An interesting read, thanks for posting it. I'm sure this debate will make it to SCOTUS. If, everything in that article is accurate then it would seem DJT may be sending a lot of "Anchor Babies" to back where their parents are from. Could get complicated though depending on who and where the father is from.
Their argument, that the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that the 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship for practically anyone born here, is flatly wrong as a matter of law.
I believe that is Trumps beliefs.
olejoedad, good article. It is right to become a citizen through immigration laws. Birth tourism from other countries should not be allowed to allow to the birth parents to be here.
The whole crux of the issue is whether or not the immigrants that give birth to a child on US soil are here legally.
In the SCOTUS decision, the parents were here legally, so their child was granted birthright citizenship, as they were under the jurisdiction of the US.
Just for clarification the definition of jurisdiction is
ju·ris·dic·tion /ˌjo͝orəsˈdikSHən/ noun the official power to make legal decisions and judgments.
a system of law courts
Illegals do not have power to make legal decisions or judgments.
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.
Note that 2 conditions have to be met, born and subject to the jurisdiction, and naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction. Looks pretty clear to me.
Just for clarification the definition of jurisdiction is
ju·ris·dic·tion /ˌjo͝orəsˈdikSHən/ noun the official power to make legal decisions and judgments.
a system of law courts
Illegals do not have power to make legal decisions or judgments.
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.
Note that 2 conditions have to be met, born and subject to the jurisdiction, and naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction. Looks pretty clear to me.
I can agree with this, I simply question what the courts will do. I have no doubt this will end up at SCOTUS.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Let's break that down: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" - If you were born here, or became a naturalized citizen, that's easy "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" - This means subject to the laws of the US, as in if you break the US' laws you go to US jail "are citizens of the United States." - You get citizenship
Given that there are inarguably illegal immigrants in our jail system for crimes other than immigration, it's kind of hard to argue they aren't subject to our laws and jurisdiction. If not...do you believe we are holding those people illegally?
Originally posted by silver 85 sc: Illegals do not have power to make legal decisions or judgments.
I understand the arguments here...but the language of the amendment clearly says the person must be born or naturalized, and subject to the laws of the US. Not vice versa. That would be a nonsensical, since no citizen has "jurisdiction" in the way it is used here.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 01-28-2025).]
Perhaps you should read the complete article at the beginning of this thread.
I did, and can comment on that as well if you'd like. Are you particular to a point?
“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes children of undocumented immigrants...how about that?
If only we had the original debates and discussion about this recorded so we could turn to those. Oh wait...we do.
quote
Senator Trumbull: “What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”
Hey, that's pretty clear. Well wait...but if they're foreign then they owe allegiance to someone else, right?! Wait...they covered that too?
quote
Senator Conness: “The proposition before us…relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation.”
Oh snap...they laid that out in pretty clear terms.
But you know what, let's do like 'The Federalist' do and ignore the Framers' explicit intentions, and instead focus on related SCOTUS case. If only we could dig up the court's opinion and find the exceptions they listed...you know where this is going.
quote
"Exceptions or qualifications as old as the rule itself: of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory."
Snap again! There's nothing in there about the citizen status of the child's parents. And there they go deferring to the Framers, the DEI-loving bastards.
Got anything after 1929? There was no such thing as an illegal alien or illegal border crossing prior to 1929. Obviously anything prior to that could not take into account such a crime or immigration status.
"Consent is the operative word. In ruling for Wong, the Supreme Court made clear that the United States has a say in who is subject to its jurisdiction, noting that noncitizens like Wong’s parents are “entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here” (emphasis added). In Wong’s case, this meant that the 14th Amendment granted him citizenship because he was: (1) born in the United States; and (2) subject to its jurisdiction, due to the fact that his parents were lawful immigrants permitted by the United States to reside here at the time he was born."
Based on the the basis of 'legal' occupancy and 'illegal' occupancy.
The article continues....
"A harder question is whether the 14th Amendment grants birthright citizenship to children born to aliens here lawfully but on a temporary basis, such as tourists or individuals on a work visa. Wong Kim Ark doesn’t explicitly address this, but it does note that Wong’s parents were “domiciled” in the United States, and it concludes that “[e]very 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” (emphasis added). This repeated reference to “domicile,” meaning a state of permanent, legal residence, suggests that birthright citizenship at a minimum requires an intent to live lawfully and permanently in the United States, even if that intent later changes."
