Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Scout26 on August 24, 2015, 07:13:36 PM
-
We already know where the D's stand.
http://townhall.com/columnists/katiekieffer/2015/08/24/16-grades-for-16-candidates-anchor-babies-n2042261/page/2
-
Out of curiosity, how does one twist
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
Into:
Congress simply needs to address this loophole in our federal immigration law.
?
Genuinely curious. That portion of the amendment seems pretty straight forward. Or is citizenship more of a collective right?
That said, I've never understood why the babies citizenship means the parents get to stay. Plenty of American couples are looking to adopt.
-
http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/19/no-the-14th-amendment-doesnt-guarantee-birthright-citizenship/ Includes USSC cases that ruled against birthhright citizenship.
Meanwhile, here's how to win the election:
http://townhall.com/columnists/wayneallynroot/2015/08/24/the-great-8-plan-that-wins-presidency-for-donald-trump-n2042799/page/2
-
Coulter's article is funny for two reasons:
First, apparently she didn't realise that many Indians were not considered under the jurisdiction of the US at that time, as the tribes were recognised foreign nations.
Second, she rattled on about what was intended without even a mention of the civil rights act of 1866, which was the precursor to the 14th amendment.
Dogmush's plain text reading is the one that's always been applied and has been specifically endorsed in relation to children of immigrants. Maybe it's bad policy. But it's clearly and unambiguously the law.
-
Out of curiosity, how does one twist
Into:
?
Genuinely curious. That portion of the amendment seems pretty straight forward. Or is citizenship more of a collective right?
That said, I've never understood why the babies citizenship means the parents get to stay. Plenty of American couples are looking to adopt.
That's pretty much my take on it.
Sure, the baby is a US citizen and can stay but the parents are illegal aliens and have to leave. Two options: Option 1 -The baby stays and gets placed for adoption and the illegal alien parents go home. Option 2-The illegal alien parents go home, take the US citizen baby with them, when the US citizen baby reaches the age of maturity they may return.
-
Oh, goodie----another amendment to argue about. I was getting tired of debating the second amendment.
The 14th am. got tossed around ON THE O'REILLY FACTOR last week, with O claiming the 14th means the standard accepted modern "anchor babies" are citizens argument, Donald Trump said no, that is a misinterpretation. So Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, et al, swung into action.
So to clarify the issue I turn to my 600 page tome, HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION and look up the 14th amendment. Back then there was not the complicated,and apparently "broken," pile of laws regarding immigration. People simply came here, landed at Ellis Island, had their foreign names mangled into American names, and assuming they were healthy, welcome to America.
According to my massive tome, the 14th was not intended to cover the children of illegals simply because the laws were so different back then.
It mentions one 1898 case that SCOTUS decided about the 14th, but the parents of the person in question were not illegal aliens so it apparently does not apply to the particular anchor-baby question of today. A 1985 or 86 case seems to but apparently only in the dicta.
SCOTUS, apparently, has never really decided the issue conclusively.
However, the concept that babies born in America to illegal mothers are American citizens simply because it is commonly accepted. SCOTUS could change this by hearing a case specifically about this (apparently Trump wants this to happen), or congress could act and solve the problem.
-
I agree with Ann that the framers of the 14th weren't thinking of anchor babies. But mush like the 2nd does cover AR's (and should cover AT-4's ) it still works even though times have changed.
It also makes sense. Born here, you're a citizen. The anchor baby thing is a canard that people with an overabundance of feel have thrown up.
Real world example: I was born in Italy, of two US parents. I had, for the early part of my life, dual citizenship. US from my parents and Italian because I was born there. Had my parents gone to the Italian government and claimed that because I was a citizen, they must be allowed to stay and work there they would have been laughed to the airport. When I was 18 I could, if I chose, have gone back and picked up my Italian citizenship. But my parents get no special privileges because of it.
That's how the US should handle Anchor babies. "Look mom and dad, the kids a citizen. Two choices, you give them up, and he stays here to be raised by whomever we fi d, or you can take him with you on deportation, and in 18 years he can come over, try and find a job, and whatnot. Teach him English if that's the plan."
How is this complicated?
ETA: cross posted with Larry.
