"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[Flopper]

Thus, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . are citizens." As Scalial says, he looks at the text, not the intent.

Despite all the hoopla about original intent, that's what most judges do when it comes to judicial review.

Original intent is always nebulous and uncertain in reviewing acts of congress because you must consider the views of a number of people which may represent contrasting opinions. In the case of the 14th Amendment, Howard explained that the citizenship clause would exclude the children born of foreigners that were not diplomats. In Senate debates the Senator from California stated he believed it would apply to children born of foreigners in United States and he would vote for the amendment.

As Scalial pointed out, it is text that he looks at; that is original meaning. Intent is highly subjective; meaning of text is not. One need only consult dictionaries at the time of the legislation to determine meaning. This leaves little room for argument.

The prevailing definition in 18th century of jurisdiction of the United States is precisely what it is today. If congress really intended to exclude children of all foreigners, not just diplomats, they would have said so and not used the word jurisdiction.

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/ates.

 

[Herodotus]

Howard never said citizenship clause would exclude the children born of foreigners that were not diplomats. The quote that is misinterpreted over and over by anti-immigration revisionists said it would exclude people who were born foreigners or aliens without stating who such persons were other than the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigner, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."

It nowhere says children of foreigners were foreigners or aliens. Of course, the persons who try to perpetuate this lie ignore Howard's clearer statements on the issue such as:

“But I held that in the sense of the Constitution every person born free within the limits of a State, not connected with a foreign minister’s family, is born a citizen whether he be white or black. Nativity imparts citizenship in all countries and that is sufficient for my purpose.” Senator Howard, Gong. Globe, 41st Congress, 2nd Sess., pg. 1543 (1870).

"A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws.....They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country." Senator Howard, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765-66 (1866).

Hard to misinterpret such clear statements including that jus soli was the universal rule. If one wants to debate this, please stop spreading lies and address what Howard actually said.

 

[Herodotus]

The prevailing definition in the18 century of jurisdiction of the United States is precisely what it is today. If congress really intended to exclude children of all foreigners, not just diplomats, they would have said so and not used the word jurisdiction.

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/ates.

Who was subject to the jurisdiction of a nation was in every book on public law in the 19th century. In fact, most books cited Justice Marshall on the issue in one of the most famous cases our court has decided on public law which only excluded persons subject to the privilege of extraterritoriality (i.e., ambassadors). For example:

“From the definition of a sovereign state it follows that "the jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from any external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.' This jurisdiction extends to all subjects and over all persons within its territorial limits, it matters not whether those persons be native-born, or naturalized citizens, or aliens.” George Breckinridge Davis, Elements of International Law, pg. 54-55 (1884)(quoting Justice Marshall).

"[e]very independent state has full and complete jurisdiction over all persons and things physically situated within its territorial limits, whether those persons and things are permanently or transitorily present.” John Norton Pomeroy, Lectures on International Law in Time of Peace, pg. 202 (1886

“All persons found within the limits of a government, (unless specially excepted by the law of nations,) whether their residence is permanent or temporary, are subject to its jurisdiction; but it may or may not, as it chooses, exercise it in cases of dispute between foreigners.” Henry Halleck, Elements of International Law and Laws of War, pg. 92 (1885).

“One of the fundamental rules of international law is that an independent State has absolute and exclusive jurisdiction over all persons and property within its boundaries.” Freedman Snow, International Law, pg. 31 (1898).

“Territorial jurisdiction attached (with special exceptions) upon all persons either permanently or temporarily resident within the territory while they were within it, but it did not follow them after they had withdrawn from it and when they were living in another independent country.” Sir William Henry Rattigan. Private International Law, pg. 228 (1895).

“All persons found within the limits of a Government (unless specially excepted by the law of nations), whether their residence is permanent or temporary, are subject to its jurisdiction; but it may, or may not, as it chooses, exercise it in cases of dispute between foreigners.” Sir Sherston Baker, First Steps in International Law: Prepared for the Use of Students, pg. 79 (1899)

 

[JakeStarkey]

The prevailing definition in the18 century of jurisdiction of the United States is precisely what it is today. If congress really intended to exclude children of all foreigners, not just diplomats, they would have said so and not used the word jurisdiction.

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/ates.

Who was subject to the jurisdiction of a nation was in every book on public law in the 19th century. In fact, most books cited Justice Marshall on the issue in one of the most famous cases our court has decided on public law which only excluded persons subject to the privilege of extraterritoriality (i.e., ambassadors). For example:

“From the definition of a sovereign state it follows that "the jurisdiction of a nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it deriving validity from any external source would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.' This jurisdiction extends to all subjects and over all persons within its territorial limits, it matters not whether those persons be native-born, or naturalized citizens, or aliens.” George Breckinridge Davis, Elements of International Law, pg. 54-55 (1884)(quoting Justice Marshall).