A California woman was sentenced Monday to more than three years in prison in a long-running case over a business that helped pregnant Chinese women travel to the United States to deliver babies who automatically became American citizens.
US District Judge R. Gary Klausner gave Phoebe Dong a 41-month sentence and ordered her immediately taken into custody from his federal court in Los Angeles. [color=red]Dong and her husband were convicted in September of conspiracy and money laundering through their company, USA Happy Baby.
Dong and her husband, Michael Liu, were among more than a dozen people charged in an Obama-era crackdown on so-called “birth tourism” schemes that helped Chinese women hide their pregnancies while traveling to the US to give birth. Such businesses have long operated in various states catering to people from China, Russia, Nigeria and elsewhere.
quote
Federal prosecutors sought a more than five-year sentence for Dong and argued that she and Liu helped more than 100 pregnant Chinese women travel to the US. They said the pair worked with others to coach women on how to trick customs officials by flying into airports believed to be more lax while wearing loose-fitting clothing to hide their pregnancies.
more than 100.
quote
“For tens of thousands of dollars each, defendant helped her numerous customers deceive US authorities and buy US citizenship for their children,” prosecutors said in court filings.
10,000 X 100 = a cool one million dollars. Likely tax free as the money was laundered.
quote
The USA Happy Baby case was part of a broader probe into businesses that helped Chinese women travel to give birth in California. The operator of another business is believed to have fled to China, McNicholas wrote in court filings, while another was sentenced in 2019 to 10 months in prison after pleading guilty to conspiracy and visa fraud for running the company known as “You Win USA.”
This is the most balanced article that's been posted on this so far...or at least the only one that appears to be acting in complete good faith. It actually addresses jus soli, the US' reliance on it, and the issues that raise for ending birthright citizenship with authoritarian dictate rather than legislation. The author is super optimistic about a legal interpretation that has been repeatedly rejected by courts (the whole 'jurisdiction' thing)...but they even talk about the logistical and moral challenges. If you all are going to understand and defend Trump's actions here...this is the article to use to do so.
quote
Originally posted by olejoedad: And for good measure and to foster discussion, here is another article for those so inclined to digest.....
This is a defense of why willy-nilly changing quotes and legal language is ok if you do so to make it fit your personal narrative better. I...don't have much to say he doesn't self-own with his defense of "well *I* don't think I changed those quotes TOO much." It doesn't really add anything other than point out some authors feel the current legal language doesn't really support what they are saying. I'd hide that I read this and not present it in any company that I was hoping to convince to my way of thinking.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 01-29-2025).]
Got anything after 1929? There was no such thing as an illegal alien or illegal border crossing prior to 1929. Obviously anything prior to that could not take into account such a crime or immigration status.
I'm gonna make my default response to anyone citing the Constitution "Got anything after 1787? They didn't have lightbulbs, antibiotics, cars or photography. Obviously anything that old wouldn't take modern life into account."
Originally posted by NewDustin: This is the most balanced article that's been posted on this so far...or at least the only one that appears to be acting in complete good faith. It actually addresses jus soli, the US' reliance on it, and the issues that raise for ending birthright citizenship with authoritarian dictate rather than legislation. The author is super optimistic about a legal interpretation that has been repeatedly rejected by courts (the whole 'jurisdiction' thing)...but they even talk about the logistical and moral challenges. If you all are going to understand and defend Trump's actions here...this is the article to use to do so.
quote
In the U.S., the 14th Amendment was enacted to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court case of Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), which ruled that African Americans, free or enslaved, could not be U.S. citizens.
Are Chinese or Mexican nationals allowed to visit and give birth to children to become US citizens ? Just African Americans is what I read.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: I'd hide that I read this and not present it in any company that I was hoping to convince to my way of thinking.
Originally posted by NewDustin: I'm gonna make my default response to anyone citing the Constitution "Got anything after 1787? They didn't have lightbulbs, antibiotics, cars or photography. Obviously anything that old wouldn't take modern life into account."
Neither did they anticipate machine guns, guided missiles, tanks, many other things. Our Second Amendment guarantees our right to bear arms shall not be abridged. Yet a Joe six pack can not own them.
Originally posted by cliffw: "In the U.S., the 14th Amendment was enacted to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court case of Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), which ruled that African Americans, free or enslaved, could not be U.S. citizens."