Also, I would be in favor of getting rid of whatever we call the law that means if one is a citizen you can bring the whole familia over easily. Spouse, kids. That's it. Granny starves in mexico. So in 18 years, when Jr. Comes back home the parents can visit on tourist visa's, but then go the heck home.
-
I agree with Ann that the framers of the 14th weren't thinking of anchor babies. But mush like the 2nd does cover AR's (and should cover AT-4's ) it still works even though times have changed.
It also makes sense. Born here, you're a citizen...
Real world example: I was born in Italy, of two US parents. I had, for the early part of my life, dual citizenship. US from my parents and Italian because I was born there. Had my parents gone to the Italian government and claimed that because I was a citizen, they must be allowed to stay and work there they would have been laughed to the airport. When I was 18 I could, if I chose, have gone back and picked up my Italian citizenship. But my parents get no special privileges because of it.
That's how the US should handle Anchor babies. "Look mom and dad, the kids a citizen. Two choices, you give them up, and he stays here to be raised by whomever we fi d, or you can take him with you on deportation, and in 18 years he can come over, try and find a job, and whatnot. Teach him English if that's the plan."
How is this complicated?
Could you explain why citizenship based on place of birth is so allegedly intuitive? In your case, you held citizenship based on your parents' citizenship, and on the place of your birth. The first is intuitive to me, but the second is not. Not that I'm saying it's completely unreasonable, it just doesn't strike me as obvious. To me, it makes sense that my children would hold whatever citizenship I do, much as they would share my name, and be considered part of my family. (Obviously, if the mother is a citizen of Someotherplaceistan, that may complicate matters.)
Citizenship by birthplace seems a little odd, as citizenship is quite a boon and quite a responsibility to give to someone, just based on their mother having been stuck in some obscure German railway station between Mother's family home in Paris and Dad's house in Moscow; or because Mom delivered a tad early, while on holiday overseas.
-
Fistful -
I do not think citizenship is intuitive at all.
Down through history there were "qualifiers" to citizenship, which often went hand in hand with suffrage and eligibility for "welfare" (mostly pensions following government service or for loss of employability due to wounds received in government service). IIRC the Founders kicked around real estate ownership as a qualifier for both citizenship and suffrage - mostly because at the time everybody living in the Confederation of States was either a British subject with a (theoretical) price still on their head, an Indian, or a citizen of some other country than England.
In very basic terms, the 14th A was a compromise on how to turn some slaves and some emancipated former slaves (and some manumitted ex-slaves) into something other than a category best described as a pile of no-longer-slaves. And remember there were a number of emancipated former slaves who were not born in this country. Some of the Jim Crow history includes using the records/ledgers of former slave owners to identify those who were nit covered by the 14th A.
stay safe.
-
The operative phrase that DeSelby misses is
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
. Which means that as foreign nationals you allegiance is to your country of citizenship, not to the one you simply happen to be present in.
If birthright citizenship was de facto, then there would not have had to have been the the 1924 American Indian Citizenship Act. And the only jurisprudence on the issue is contrary to what is currently believed. Congress writing and passing a law is all that is needed to clarify the language of the 14th.
-
IIRC the Founders kicked around real estate ownership as a qualifier for both citizenship and suffrage - mostly because at the time everybody living in the Confederation of States was either a British subject with a (theoretical) price still on their head, an Indian, or a citizen of some other country than England.
Actually, property (either in land or in other assets) as a condition of suffrage was an old custom that died off before, during, and after the struggle for Independence. It was not, as many seem to believe, a principle laid down by the Founders.
Edit: Changed and to or in the parenthesis.
-
Just said they kicked the idea around. But not just as a condition of suffrage.
stay safe.
-
The operative phrase that DeSelby misses is . Which means that as foreign nationals you allegiance is to your country of citizenship, not to the one you simply happen to be present in.
If birthright citizenship was de facto, then there would not have had to have been the the 1924 American Indian Citizenship Act. And the only jurisprudence on the issue is contrary to what is currently believed. Congress writing and passing a law is all that is needed to clarify the language of the 14th.
Foreigners in the US are most definitely subject to its jurisdiction - unless they are diplomats, or invading armies. The phrase does not mean "whoever you swore allegiance to".
