their claim to birth rights. Their parents are invading enemies and invaders have no rights.
     
  6. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,502
    Likes Received:
    40
    IMHO, there will never be a law that is on the plus side for everybody; there are always some that it will hurt, so the goal is to minimize the downside as much as possible.
    One of the biggest problems today (IMHO) is the liberal tendency to try to "save" the few by some asinine law that ends up hurting a vast majority but helps the few!
     
  7. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    157
    Rev and his post is wrong. The Supreme Court has said they are legal. You will have to repel the 14th Amendment to make them illegal.

    And what other groups do you want to include in not receiving citizenship Rev.?

     
    #7 Crabtownboy, Aug 19, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 19, 2015
  8. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,083
    Likes Received:
    218
    Not necessarily - Congress could pass a law -then....


    What groups did you have in mind Crab?
     
  9. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    157
    Would not work Salty, not a simple law change. It would take the repel of the 14th Amendment and that would be very difficult, if not impossible.




    I have none in mind Salty. But if one group can be excluded then any other group, say SBC'ers, or Muslims, or Hindus, or people with freckles could be excluded from citizenship. Once the camel gets its nose in the tent ... well you know the rest of the saying.
     
  10. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,083
    Likes Received:
    218
  11. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780
    It is best to read the op before posting.
     
  12. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    The GOP isn't planning on winning any national elections any time soon.

    Black voters won't go near the GOP because of that racist representing rebel flag that so many GOP'ers support.

    Now the Hispanic bloc isn't gonna go anywhere near the GOP because of this buffoonery of repealing the 14th amendment and striking out at babies being born in the US to illegal parents.

    Does the GOP ever do anything to help anybody other than itself and those who support it??
     
  13. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    157
    United States v. Wong Kim Ark

    Well Salty, the Supreme Court disagrees with you and the link you posted to as is clearly shown in their decision concerning Wong Kim Ark.


     
  14. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780
    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/birthright-citizenship-not-mandated-by-constitution
     
  15. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    Just astonished that so many in the GOP are for this. Shameful.
     
    #15 Zaac, Aug 19, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 19, 2015
  16. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    157
    Congress can give citizenship as long as it abides by the 14th Amendment. However Congress cannot take away citizenship without repelling the 14th Amendment.

    Rev. and others response shows that while they will fight for the illegal alien child to be born they care nothing about its life once born and would see that child returned to a possible very hostile country that would not recognize the child as a citizen. You will loudly denounce abortion, but then turn around and push for laws that could well cost the child its life.

    Snip

    I oppose abortion and am in favor of helping the living.

     
    #16 Crabtownboy, Aug 19, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 19, 2015
  17. Zaac

    Zaac
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    13,757
    Likes Received:
    220
    Does seem to be a consistent GOP position. This is another Illustration for why Christians shouldn't be so closely affiliated with these political parties.
     
    #17 Zaac, Aug 19, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 19, 2015
  18. Lewis

    Lewis
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    50
    Just FYI, the following developed nations do not allow birthright citizenship:



    Australia
    Austria
    Belgium
    Bermuda
    Cyprus
    Czech Republic
    Denmark
    Faroe Islands
    Finland
    France
    Germany
    Greece
    Hong Kong
    Iceland
    Ireland
    Israel
    Italy
    Japan
    Liechtenstein
    Luxembourg
    Malta
    Monaco
    Netherlands
    New Zealand
    Norway
    Portugal
    San Marino
    Singapore
    Slovakia
    Slovenia
    South Korea
    Spain
    Sweden
    Switzerland
    Taiwan
    United Kingdom
     
  19. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    157
    And those countries have nothing to do with our Constitution!

     
  20. Lewis

    Lewis
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2013
    Messages:
    590
    Likes Received:
    50
    The following have repealed birthright citizenship in recent years. I fail to see how they have behaved "shamefully" in doing so.

    Australia (2007)
    New Zealand (2005)
    Ireland (2005)
    France (1993)
    India (1987)
    Malta (1989)
    UK (1983)
    Portugal
     

Share This Page

Loading...