"[e]very independent state has full and complete jurisdiction over all persons and things physically situated within its territorial limits, whether those persons and things are permanently or transitorily present.” John Norton Pomeroy, Lectures on International Law in Time of Peace, pg. 202 (1886

“All persons found within the limits of a government, (unless specially excepted by the law of nations,) whether their residence is permanent or temporary, are subject to its jurisdiction; but it may or may not, as it chooses, exercise it in cases of dispute between foreigners.” Henry Halleck, Elements of International Law and Laws of War, pg. 92 (1885).

“One of the fundamental rules of international law is that an independent State has absolute and exclusive jurisdiction over all persons and property within its boundaries.” Freedman Snow, International Law, pg. 31 (1898).

“Territorial jurisdiction attached (with special exceptions) upon all persons either permanently or temporarily resident within the territory while they were within it, but it did not follow them after they had withdrawn from it and when they were living in another independent country.” Sir William Henry Rattigan. Private International Law, pg. 228 (1895).

“All persons found within the limits of a Government (unless specially excepted by the law of nations), whether their residence is permanent or temporary, are subject to its jurisdiction; but it may, or may not, as it chooses, exercise it in cases of dispute between foreigners.” Sir Sherston Baker, First Steps in International Law: Prepared for the Use of Students, pg. 79 (1899)

I suggest gently but firmly whoever screwed up the quote function above get is straight: right quick.

 

[Oldglory1]

Howard never said citizenship clause would exclude the children born of foreigners that were not diplomats. The quote that is misinterpreted over and over by anti-immigration revisionists said it would exclude people who were born foreigners or aliens without stating who such persons were other than the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigner, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."

It nowhere says children of foreigners were foreigners or aliens. Of course, the persons who try to perpetuate this lie ignore Howard's clearer statements on the issue such as:

“But I held that in the sense of the Constitution every person born free within the limits of a State, not connected with a foreign minister’s family, is born a citizen whether he be white or black. Nativity imparts citizenship in all countries and that is sufficient for my purpose.” Senator Howard, Gong. Globe, 41st Congress, 2nd Sess., pg. 1543 (1870).

"A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws.....They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country." Senator Howard, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765-66 (1866).

Hard to misinterpret such clear statements including that jus soli was the universal rule. If one wants to debate this, please stop spreading lies and address what Howard actually said.

Here, chomp on this for awhile. There are no lies being spread. It is you who is lying about what Howard actually said.

Birthright Citizenship in the United States A Global Comparison Center for Immigration Studies

 

[JakeStarkey]

Get over it, nativists.

This will not change.

 

[Herodotus]

Show us where Howard excluded children of foreigners or aliens. Give us the quote. The quote you cite simply does not say what you claim it says if one can read English. Lying about it does not help your argument. I showed you Howard expressly stating that only children of ambassadors were excluded from the jus soli rule and that jus soli was the universal rule. He also said one must only be "subject to our laws" which is what "subject to the jurisdiction" means. Sorry if you can't deal with the truth.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Red herring. Doesn't matter. Scalia and the rest already have read the text (not supposed intent) and concluded there will never be a need to review a case.

 

[1751_Texan]

Section 1. 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.

====

Oldglory1, your dissent means nothing.

It' not about my dissent. You posted it right there. "AND" subject to the jurisdiction. Can't you read? I asked if you would join our movement to end this nonsense and you didn't even reply. I have no choice but to put you in the dust bin along with the others who don't care about pulling for a positive change to put respect back into our citizenship and to save us billions in tax dollars. Parents who had no respect for our immigration laws should not gain citizenship for their kids just because they managed to breach our borders. Bye, bye.

All persons born on US soil are under the jurisdiction of the US. Every person in the US... other than a diplomat is under jurisdiction of the US and the US Constitution. Name one person in the US right now that is not under under its Jurisdiction?

Nope, they only have to obey our laws while here. They are not under our jurisdiction in any other way. Illegal aliens are not under our jurisdiction they are subject to their own countries full jurisdiction.

.

Seems you are confusing "Our Jurisdiction"[what ever your meaning] and Under the Jurisdiction of the US Constitution. "Our Jurisdiction" is meaningless.

 

[1751_Texan]

Oldglory1, the law already proves that if a baby is born in the US except in already constitutionally created exceptions, that said baby is a citizen.

