Birthright Citizenship

[De Selby]

Sorry, DeSelby, the authorities are divided on this,  because .... they ARE divided.

It happens when authorities DISAGREE with each other.  It happens.  

Take the 2nd amendment.  To me, it's intent is 100% clear.   But experts --  er,  "experts"  have disagreed.

I've seen it happen.   It's happened on the 14th, too, like it or not.  It's what "subject to its jurisdiction" meant at the time .... versus two court decisions. And with regard to that quoted phrase,  what the authors intended, versus court decisions.

I'm not saying you're wrong .... I don't have a dog in the fight, just an ant.  

I would like to see one of these divided authorities

[dogmush]

I would like to see one of these divided authorities

So I just googled "14th amendment doesn't apply to illegals" and got:
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment  By a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/414064-kobach-many-people-under-misimpression-14th-amendment-commands  by the Kansas Secretary of State

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/08/30/14th-amendment-doesnt-make-illegal-aliens-children-citizens by the director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation *second one from the Heritage foundation, I know.

There's more, and I am not going to bother to dig too deeply, but there are at least a few people, with actual college issued credentials on the subject, that argue it doesn't apply to anchor babies.

[Ron]

Nobody argues the original purpose or original intent of the amendment was to circumvent the naturalization process of becoming a US citizen.

It wasn't even addressed when being debated iirc.

At best it was poorly thought out and birthright citizenship was an unintended consequence.

Children of a foreign national are obviously subjects of whatever nation their parents are citizens.

[Pb]

You seriously think no one arrived illegally by boat or land at that time??

Yes.  There was zero restrictions on immigration in the USA at that time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_immigration_laws

[MikeB]

I don’t particularly have an issue with birthright citizenship. I’ve always sort of viewed it like the lottery, if you are lucky enough to be born here you can be a citizen. Obviously it is being abused in this day and age. Whether people that come here specifically to have a kid or those that immigrate illegally and then have kids and use those kids to get benefits and stay here.

To me it seems there is an easy solution. When you are 18 you can come back and be a citizen, until then you are a ward of your parents and you have to go where they live and if it isn’t legally in the US then you all have to go. Then when the child is an adult they can make a decision to legally be a US citizen or not.

[De Selby]

So I just googled "14th amendment doesn't apply to illegals" and got:
https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment  By a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/414064-kobach-many-people-under-misimpression-14th-amendment-commands  by the Kansas Secretary of State

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/08/30/14th-amendment-doesnt-make-illegal-aliens-children-citizens by the director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation *second one from the Heritage foundation, I know.

There's more, and I am not going to bother to dig too deeply, but there are at least a few people, with actual college issued credentials on the subject, that argue it doesn't apply to anchor babies.

Yeah - notice what they have in common? None is an authoritative source on the law or the framing of the constitution.

[De Selby]

Nobody argues the original purpose or original intent of the amendment was to circumvent the naturalization process of becoming a US citizen.

It wasn't even addressed when being debated iirc.

At best it was poorly thought out and birthright citizenship was an unintended consequence.

Children of a foreign national are obviously subjects of whatever nation their parents are citizens.

Well what do you think the intent was? Slaves were brought to the US as chattel, not citizens. If the amendment wasn’t intended to make the children of those for legal purposes non-citizens into citizens then what did it do?

[Ron]

Attacking the source of the information is fallacious. It doesn't address the issue. Stay on point and lose with dignity.

Your rhetoric is weak and unpersuasive.

From one of the above links. Easily sourced information. The author of the provision himself excludes foreigners.

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." The author of the provision, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, pointed out that the jurisdiction language "will not, of course, include foreigners."

Birthright citizenship is a sham.

[De Selby]

Attacking the source of the information is fallacious. It doesn't address the issue. Stay on point and lose with dignity.

Your rhetoric is weak and unpersuasive.

From one of the above links. Easily sourced information. The author of the provision himself excludes foreigners.

Birthright citizenship is a sham.

You should read the actual records of the debate rather than a heritage foundation op ed: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=13

The people debating the amendment clearly understood that it applied to children of immigrants - some opposed, some supported. But to say they never considered it had this effect is false.

[dogmush]

You should read the actual records of the debate rather than a heritage foundation op ed: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=13

The people debating the amendment clearly understood that it applied to children of immigrants - some opposed, some supported. But to say they never considered it had this effect is false.

I don't think anyone doubts the bolded part.

There seems to be more question if it applied, for example, to a pair of English nobles here on vacation who happened to have a kid.  (tourist)  Or a group of female Mexicans running with some bandits in Texas that had a kid on a raid across the border (illegal).

As you pointed out that folks would come here and live permanently and have families while not being immigrants recognized by the State and Local govs, was not really a thing to the drafters of the 14th amendment, hence the division among authorities about how it applies to that situation.