Are Chinese or Mexican nationals allowed to visit and give birth to children to become US citizens ? Just African Americans is what I read.
The original debate I posted above is actually about Chinese nationals, so they're expressly included. The entire debate was about whether to base citizenship on their blood or the soil they were born on, and the determination was made that the soil the individual was born on ("jus soli") should be the determining factor, not the blood of their parents ("jus sanguinis"). At that point, it didn't matter where you were from.
Dred Scott was explicitly about African Americans. You couldn't extrapolate beyond it's rulings by overruling it, which is why it is called out that way. That doesn't limit the scope of the 14th Amendment, however.
Originally posted by cliffw: Neither did they anticipate machine guns, guided missiles, tanks, many other things. Our Second Amendment guarantees our right to bear arms shall not be abridged. Yet a Joe six pack can not own them.
I think we agree here...I was pointing out that logic falls apart pretty quickly as soon as you scrutinize it.
I'm gonna make my default response to anyone citing the Constitution "Got anything after 1787? They didn't have lightbulbs, antibiotics, cars or photography. Obviously anything that old wouldn't take modern life into account."
A new law was passed, not a new technology invented. Your response does not apply.
That is a good read. I do think they make an error in their analysis here:
quote
The Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) established birthright citizenship for the children of resident aliens. The category of residency is regulated by the U.S. federal government and excludes illegal aliens and people on temporary visas, which is why so many of them hope to obtain green cards. But the Supreme Court may uphold the 127-year-old ruling and affirm that it covers these groups.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark centers around whether the aliens are here by consent. The Chinese immigrants in the case were permanent legal residents which means the U.S. consented to them being here. The ruling gives the example of an invading army. It states that a child born on American territory to members of an invading army are not granted citizenship.
If SCOTUS were to make a ruling in line with United States v. Wong Kim Ark, then they would have to rule that illegal aliens, who do not have consent to be in the US, cannot give birth to a U.S. citizen.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark centers around whether the aliens are here by consent. The Chinese immigrants in the case were permanent legal residents which means the U.S. consented to them being here. The ruling gives the example of an invading army. It states that a child born on American territory to members of an invading army are not granted citizenship.
If SCOTUS were to make a ruling in line with United States v. Wong Kim Ark, then they would have to rule that illegal aliens, who do not have consent to be in the US, cannot give birth to a U.S. citizen.
Asking out of ignorance but, would the fact that Biden allowed illegals cross over and actually transported, provided cell phones and debit cards be considered consent to be here while they awaited a hearing?
Asking out of ignorance but, would the fact that Biden allowed illegals cross over and actually transported, provided cell phones and debit cards be considered consent to be here while they awaited a hearing?
Rams
That is an argument that they can try. We also know that most of them don't show up to their court hearing date. We will see how the courts rule.
Originally posted by blackrams: Asking out of ignorance but, would the fact that Biden allowed illegals cross over and actually transported, provided cell phones and debit cards be considered consent to be here while they awaited a hearing?
Rams
Well, he allowed illegals. That would mean they are illegal. Consent ? They are illegal until the immigration court hearing outcome.
Let's not confuse "consent" with "humanitarianism".
Originally posted by Doug85GT: United States v. Wong Kim Ark centers around whether the aliens are here by consent. The Chinese immigrants in the case were permanent legal residents which means the U.S. consented to them being here. The ruling gives the example of an invading army. It states that a child born on American territory to members of an invading army are not granted citizenship.
If SCOTUS were to make a ruling in line with United States v. Wong Kim Ark, then they would have to rule that illegal aliens, who do not have consent to be in the US, cannot give birth to a U.S. citizen.
It is not consent; neither the word nor the concept of consent is discussed anywhere in the ruling. It is whether an individual is subject to the jurisdiction of the US. The example of the invading army has nothing to do with "consent" from the US for them being there, it has to do with them expressly not being subject to US jurisdiction -ie we couldn't put the invading army in jail for breaking our laws.
You can't just willy nilly add words to rulings and opinions to make them fit better with what you wish they said.
The Supreme Court decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) established birthright citizenship for the children of resident aliens. The category of residency is regulated by the U.S. federal government and excludes illegal aliens and people on temporary visas, which is why so many of them hope to obtain green cards. But the Supreme Court may uphold the 127-year-old ruling and affirm that it covers these groups.
