Constitutional Check: Will the Supreme Court clarify birthright citizenship?

[bendog]

In Plyler, citizenship was not the primary issue

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. Page 457 U. S. 216

Agreed- however- as I said- they would use the logic of Plyler v. Doe.

What does the 14th Amendment say?

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

Plyler found that anyone born within the United States is 'within its jurisdiction' and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Equal protection for all not only born, but illegally here. I really don't see the viability of the 'no new Mexicans" position here. But Wong Ark's parents were legally here. Does that make a difference? I don't think so. And, I really think making it harder for illegal aliens to find work and housing, and speeding deportation, would be more achievable means to the end.

 

[Correll]

In Plyler, citizenship was not the primary issue

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. Page 457 U. S. 216

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there? He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the State's civil laws. He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the States Criminal Laws.

Read the BOLDED ABOVE. Do you just skip what you don't like?

I read the entire post and asked questions about the part where I thought your reasoning was flawed.

These Questions.

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there?
.

If he robs a bank- is he subject to the law- or not subject to the law?

If he gets caught he is subject to the law. If he gets away, then he is not.

AS things stand right now, illegals are not caught.

 

[Correll]

The issue is intent and clarification. Justice Roberts is well aware of the original intent, current status, interpretation, however, clarification within context of the law has evolved into a grey area requiring further review and definition. I would not be surprised if in fact the court accepts an Amicus Curiae or Brief to finally put this issue to rest.

The Court can only respond to a legal challenge.

If Congress passed say a law saying that children born to illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens- the Supreme Court by itself could do nothing.

Someone would have to file suit against Congress on constitutional grounds for the Supreme Court to consider the matter.

Which would take libs about 1 second to do.

 

[Syriusly]

In Plyler, citizenship was not the primary issue

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. Page 457 U. S. 216

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there? He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the State's civil laws. He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the States Criminal Laws.

Read the BOLDED ABOVE. Do you just skip what you don't like?

I read the entire post and asked questions about the part where I thought your reasoning was flawed.

These Questions.

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there?
.

If he robs a bank- is he subject to the law- or not subject to the law?

If he gets caught he is subject to the law. If he gets away, then he is not.

AS things stand right now, illegals are not caught.

So- as long as he isn't caught- he hasn't broken any laws?

Illegal aliens are caught all the time- and charged with crimes all the time.

Hence- subject to the jurisidiction.

 

[Syriusly]

In Plyler, citizenship was not the primary issue

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. Page 457 U. S. 216

Agreed- however- as I said- they would use the logic of Plyler v. Doe.

What does the 14th Amendment say?

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

Plyler found that anyone born within the United States is 'within its jurisdiction' and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Equal protection for all not only born, but illegally here. I really don't see the viability of the 'no new Mexicans" position here. But Wong Ark's parents were legally here. Does that make a difference? I don't think so. And, I really think making it harder for illegal aliens to find work and housing, and speeding deportation, would be more achievable means to the end.

Agree on all points.

 

[Correll]

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there? He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the State's civil laws. He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the States Criminal Laws.

Read the BOLDED ABOVE. Do you just skip what you don't like?

I read the entire post and asked questions about the part where I thought your reasoning was flawed.

These Questions.

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there?
.

If he robs a bank- is he subject to the law- or not subject to the law?

If he gets caught he is subject to the law. If he gets away, then he is not.

AS things stand right now, illegals are not caught.

So- as long as he isn't caught- he hasn't broken any laws?

Illegal aliens are caught all the time- and charged with crimes all the time.

Hence- subject to the jurisidiction.

NOpe. If he escapes and manages to hide in the vast slums of LA, he is not subject to the Law.

Just like if he ran back to Mexico and was never caught.

If you are not caught you are not subject.

 

[Syriusly]

Read the BOLDED ABOVE. Do you just skip what you don't like?

I read the entire post and asked questions about the part where I thought your reasoning was flawed.

These Questions.

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there?
.

If he robs a bank- is he subject to the law- or not subject to the law?

If he gets caught he is subject to the law. If he gets away, then he is not.

AS things stand right now, illegals are not caught.

So- as long as he isn't caught- he hasn't broken any laws?

Illegal aliens are caught all the time- and charged with crimes all the time.

Hence- subject to the jurisidiction.

NOpe. If he escapes and manages to hide in the vast slums of LA, he is not subject to the Law.

Just like if he ran back to Mexico and was never caught.

If you are not caught you are not subject.

Well that is an interesting interpretation.

According to your interpretation- none of us are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States- until we are arrested.

Which means none of us are citizens according to the 14th Amendment- except for those who are naturalized.

 

[Dana7360]

Writer of the article presents her conservative side decently.

The only problem is that the birthright citizenship issue has been settled for a long time. Congress has no power to take it away from birthright children ex post facto. It does have the power to grant citizenship to whom it chooses.

Constitutional Check: Will the Supreme Court clarify birthright citizenship?

I don't understand conservatives and this issue.

The 14th amendment is extremely clear.