There is no dispute.

OG1 is trying to argue that since illegal aliens are here illegally, then the US Constitution does not apply to them.

Seems the Constitution pertains to them in every aspect but birth of a child.

 

[Herodotus]

Oldglory1, the law already proves that if a baby is born in the US except in already constitutionally created exceptions, that said baby is a citizen.

There is no dispute.

OG1 is trying to argue that since illegal aliens are here illegally, then the US Constitution does not apply to them.

Seems the Constitution pertains to them in every aspect but birth of a child.

Show a citation that states someone here illegally is not subject to our jurisdiction. Show a quote from a treatise on public international law. Such does not exist. The Supreme Court in The Exchange v. McFaddon 11 U.S. 116 (1812) clearly stated who was and who was not subject o our jurisdiction. As I pointed out above, no treatise on public international law disagrees with such case. All persons in the US are fully subject to its jurisdiction (other than ambassadors and similar persons) and no foreign nation has any jurisdiction over any persons in the US. This is international law 101. Stating otherwise is just misstating basic law any first year law student should know.

“[e]very independent state has full and complete jurisdiction over all persons and things physically situated within its territorial limits, whether those persons and things are permanently or transitorily present.” John Norton Pomeroy, Lectures on International Law in Time of Peace, pg. 202 (1886)

“To be resident within the territory of a Nation is to be subject to its Jurisdiction; but Nations, from considerations of mutual Comity, do not apply the same Laws in all matters to persons who are only temporarily resident, as to persons who are permanently resident within its territory." Travers Twiss, The Law of Nations pg. 214 (1861).

“All persons found within the limits of a government, (unless specially excepted by the law of nations,) whether their residence is permanent or temporary, are subject to its jurisdiction; but it may or may not, as it chooses, exercise it in cases of dispute between foreigners.” Henry Halleck, Elements of International Law and Laws of War, pg. 92 (1885)

 

[JakeStarkey]

None of the above matters.

 

[Oldglory1]

Show us where Howard excluded children of foreigners or aliens. Give us the quote. The quote you cite simply does not say what you claim it says if one can read English. Lying about it does not help your argument. I showed you Howard expressly stating that only children of ambassadors were excluded from the jus soli rule and that jus soli was the universal rule. He also said one must only be "subject to our laws" which is what "subject to the jurisdiction" means. Sorry if you can't deal with the truth.

And sorry that you can't comprehend the article that I posted. Into the dust bin you go with the rest of the pro-illegal sympathizers in here.

 

[Oldglory1]

Oldglory1, the law already proves that if a baby is born in the US except in already constitutionally created exceptions, that said baby is a citizen.

There is no dispute.

OG1 is trying to argue that since illegal aliens are here illegally, then the US Constitution does not apply to them.

Seems the Constitution pertains to them in every aspect but birth of a child.

The Constitution only applies to them in a very limited manner. "We" the people" is about our citizens not foreigners. Again, illegal aliens are not subject to our full jurisdiction which is required for their kids to gain birthright citizenship. Are you ready to join the movement to clarify that through the SC? If not, then you are a pro-illegal sympathizer and you will go into my dust bin with the others in there.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OG1, you argument has been defeated long ago.

That you deny it means nothing. Trot along.

 

[Herodotus]

Show us where Howard excluded children of foreigners or aliens. Give us the quote. The quote you cite simply does not say what you claim it says if one can read English. Lying about it does not help your argument. I showed you Howard expressly stating that only children of ambassadors were excluded from the jus soli rule and that jus soli was the universal rule. He also said one must only be "subject to our laws" which is what "subject to the jurisdiction" means. Sorry if you can't deal with the truth.

And sorry that you can't comprehend the article that I posted. Into the dust bin you go with the rest of the pro-illegal sympathizers in here.

So apparently you can't show actual language that Howard said children of aliens were not citizens because he never said that. Why do you not address his much clearer quotes saying you are wrong such as

“But I held that in the sense of the Constitution every person born free within the limits of a State, not connected with a foreign minister’s family, is born a citizen whether he be white or black. Nativity imparts citizenship in all countries and that is sufficient for my purpose.” Senator Howard, Gong. Globe, 41st Congress, 2nd Sess., pg. 1543 (1870).

What do you not understand about this? You do know that Congress specifically discussed whether children of chlnese aliens would be made citizens and nobody argued that they would be excluded. Why not look at the quotes directly addressing the issue of you are interested in the original intent.

 

[Herodotus]

OG1, you argument has been defeated long ago.

That you deny it means nothing. Trot along.