I covered Indians above. They were always recognised as foreign nations, and tribal land has always had ambiguous legal status (ie, not entirely true to call it United States land). That's why there was an Indian citizenship act - in 1868 and at no time since have tribes, or tribal land been clearly part of the United States. The relationship between tribes and the U.S. Has always been a patchwork of treaties creating jurisdictional questions.
In short, Coulter's article is almost entirely uninformed.
-
Just said they kicked the idea around. But not just as a condition of suffrage.
stay safe.
Oh, yeah, I guess you did. You may be right, for all I know. I dis-remember.
-
Coulter's article is funny for two reasons:
First, apparently she didn't realise that many Indians were not considered under the jurisdiction of the US at that time, as the tribes were recognised foreign nations.
Second, she rattled on about what was intended without even a mention of the civil rights act of 1866, which was the precursor to the 14th amendment.
Dogmush's plain text reading is the one that's always been applied and has been specifically endorsed in relation to children of immigrants. Maybe it's bad policy. But it's clearly and unambiguously the law.
And I will be damned I'm in complete agreement
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
Out of curiosity, how does one twist
Into:
?
Genuinely curious. That portion of the amendment seems pretty straight forward. Or is citizenship more of a collective right?
That said, I've never understood why the babies citizenship means the parents get to stay. Plenty of American couples are looking to adopt.
"And subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is the key phrase. A baby born to a family here on vacation is no more a citizen than one born to a woman who is here illegally. The 14th amendment has been twisted and abused for way too long.
Repealing it would be the best way to just be done with this.
-
"And subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is the key phrase. A baby born to a family here on vacation is no more a citizen than one born to a woman who is here illegally. The 14th amendment has been twisted and abused for way too long.
Repealing it would be the best way to just be done with this.
No need for an amendment. A law passed by Congress and signed by POTUS is sufficient.
Who would have thought that the post-Civil War Amendments were enacted to deal with the particular circumstances pertaining to that war?
Hell, the way American Indians finally gained citizenship clearly demonstrates:
1. 14th applied only to former slaves.
2. That it can be remedied by the usual law-making process.
-
Amendment 14
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.
If you're born in the US, you're a US citizen. Period. I'm not sure why this is in dispute. There's nothing in the section whatsoever about parents, immigration status or anything else. That said, that section also gives zero citizenship to persons not born in the US. So, yes, the kid is a US citizen if born in the US. Like pretty much everyone else said, the kid has an option to stay even if the parents are deported. Same is applicable for the kid of anyone vacationing here. I'm not sure what the law would say if a kid was born on an aircraft passing over the United States, but I imagine that'd be applicable too. The "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause is pretty obviously referring to any parts of the US where the US actually is in charge. I imagine that could be a sticky point for native reservations or some of our overseas possessions. I'm guessing that clause was more applicable while we were still moving westward.
There is no loophole or abuse. The amendment says what it says in clear English. Can anyone point out to me how exactly it cannot mean what it says?
-
Amendment 14
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.
If you're born in the US, you're a US citizen. Period. I'm not sure why this is in dispute.
Not "period."
:facepalm:
Disputes are caused when various people disagree with some supposed point of fact.
There's nothing in the section whatsoever about parents, immigration status or anything else.
:police: That's because when the 14th was ratified and adopted as an amendment, our immigration laws were not nearly as complicated as they are today. As I pointed out in my first post in this thread:
Back then there was not the complicated,and apparently "broken," pile of laws regarding immigration. People simply came here, landed at Ellis Island, had their foreign names mangled into American names, and assuming they were healthy, welcome to America.
It wasn't until the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) where Justice Horace Grey writing for the 5/4 majority agreed with a view held by Blackstone (Sir William Blackstone, author of Commentaries on the Laws of England,) that held that a child of Ark and his wife, who were subjects of the Emporer of China, but who had a permanent domicile in America and were doing business here (they were not here illegally) was an American Citizen. They were not diplomats or carrying on carrying on any diplomatic functions, which would have been a big factor in the decision.
According to The Heritage Guide to the Constition, courts after the Wong Kim Ark case simply assumed that any child born in America is an American citizen.
To quote from the afore-mentioned book;
"INS v. Rios-Pineda(1985), dicta refering to the respondent and his wife. who illegally entered the U.S.. By the time of his deportation, 'respondent wife had given birth to a child. who born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.' However, there is also no clear case where the Supreme Court has explicitly held that birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens is the unambiguous command of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is hard to conclude that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to confer citizenship on the children of aliens illegally present when they explicitly denied that boon to Native Americans legally present but subject to a foreign jurisdiction."