Is it that they don't understand that congress can't write laws that violate the constitution? Or is it that they just don't care?

The only way to change the law is to amend the constitution. That's not very easy and I'm pretty sure that, if it actually was brought up in congress, gets two thirds to vote yes, pass it, it's still not an amendment until it's ratified by a super majority of the states. That's never going to happen. Americans aren't going to vote to take away US birth right from anyone. We all know anyone born here is a citizen. America can't issue a birth certificate for any other nation but America. People aren't going to vote for having babies who are born here but don't have citizenship to America or any other nation.

No other nation is going to hand all the states in America birth certificates to be issued to anyone born here.

Do these people think things through to their logical conclusion?

 

[JakeStarkey]

In Plyler, citizenship was not the primary issue

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. Page 457 U. S. 216

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there? He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the State's civil laws. He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the States Criminal Laws.

Read the BOLDED ABOVE. Do you just skip what you don't like?

I read the entire post and asked questions about the part where I thought your reasoning was flawed.

These Questions.

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there?
.

If he robs a bank- is he subject to the law- or not subject to the law?

If he gets caught he is subject to the law. If he gets away, then he is not.

AS things stand right now, illegals are not caught.

Scores of thousands of illegals are in prison.

200,000 plus were deported.

Just shut up if you can't be honest.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The issue is intent and clarification. Justice Roberts is well aware of the original intent, current status, interpretation, however, clarification within context of the law has evolved into a grey area requiring further review and definition. I would not be surprised if in fact the court accepts an Amicus Curiae or Brief to finally put this issue to rest.

The Court can only respond to a legal challenge.

If Congress passed say a law saying that children born to illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens- the Supreme Court by itself could do nothing.

Someone would have to file suit against Congress on constitutional grounds for the Supreme Court to consider the matter.

Which would take libs about 1 second to do.

As would real conservatives and true libertarians.

 

[Syriusly]

Writer of the article presents her conservative side decently.

The only problem is that the birthright citizenship issue has been settled for a long time. Congress has no power to take it away from birthright children ex post facto. It does have the power to grant citizenship to whom it chooses.

Constitutional Check: Will the Supreme Court clarify birthright citizenship?

I don't understand conservatives and this issue.

The 14th amendment is extremely clear.

Is it that they don't understand that congress can't write laws that violate the constitution? Or is it that they just don't care?

The only way to change the law is to amend the constitution. That's not very easy and I'm pretty sure that, if it actually was brought up in congress, gets two thirds to vote yes, pass it, it's still not an amendment until it's ratified by a super majority of the states. That's never going to happen. Americans aren't going to vote to take away US birth right from anyone. We all know anyone born here is a citizen. America can't issue a birth certificate for any other nation but America. People aren't going to vote for having babies who are born here but don't have citizenship to America or any other nation.

No other nation is going to hand all the states in America birth certificates to be issued to anyone born here.

Do these people think things through to their logical conclusion?

Lots of Conservatives recognize what the 14th Amendment actually says. I am not convinced that what the 14th Amendment actually says- which is that children born here to parents who are not here legally are still citizens- is good policy.

However to change that requires a Constitutional Amendment- and no one would be able to agree on that Amendment.

We can't even pass immigration legislation.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anyone who says, "If he escapes and manages to hide in the vast slums of LA, he is not subject to the Law.," is an idiot. He is subject to law; he just has not been caught yet.

That's like making the stupid argument that citizen criminals on the run from the law are not subject to the law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Will the Supreme Court clarify birthright citizenship?"

No.

Because there's no need for 'clarification.'

That the 14th Amendment confers citizenship upon any person born in the United States or its territories is settled and accepted.

 

[Dana7360]

In Plyler, citizenship was not the primary issue

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. Page 457 U. S. 216

Agreed- however- as I said- they would use the logic of Plyler v. Doe.

What does the 14th Amendment say?

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

Plyler found that anyone born within the United States is 'within its jurisdiction' and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Thank you. I was going to post almost exactly that when I got to the end of the thread.

You did it for me and did it much better than ever could.

 

[Dana7360]

In Plyler, citizenship was not the primary issue

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish. Page 457 U. S. 216

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there? He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the State's civil laws. He is NOT meeting his "full range of obligations" under the States Criminal Laws.

Read the BOLDED ABOVE. Do you just skip what you don't like?

I read the entire post and asked questions about the part where I thought your reasoning was flawed.

These Questions.

How can he be subject to the Law when the Law does not know he is there and he is NOT following the Law by the very act of being there?
.

If he robs a bank- is he subject to the law- or not subject to the law?

If they weren't subject to our laws then they wouldn't be here illegally because our immigration laws wouldn't apply to them.

No one can say they're here illegally if they weren't subject to our laws.

 

[Kondor3]

...The only problem is that the birthright citizenship issue has been settled for a long time...

True, but there are a variety of matters in which SCOTUS has ruled one way, in one era, then reversed itself, in another era, yes?