This is inaccurate. Birthright citizenship for resident alients was expressly established by the 14th Amendment...I've already included direct quotes from the debate of the 14th Amendment where that is explicitly established. US v. Wong affirmed the concept of jus soli birthright citizenship (it matters where you were born, no who your parents are). It did not establish birthright citizenship or expand it in any way. There is considerable precedent following US v. Wong that further establish birthright citizenship for non-citizens. Plyler v. Doe (1982) expressly confirms illegal immigrants. The supreme court would be upholding 127 years of repeated precedent, not a single old ruling.
Originally posted by NewDustin: The example of the invading army has nothing to do with "consent" from the US for them being there, it has to do with them expressly not being subject to US jurisdiction -ie we couldn't put the invading army in jail for breaking our laws.
Well, he allowed illegals. That would mean they are illegal. Consent ? They are illegal until the immigration court hearing outcome.
Let's not confuse "consent" with "humanitarianism".
an allow to apply for status is NOT ILLEGAL THE PERSON IS FOLLOWING RULES AND PROCEDURES YOU IN YOUR HATE AND FEARS CON-FUSE ALLOWED WITH AGAINST THE LAW
BTW I FAVOR NO TOURIST BIRTH DEALS IF RESIDENT ELSEWHERE [LIKE THE CHINA WOMEN DO]
REMINDER A HUGE % THAT YOU CALL ILLEGALS ARE NATIVE AMERICANS NOT INVADERS BUT THOSE WERE HERE BEFORE YOUR LOT
It is not consent; neither the word nor the concept of consent is discussed anywhere in the ruling. It is whether an individual is subject to the jurisdiction of the US. The example of the invading army has nothing to do with "consent" from the US for them being there, it has to do with them expressly not being subject to US jurisdiction -ie we couldn't put the invading army in jail for breaking our laws.
You can't just willy nilly add words to rulings and opinions to make them fit better with what you wish they said.
LOL. You clearly have not read nor even did a word search in the 84 page ruling.
Come back when you know what you are talking about.
Originally posted by Doug85GT: LOL. You clearly have not read nor even did a word search in the 84 page ruling.
Come back when you know what you are talking about.
Hey, I did miss it! It's used once in 84 pages...I don't know how you got I "clearly didn't read it" from that, and "clearly have not...did a word search" is also untrue. It still doesn't come up on the original PDF I was reading of it, and I didn't find it until I went to a different source. I can't fault you for gloating, but I do have to wonder why you're being so...disagreeable
But as for that precedent, and if we all want something "newer", here's a quote from Pyler v. Doe's majority opinion commenting on exactly that ruling: "No plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident immigrants whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident immigrants whose entry was unlawful."
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 01-31-2025).]
Hey, I did miss it! It's used once in 84 pages...I don't know how you got I "clearly didn't read it" from that, and "clearly have not...did a word search" is also untrue. It still doesn't come up on the original PDF I was reading of it, and I didn't find it until I went to a different source. I can't fault you for gloating, but I do have to wonder why you're being so...disagreeable
But as for that precedent, and if we all want something "newer", here's a quote from Pyler v. Doe's majority opinion commenting on exactly that ruling: "No plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident immigrants whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident immigrants whose entry was unlawful."
Hint, it was used more than once. You are becoming more full of .
Yes, I become disagreeable with people who lie and make up things to try to win an argument.
I am completely against illegal immigration- and I think the 14th amendment is written somewhat wrong; I think properly written it would say that LEGAL immigrants' children have birthright citizenship....Illegals cannot simply step across the border and pop out a baby then have rights to citizenship.
Modifying Constitutional Amendments should be done very carefully- and have at least 60-75% of Congressional approval.
An addendum would allow for a judge to allow citizenship for >children< of illegals >who have actually lived here for more than 4 years<....
We are a nation of (Mainly) immigrants...Hating immigrants is stupid- but disliking illegal immigration is correct....
[This message has been edited by cvxjet (edited 01-31-2025).]
Originally posted by cvxjet: Modifying Constitutional Amendments should be done very carefully- and have at least 60-75% of Congressional approval.
Amending the Constitution involves a two-step process: first, an amendment must be proposed either by a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress or by a convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. Then, it must be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 out of 50) to become part of the Constitution.
.
. 