Personally I think it means what it says (much like the other amendments) and anchor babies are citizens.  The fact that a new(ish) situation has evolved that the writers of the amendment didn't foresee doesn't mean we can ignore the pretty plain language.  The issue with immigration and anchor babies is manufactured by us anyway.  The answer is not to try to parse language on the amendment, but not to keep extra illegals here for the sake of one citizen. The minor citizen can stay, and be a ward of the state, or they can go with their parents and attempt to establish their identification and get a passport when they are 18.  Then they can come and go as they please.  The idea that parents and grandparents automatically get a pass to stay is the issue, not the citizenship of the anchor babies.

[Ron]

dogmush saw right through the deceitful conflating of immigrants with those visiting and those in the country illegally.

Edited to add, arguing that a nation has no choice in who they allow to become citizens is goofy.

Granting citizenship to the children of people who are here illegally is goofy as well as allowing birth tourism being goofy.

It makes a mockery of national sovereignty.

Another nation could just flood our country with their citizens in order to hopefully influence policy later down the line. And we can do nothing about that?

It's a very incoherent position.

[Pb]

You should read the actual records of the debate rather than a heritage foundation op ed: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=13

The people debating the amendment clearly understood that it applied to children of immigrants - some opposed, some supported. But to say they never considered it had this effect is false.

The children of legal immigrants... which is what all of them were at the time. 

Would they have applied this to hypothetical illegal immigrants?  We don't know.

[De Selby]

I don't think anyone doubts the bolded part.

There seems to be more question if it applied, for example, to a pair of English nobles here on vacation who happened to have a kid.  (tourist)  Or a group of female Mexicans running with some bandits in Texas that had a kid on a raid across the border (illegal).

As you pointed out that folks would come here and live permanently and have families while not being immigrants recognized by the State and Local govs, was not really a thing to the drafters of the 14th amendment, hence the division among authorities about how it applies to that situation.

Personally I think it means what it says (much like the other amendments) and anchor babies are citizens.  The fact that a new(ish) situation has evolved that the writers of the amendment didn't foresee doesn't mean we can ignore the pretty plain language.  The issue with immigration and anchor babies is manufactured by us anyway.  The answer is not to try to parse language on the amendment, but not to keep extra illegals here for the sake of one citizen. The minor citizen can stay, and be a ward of the state, or they can go with their parents and attempt to establish their identification and get a passport when they are 18.  Then they can come and go as they please.  The idea that parents and grandparents automatically get a pass to stay is the issue, not the citizenship of the anchor babies.

This seems sensible. It’s best not to just ignore the constitution because there is a problem.

[De Selby]

The children of legal immigrants... which is what all of them were at the time. 

Would they have applied this to hypothetical illegal immigrants?  We don't know.

You should review the debate record. They were talking at length about people born to parents who violated state based restrictions on immigration. This is specifically discussed in the debate about the text (in part at the page I linked).

[Hawkmoon]

You should review the debate record. They were talking at length about people born to parents who violated state based restrictions on immigration. This is specifically discussed in the debate about the text (in part at the page I linked).

Yes, and the discussion shows that it was not the intent when they drafted it to allow children of illegals, (or "Indians") to be citizens, and they worried that the language might eventually be interpreted to do that. But they allowed the language to be adopted as we have it, and the result is just what they feared -- the law is being applied based on what it says rather than on what they meant to say. (What a novel concept -- enforce a law based on what it says.)

[Ron]

The issue really needs to be clarified by legislation and the courts.

We're applying a law to a situation it wasn't written to address with the unintended and absurd consequences one would expect from such folly.

[Hawkmoon]

The issue really needs to be clarified by legislation and the courts.

We're applying a law to a situation it wasn't written to address with the unintended and absurd consequences one would expect from such folly.

It realy needs to be addressed by revising the law, but it's probably too late. The Democrats would never allow that to happen ... it would cut off their voter factory.

[JN01]

It realy needs to be addressed by revising the law, but it's probably too late. The Democrats would never allow that to happen ... it would cut off their voter factory.

You don't need to be a citizen to vote for Democrats.

[sumpnz]

You don't need to be a citizen to vote for Democrats.

Or even alive.

[Hawkmoon]

Or even alive.

Good point.

[Pb]

You should review the debate record. They were talking at length about people born to parents who violated state based restrictions on immigration. This is specifically discussed in the debate about the text (in part at the page I linked).

Ok, I did review the the documents you indicated.  Here it is the part regarding state level immigration restrictions:



They said that state level immigration restrictions, were "quite properly" struck down as unconstitutional.

They were not talking about children of illegal immigrants, which did not exist at the time.  They were talking about children of legal immigrants (Chinese, in this case). 

Would they have said children of illegal immigrants would be citizens, or, like the Indians not be citizens (because they were subject to the jurisdiction of their parents country)?  We don't know.  They did not address that issue at all.