And, if that is the case, then SCOTUS can simpy RE-interpret the 14th to hold that it was intended to provide relief to former slaves, not to open a loophole for Anchor Babies.

...Congress has no power to take it away from birthright children ex post facto. ...

True.

We're stuck with the Anchor Babies already here.

But, moving forward, that can be a different story, given the right ruling by SCOTUS.

And, of course, we can also insist that any Anchor Babies already here, be accompanied by parent or legal guardian who is legally entitled to be upon US soil.

That should take a big damned bite out of the Anchor Baby presence - dashing the hopes of Illegals who sneak into the country and then pop out their Anchor Puppies because the dumb-ass, dim-witted, soft-hearted, soft-headed Gringos can't bring themselves to send them packing...

 

[Syriusly]

...The only problem is that the birthright citizenship issue has been settled for a long time...

True, but there are a variety of matters in which SCOTUS has ruled one way, in one era, then reversed itself, in another era, yes?

And, if that is the case, then SCOTUS can simpy RE-interpret the 14th to hold that it was intended to provide relief to former slaves, not to open a loophole for Anchor Babies.

...Congress has no power to take it away from birthright children ex post facto. ...

True.

We're stuck with the Anchor Babies already here.

But, moving forward, that can be a different story, given the right ruling by SCOTUS.

And, of course, we can also insist that any Anchor Babies already here, be accompanied by parent or legal guardian who is legally entitled to be upon US soil.

That should take a big damned bite out of the Anchor Baby presence - dashing the hopes of Illegals who sneak into the country and then pop out their Anchor Puppies because the dumb-ass, dim-witted, soft-hearted, soft-headed Gringos can't bring themselves to send them packing...

Well hoping that the Supreme Court will change its mind and rule how you want it to- is not exactly working for change.

And what you call 'Anchor Babies' are as of today- exactly as much American Citizens as you and I are.

You don't like that- well push for changing the Constitution.

 

[Flopper]

Writer of the article presents her conservative side decently.

The only problem is that the birthright citizenship issue has been settled for a long time. Congress has no power to take it away from birthright children ex post facto. It does have the power to grant citizenship to whom it chooses.

Constitutional Check: Will the Supreme Court clarify birthright citizenship?

If the court should overturn birthright citizenship then they would be saying that children of illegal immigrants are not subject to the laws of the United States. This would be a really interesting interpretation of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction". If children of illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, can they be tried in an American court? Can they even be deported? What immigration judge has the right to hear their case? It's a Catch-22: if they're in the country legally, they can stay, yet if they're in the country illegally, the court has no jurisdiction over them.

 

[Flopper]

Writer of the article presents her conservative side decently.

The only problem is that the birthright citizenship issue has been settled for a long time. Congress has no power to take it away from birthright children ex post facto. It does have the power to grant citizenship to whom it chooses.

Constitutional Check: Will the Supreme Court clarify birthright citizenship?

I don't understand conservatives and this issue.

The 14th amendment is extremely clear.

Is it that they don't understand that congress can't write laws that violate the constitution? Or is it that they just don't care?

The only way to change the law is to amend the constitution. That's not very easy and I'm pretty sure that, if it actually was brought up in congress, gets two thirds to vote yes, pass it, it's still not an amendment until it's ratified by a super majority of the states. That's never going to happen. Americans aren't going to vote to take away US birth right from anyone. We all know anyone born here is a citizen. America can't issue a birth certificate for any other nation but America. People aren't going to vote for having babies who are born here but don't have citizenship to America or any other nation.

No other nation is going to hand all the states in America birth certificates to be issued to anyone born here.

Do these people think things through to their logical conclusion?

I agree.
Any court case over birthright citizens will come down to the court's interpretation of "jurisdiction" in the citizenship clause when the 14th amendment was passed. The opposition to birthright citizenship will claim the meaning of jurisdiction in the mid 18th century is not what it is today. It would be claimed that jurisdiction was about property rights and allegiance to a foreign power and the framers of the 14th amendment were only concerned with slavery. This simple won't prevail because the common accepted meaning of jurisdiction is really no different than it is today as you can see in the 19th century Webster's dictionary in the link below. Using an argument that congress had a different interpretation of jurisdiction or they didn't mean what they said won't fly which is why birthright citizenship will never be on the SCOTUS docket.

Further, a change in requirement for citizenship which is spelled out in the constitution and has stood the test of time for a 150 years is not going to be reversed by the court because congress and the administration can't come to terms on immigration enforcement.

Websters Dictionary 1828 - Webster's Dictionary 1828 - jurisdiction

 

[Kondor3]

...Well hoping that the Supreme Court will change its mind and rule how you want it to- is not exactly working for change...

Never said it was.

...And what you call 'Anchor Babies' are as of today- exactly as much American Citizens as you and I are...

True. Already conceded. But there are ways of fixing that unintended and frequently exploited loophole in the 14th, moving forward.

...You don't like that- well push for changing the Constitution.

Too much fuss. Far easier to have SCOTUS revisit the matter; relegating a new Amendment to the 'fall-back' position in the matter.