A myth is born. Plyler v. Doe ruled citizenship for offspring of illegal aliens

[Unkotare]

That's what I'm asking, when has the US ever deported parents and left the kids here?

Happens all the time. I personally know several families separated in such a manner.

 

[Moonglow]

In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws.

catch-22

A catch-22 is a paradoxical situation that is impossible to resolve because the solution to the problem is also the problem

 

[Unkotare]

U.S. Citizen Children Impacted by Immigration Enforcement

Deportations of parents and family members have serious consequences that affect children and extend to communities and the country as a whole.

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

 

[ThisIsMe]

Happens all the time. I personally know several families separated in such a manner.

I've not seen any news articles of this, where parents were deported leaving their kids behind in the states. I'll take your word for your experiences but if this happened, it would have been national news.

 

[Unkotare]

Stuff happens with immigrants every day that doesn't make the national news.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

That's what I'm asking, when has the US ever deported parents and left the kids here?

The parents are welcome to take them .

 

[otto105]

How many times have we heard that Plyler v. Doe confirms, the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national born on American soil, becomes a United States citizen upon birth? But as it turns out, that is a blatant lie, perpetuated to legitimatize "anchor babies", and the social and financial destruction they inflict upon American citizens and their children.

So, let us review the actual facts.

The first important fact to determine is, what was the court called upon to decide in Plyer v. Doe. The answer, as stated by Justice Brennan is:

"The question presented by these cases is whether, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Texas may deny to undocumented school-age children the free public education that it provides to children who are citizens of the United States or legally admitted aliens."

The first thing to note is, the court was not called upon to decide if the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national born on American soil, becomes a United States citizen upon birth

Let us now explore how the ongoing myth came to be, that Plyler v. Doe, (1982) ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment grants United States citizenship to the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national if born on American soil.

Justice Brennan writes in Plyler v. Doe:

“Appellants seek to distinguish our prior cases, emphasizing that the Equal Protection Clause directs a State to afford its protection to persons within its jurisdiction while the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments contain no such assertedly limiting phrase. In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction." [10]

Brennan's Footnote 10 gives birth to the myth and reads as follows:

“Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States . . . ." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was "impossible to construe the words `subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words `within its jurisdiction,' in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons `within the jurisdiction' of one of the States of the Union are not `subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'" Id., at 687.”

“Justice Gray concluded 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." Id., at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful. See C. Bouve, Exclusion and Expulsion of Aliens in the United States 425-427 (1912).” (my bolding of the text)

So, as we find out, Justice Brennan never actually took up the question, if the Fourteenth Amendment grants United States citizenship to the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national if born on American soil. He merely references a writing of Clement Lincoln Bouvé, published in 1912 which asserted “. . . no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”

And that is how the myth was born, that the court ruled in Plyler v. Doe, the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national born on American soil, is granted United States citizenship at birth.

JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

"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."

 

[ThisIsMe]

The parents are welcome to take them .

The left won't stand for it. The child is a US citizen, and has a right to be here....and, it's immoral to separate them from their parents, so, they'll say the parents have a right to be here too, for the child.

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

The left won't stand for it. The child is a US citizen, and has a right to be here....and, it's immoral to separate them from their parents, so, they'll say the parents have a right to be here too, for the child.

I don’t care if the left won’t stand for it.
You can’t run a country on feelings.

 

[g5000]

80% of all illegals are single males between 18-48

Yes, they are the ones putting the lettuce in your salad and remitting their earnings back to their starving families.

 

[Unkotare]

The left won't stand for it. The child is a US citizen, and has a right to be here....and, it's immoral to separate them from their parents, so, they'll say the parents have a right to be here too, for the child.

That's not how it works. If a mother robs a bank, is it "immoral" to put her in jail because she has a child?

 

[g5000]

How many times have we heard that Plyler v. Doe confirms, the offspring of an illegal entrant foreign national born on American soil, becomes a United States citizen upon birth? But as it turns out, that is a blatant lie, perpetuated to legitimatize "anchor babies", and the social and financial destruction they inflict upon American citizens and their children.

What Plyler v. Doe confirmed is that illegal immigrants are subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Coupled with US vs. Ark, this means any child born here has birthright citizenship since the parents meet the jurisdiction requirement of the 14th amendment.

 

[g5000]

Trump will end the following kind of crap:

Trump can't do jack shit about it.

 

[g5000]

So another lib loon, media assisted lie. It was about schooling and not citizenship

Wrong.

See post 52.

 

[Mac-7]

What Plyler v. Doe confirmed is that illegal immigrants are subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

Coupled with US vs. Ark, this means any child born here has birthright citizenship since the parents meet the jurisdiction requirement of the 14th amendment.

Sez a lib

“In June 1982, the Supreme Court issued Plyler v. Doe, a landmark decision holding that states cannot constitutionally deny students a free public education on account of their immigration status. By a 5-4 vote, the Court found that any resources which might be saved from excluding undocumented children from public schools were far outweighed by the harms imposed on society at large from denying them an education.”

That was not a factual ruling based on the Constitution

It was 5 unelected judges making law from the bench based on their personal preferences

 

[g5000]

They could get drunk, smoke peyote, or snort coke and render any judgement that pleases them

That would be Matt Gaetz and half the House of Representatives.

Hopefully someone can press the right button and they will overturn birthright citizenship for illegal alien children

They would have to repeal the 14th Amendment.

Good luck with that.

 

[ThisIsMe]

That's not how it works. If a mother robs a bank, is it "immoral" to put her in jail because she has a child?

I agree with you, I'm just making the arguments that the left will make

 

[g5000]

Sez a lib

No, says the Supreme Court. That trumps your Fox News propagandists.


Although the holding in Wong Kim Ark does not directly address children born to undocumented persons, any confusion on this issue was addressed in Plyler v. Doe (1982). The Supreme Court in Plyler also interpreted the relevance of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, rather than the Citizenship Clause. The Equal Protection Clause requires every state to afford equal protection of the laws “to any person within its jurisdiction.” The Court held in a 5-4 vote that Texas could not deny free public-school education to undocumented children.

However, the Citizenship Clause was still directly relevant to the Court’s holding in Plyler. Despite the 5-4 decision, all nine justices agreed that the Equal Protection Clause protects legal and illegal aliens alike. Importantly, all nine justices reached this conclusion precisely because illegal aliens are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., no less than legal aliens and U.S. citizens. In the majority opinion, Justice William Brennan explicitly rejected the contention that undocumented persons are not within the jurisdiction of the United States. Justice Brennan specifically cited the Citizenship Clause and the holding in Wong Kim Ark in reaching this conclusion. Therefore, when combined with the holding in Wong Kim Ark, the holding in Plyler confirms that undocumented persons are subject to U.S. jurisdiction under the Citizenship Clause, and therefore their children become United States citizens. These holdings continue to be good law to this day.

Birthright Citizenship: A Core Tenet of American Liberty - Niskanen Center

Birthright citizenship is a strength, rather than a weakness, of the American immigration system, encouraging assimilation by allowing children of immigrants to participate in the life of their country as citizens.

www.niskanencenter.org

 

[Unkotare]

I agree with you, I'm just making the arguments that the left will make

Too fucking bad for the left. It happens.

 

[g5000]

Here is the Congressional Record: https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif

The sponsor of the 14th amendment (Jacob Howard) made it crystal clear that birthright citizenship was for everyone, excluding the children of foreign ministers and ambassadors for obvious reasons.


"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States."


Trump can't do jack shit about it.