That said, that section also gives zero citizenship to persons not born in the US. So, yes, the kid is a US citizen if born in the US. Like pretty much everyone else said, the kid has an option to stay even if the parents are deported. Same is applicable for the kid of anyone vacationing here. I'm not sure what the law would say if a kid was born on an aircraft passing over the United States, but I imagine that'd be applicable too. The "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause is pretty obviously referring to any parts of the US where the US actually is in charge. I imagine that could be a sticky point for native reservations or some of our overseas possessions. I'm guessing that clause was more applicable while we were still moving westward.
There is no loophole or abuse. The amendment says what it says in clear English. Can anyone point out to me how exactly it cannot mean what it says?
I think the above, while not "explicitly" contradicting what you said, does point out that the matter is not as simple as you seem to believe it is.
IMHO it comes down to this:
Should SCOTUS take up this question again, in a future case (as Donald Trump apprently desires) how does the court go about deciding the case? Does it determine it by going back to "original intent," which (apparently) means that anchor babies are not covered by the 14th. or does it go by the Ark case, in which the majority simply went along with Blackstone's assertion, or belief, that the child was an American citizen? Does the court follow the more modern assumption that seems to be the plurality opinion in today's existance, that the anchor baby is in fact an American citizen?
After what I regard as two botched SCOTUS decisions with regards to "Obamacare," I am not certain I would want to invest any $$$ in a gamble on what the court would do.
But I will provide a guess, based on the fact that I believe the court will revert to a political beast and simply apply what it regards to be the politically correct opinion (and in fact may be the real fact despite it being PC) that the court will decide that the "anchor baby" is in fact, an American citizen, and ignore original intent (to the degree it is possible to even determine what that was).
So why this post?
I am just pointing out it really is not as clear as some think. ;)
-
Foreigners in the US are most definitely subject to its jurisdiction - unless they are diplomats, or invading armies.
I agree - and 12,000,000 or so makes for quite an army.
-
So why this post?
I am just pointing out it really is not as clear as some think. ;)
Alright, fair enough. I'm a traditional fan of "it means what it says, nothing more or less" interpretation of the Constitution. I still support the plain English straightforward reading. But I swear, I do understand that this position is extremely unorthodox and usually very very very far from how the courts interpret the Constitution, let alone the amendments.
-
And I don't think it needs a USSC decision, simply a law passed by Congress and signed by the president.
-
And I don't think it needs a USSC decision, simply a law passed by Congress and signed by the president.
I'm very not fond of illegal immigration. I'm however even more leery of Congress stripping people of citizenship that IMHO have a good case for their rights. However it is decided, it should be given extremely high level of scrutiny as the US government has engaged in shenanigans on that front in the past.
-
Alright, fair enough. I'm a traditional fan of "it means what it says, nothing more or less" interpretation of the Constitution. I still support the plain English straightforward reading. But I swear, I do understand that this position is extremely unorthodox and usually very very very far from how the courts interpret the Constitution, let alone the amendments.
In strict construction terms, you are correct. I think the historical interpretation, however, demonstrates the flaw of simple, unambiguous language, which, while clearly understood at enactment, is altered over time. I see this as analogous to the parsing of the Second Amendment to build a collective interpretation. There was clearly dispute at the time concerning how broadly birthright citizenship should be applied. Thus, IMO, the issue warrants revisiting.
-
Alright, fair enough. I'm a traditional fan of "it means what it says, nothing more or less" interpretation of the Constitution. I still support the plain English straightforward reading. But I swear, I do understand that this position is extremely unorthodox and usually very very very far from how the courts interpret the Constitution, let alone the amendments.
Revdisc, I hope you don't think I was picking on you. I also a fan of "plain meaning of the word." I was only trying to point out that in the world of jurisprudence, things can get complicated by original intent, especially when new circumstances occur, as well as political and cultural changes.
:facepalm: It can become a minefield.
I prefer looking at the Constitution from the point of view of original intent. The problem in this case is we have the words of the author, which is fine, but perhaps not "final." We also have those court decisions which do establish precedence despite the fact that perhaps they were based on assumption that say anchor babies are citizens.