Yes, such argument was made and rejected in Wong Kim Ark more than a century ago. The Court stated exactly who was not subject to our jurisdiction pointing out the Supreme Court had already addressed such issue. Illegal aliens simply would not be excluded under the Court's definition. OG1 is free to ask the Supreme Court to revisit the issue but saying illegal aliens are not subject to our jurisdiction is simply wrong as a matter of basic international law and hence unlikely to get the court's attention. And the amendment does not say "full jurisdiction," but, even if it did, as shown by the citations I posted above, they are fully subject to our jurisdiction under international law. The "partial jurisdiction" stuff was made up by people trying to gut the amendment after republicans lost power. It has no basis in actual law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OG1, read the above and pray about it, please.

 

[Herodotus]

OG1. Ok, I read the article you posted. Simply restates all the arguments rejected by the Court in WKA and have been resurrected by people who want to end birthright citizenship with respect to illegal aliens. There are numerous modern law reviews again debunking these arguments again (I recommend James Ho and Professor Epps). While riddled with errors, the biggest problem with your article is that it cherry picks a few quotes, mostly out of context, from the debates that might support their position and expect one will be too lazy to see that 98% of the statement made by members of 39th Congress on the subject unambiguously support birthright citizenship. For example they quote Trumbull talking about Indians born in indian nations we considered foreign countries as owing allegiance to somebody else. Trumbull made clear if Indians were born in the indian nation they owed allegiance to the indian nation and if they were born outside such nations but in the US, they owed allegiance to the US even though the parents would still be aliens. Thus, in context, his quote is perfectly consistent with the common law. In fact, Trumbull said we had adopted the English common law rule and repeatedly said children of Chinese aliens were citizens. Suggesting Trumbull thought we adopted anything other than jus soli is simply wrong as it ignores all his clear quotes on the issue. Go look at the Congressional Record if you really want to know what they adopted as I think you will be surprised what you will find.

"the children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?" Senator Trumbull, CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 497 (1866).

"even the infant child of a foreigner born in this land is a citizen of the United States long before his father." Senator Trumbull, Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 1757 (1866)

"Undoubtably." Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess. 498 (1866)(in reply to Sen. Cowen's question whether the Civil Rights Act will make native-born children of Chinese aliens citizens).

"Every person born within the jurisdiction of a nation must be a citizen of that country. Such persons are called subjects of the Crown in Great Britain, in this country citizens of the United States. It is an entire mistake to suppose that there was no such thing as an American citizen until the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. American citizenship existed from the moment that the Government of the United States was formed. The Constitution itself prohibits any person from sitting in this body who has not been nine years a citizen of the United States, not a citizen of a particular State. By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born. That had been frequently decided in the United States. It has been acted upon by the executive department of the Government in protecting the rights of native-born persons of this country as citizens of the United States. It has been held in the judicial tribunals of the country that persons born in the United States were citizens of the United States. I read from Paschal's Annotated Constitution, note 274: "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons."Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

 

[Flopper]

Howard never said citizenship clause would exclude the children born of foreigners that were not diplomats. The quote that is misinterpreted over and over by anti-immigration revisionists said it would exclude people who were born foreigners or aliens without stating who such persons were other than the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigner, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."

It nowhere says children of foreigners were foreigners or aliens. Of course, the persons who try to perpetuate this lie ignore Howard's clearer statements on the issue such as:

“But I held that in the sense of the Constitution every person born free within the limits of a State, not connected with a foreign minister’s family, is born a citizen whether he be white or black. Nativity imparts citizenship in all countries and that is sufficient for my purpose.” Senator Howard, Gong. Globe, 41st Congress, 2nd Sess., pg. 1543 (1870).

"A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws.....They became such in virtue of national law, or rather of natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country." Senator Howard, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 2765-66 (1866).

Hard to misinterpret such clear statements including that jus soli was the universal rule. If one wants to debate this, please stop spreading lies and address what Howard actually said.

If and when SCOTUS reviews the citizenship clause, there will be two things of paramount importance that will be considered.

• The citizenship clause that Howard proposed and was approved by Congress and ratified by the states. "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."
• The accepted meaning of the term "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 1800's. The definitions of "jurisdiction" and "thereof" is well documented in dictionaries of that day. The phrase means just what it means today, subject to the laws (jurisdiction) of the United States. Howard's assurance that his citizenship clause would not include the children born in the US of foreigners and John Conness, the Senator from California's assurance that they would be, are both irrelevant. Howard was arguing for his citizenship clause and was assuring congress that it meant these children would not become citizens. Conness was arguing that they would, wanting the clause to made more restrictive.