Coulter on birthright citizenship

[Hawkmoon]

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2018-10-31.html

TL;DR version -- it doesn't exist

Long version: I am in love with Ann Coulter. She's not only an attorney, she's an intelligent attorney. This exposition of the real story on birth and citizenship spells it out in words so simple that even a Democrat should be able to understand it  (but won't, of course, because Ann Coulter wrote it).

[dogmush]

As Ms. Coulter notes, SCOTUS has already determined that a child of two foreigners, born in the US, is a US citizen.

Whether that applies to folks in the country illegally hasn't been ruled on, but given that we HAVE ruled on jus soli, and we often hold that illegals are subject to US law, I suspect the court will find that the babies in question are indeed subject to US jurisdiction.

This is IMNSHO a losing issue.  Just send the little citizens back with their parents and tell them to return, alone,  when they are 18 if they wish.

[zxcvbob]

Just send the little citizens back with their parents and tell them to return, alone,  when they are 18 if they wish.

That, I think, is the right answer.  I don't see any way for .gov to get there, though.

[Hawkmoon]

As Ms. Coulter notes, SCOTUS has already determined that a child of two foreigners, born in the US, is a US citizen.

Ms. Coulter did not say that.

No Supreme Court has ever held that children born to illegal aliens are citizens. No Congress has deliberated and decided to grant that right. It's a made-up right, grounded only in the smoke and mirrors around Justice Brennan's 1982 footnote.

[Ron]

As Ms. Coulter notes, SCOTUS has already determined that a child of two foreigners, born in the US, is a US citizen.

Whether that applies to folks in the country illegally hasn't been ruled on, but given that we HAVE ruled on jus soli, and we often hold that illegals are subject to US law, I suspect the court will find that the babies in question are indeed subject to US jurisdiction.

This is IMNSHO a losing issue.  Just send the little citizens back with their parents and tell them to return, alone,  when they are 18 if they wish.

Trump was elected by and large on the illegal immigrants issue.

If the SC hears a case on this issue it may very well rule that birthright citizenship only applies to parents who are citizens or legal immigrants.

Ann layed it out well and the guy who wrote the amendment has explained its intent.

Should be a win with an originalist court.

If you want to end bad behavior stop rewarding it.

[DittoHead]

No Congress has deliberated and decided to grant that right

They kind of did though

the legal landscape is not limited to the 14th Amendment. Congress has enacted a statute, Section 1401 of the immigration and naturalization laws (Title 8, U.S. Code). In pertinent part, it appears merely to codify in statutory law what the 14th Amendment says: included among U.S. citizens is any “person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” But that means the issue is not just what jurisdiction was understood to mean in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was adopted, but what it meant in 1952, when the statute defining U.S. citizenship was enacted (it has been amended several times since then).

Secondly, even assuming the meaning was the same, Congress’s codification of the 14th Amendment — which it did not need to do — is a strong expression of Congress’s intent to exercise its constitutional authority to set the terms of citizenship.

the president may not unilaterally change an understanding of the law that has been in effect for decades under a duly enacted federal law. Presumably, if Congress did not believe conferring birthright citizenship was consistent with Section 1401, it would have amended the statute.

[Ron]

Not being a lawyer, I ask, if you are born to two Mexican citizens while in the USA you are a Mexican citizen subject to Mexico’s jurisdiction, correct?

Birthright citizenship is insane. If it is the law it needs to be changed. Or we need a huge big beautiful wall with a big door where we only let in people we choose.

[dogmush]

Ms. Coulter did not say that.

She did, she just handwaved it away and hoped you didn't notice.

Whether the children born to legal immigrants are citizens is controversial enough. But at least there's a Supreme Court decision claiming that they are -- U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. That's "birthright citizenship."

US vs. Wong Kim Ark, 1898 held that:

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

That is, on it's face, pretty clear.  It's worth reading the decision, because it mentions in there that even though the framers of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments obviously had freed slaves in mind (Ms. Coulter's argument) that those amendments apply to other races as well.

 I agree that it's not cut and dried, as Mr. Wong's parents were in San Francisco legally, but that part I quoted above does not mention immigration status.  It just says "permanent domicile", something that describes quite a few illegal immigrants.

There's probably room here for Congress to change the legislation and it to hit SCOTUS to for clarity, but pretending that the President can do it, legally, with an EO is a pipe dream.