And we have the general consensus of numerous experts that agree with the argument that the wording of the amendment makes it clear that those babies are Americans.
But we have a hard time with original intent because in the 19th century the state of immigration law was such that there was no concept of "anchor babies." How do you address original intent without case law to really back up an alternate interpretation?.
I think the argument that anchor babies are not citizens may be an attractive one to many people on the right,but the argument was lost with the adoption of Blackstone's reasoning way back then.
-
No need for an amendment. A law passed by Congress and signed by POTUS is sufficient.
Who would have thought that the post-Civil War Amendments were enacted to deal with the particular circumstances pertaining to that war?
Hell, the way American Indians finally gained citizenship clearly demonstrates:
1. 14th applied only to former slaves.
2. That it can be remedied by the usual law-making process.
Indians had nothing to do with it - they retained and still do retain some status as foreign sovereigns, NOT subject to the jurisdiction of he United States.
The civil rights act of 1866 was meant to abolish all racial prejudice. It's language was clear and birthright citizenship for all was clearly anticipated.
-
.......The civil rights act of 1866 was meant to abolish all racial prejudice. ........
Someone actually thought a human-made law could accomplish that?? [popcorn]
-
Someone actually thought a human-made law could accomplish that?? [popcorn]
Lawyer hubris is not a new thing.
It's worth pointing out that while this is a neat discussion, in the actual world, it'd take a Constitutional Ammendment or a USSC ruling to end birthright citizenship. You guys know as well as I do that were Congress to just pass a law, the SJW's would have that thing in front of a shopped for Federal Judge for an injection before the CINC's signature was dry. It's only judicial activism if it's for the wrong side.
-
And I don't think it needs a USSC decision, simply a law passed by Congress and signed by the president.
But the 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution, and the Constitution is the highest law of the land. A law passed by the Congress cannot override a provision of the Constitution. Like it or not, the 14th says what it says -- anyone born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen.
Period.
No mention of anchor babies, or anchored parents. As has been proposed, deport the illegal parents, and they can choose to either leave the kid here for adoption, or take the kid back to their native country and he/she can come back -- alone -- when he/she grows up.
-
It's worth pointing out that while this is a neat discussion, in the actual world, it'd take a Constitutional Ammendment or a USSC ruling to end birthright citizenship. You guys know as well as I do that were Congress to just pass a law, the SJW's would have that thing in front of a shopped for Federal Judge for an injection before the CINC's signature was dry. It's only judicial activism if it's for the wrong side.
Uhm, yay? If you're stripping people of their citizenship, it bloody well should have the bar set very highly. Same with voting or any other fundamental right. Then again, I'm the kind of nutter that things the 2A means what it says as says. Even felons are not stripped of citizenship.
And Hawkmoon is correct. Congress doesn't, can't and shouldn't trump the Constitution. Just like an AR-15 didn't exist in the age of muskets, it doesn't change diddly. Anchor babies are to the Right is what EBRs are to the Left.
I wasn't just being polite when I said to TommyGunn that I agree that the situation is more nuanced than "the Constitution means what it says", but at the end of the day, American citizenship is the highest right in the world and should be given the highest protection under the law. The government should have a staggeringly overwhelming burden to strip or deny citizenship. This has already been established in court cases regarding dual citizenship. The courts basically found that unless a person renounces their citizenship, it's virtually impossible to strip them of citizenship. That said, we tax American citizens no matter where they live in the world. Accidental dual citizenship get very expensive in a hurry when you have to pay double taxes.
That said, any illegal immigrant parents of an anchor baby are given no such protection and they should not be given any such protection. Either the kid goes with the parent when they are deported, or they are given up for adoption. Violating a laundry list of federal and state felonies should be punished. Obviously, the kid committed none of them and deserves no punitive action. If a kid is born on a vacation or other legal visit to the US, uhm, pretty much the same minus the felonies. "Congrads, your kid has dual citizenship" is about it.
-
You mean the donald can't just write a check?
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
Rev, you and I agree I think. I also think it's pretty plain.
The article in the OP, and several folks on this thread have said that "All that needs to happen is for Congress to pass a Law". I was pointing out that even if I were wrong, that was probably a pipe dream.