Federal appeals court rules Trump administration can't end birthright citizenship

[BackAgain]

If they're not subject to our jurisdiction, then our government judicial system has no standing to do anything about them.

Darrell Brooks in his trial claiming he wasn't under Wisconsin's jurisdiction.
View attachment 1169451

Except that’s not what “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” means.

We’ve all been through this discussion before.

Essentially, it refers to those born in the U.S. whose parents owe complete allegiance to the United States (not subject to a foreign power) are “subject to its jurisdiction.” The Congressional record — specifically the language and debates in the 1866 Congressional record (particularly the statements by Senators Trumbull and Howard) which asserted the exclusion of people who owe allegiance to another government — ought to make this the prevailing view of the SCOTUS.

For our liberals, this is known as “the legislative intent.” And if our lefties don’t like it, tough shit.

 

[my2¢]

You are making this about a technicality.

Anyway, yes, you are right, given the current way the laws are in this country, these children are citizens. However, it's like I said, laws can be changed. And when the law has stopped serving the people, then it is our duty to change it. It's not a hard concept.

I don't view the Constitution as a technicality. It is one thing we have that limits the government's powers. Some argue the 2nd amendment is a second thing we have to keep government in check. I prefer the former over the latter,

I'd have no problem seeing the Constitution amended to end birthright citizenship. It isn't a big issue one way or other with me. Our democracy takes the form of a Constitutional Republic so changing the law is certainly not a hard concept. What I desire is that the law be changed through proper means and our justices not legislate that change.

 

[BackAgain]

I don't view the Constitution as a technicality. It is one thing we have that limits the government's powers. Some argue the 2nd amendment is a second thing we have to keep government in check. I prefer the former over the latter,

I'd have no problem seeing the Constitution amended to end birthright citizenship. It isn't a big issue one way or other with me. Our democracy takes the form of a Constitutional Republic so changing the law is certainly not a hard concept. What I desire is that the law be changed through proper means and our justices not legislate that change.

It isn’t a technicality. But, if you give a damn about what it says, you’re going to have to give due deference to the legislative intent that led to its eventual passage.

 

[my2¢]

xcept that’s not what “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” means.

The Supreme Court in 1898 ruled that the immigration status of the parents wasn't a factor.

Your argument makes as much sense as a liberal explaining what "militia" means in regard to the 2nd amendment.

 

[MayorQuimby]

The Supreme Court in 1898 ruled that the immigration status of the parents wasn't a factor.

That was the ruling of a body that died more than a hundred years ago though. I think we need to modernize our thinking a bit.

 

[BackAgain]

The Supreme Court in 1898 ruled that the immigration status of the parents wasn't a factor.

No. They didn’t.

Your argument makes as much sense as a liberal explaining what "militia" means in regard to the 2nd amendment.

Wrong again. And I notice you’re apparently unable to support either of your comments.

 

[my2¢]

It isn’t a technicality. But, if you give a damn about what it says, you’re going to have to give due deference to the legislative intent that led to its eventual passage.

All our laws limiting immigration were passed years after the amendment was adopted.

 

[BackAgain]

All our laws limiting immigration were passed years after the amendment was adopted.

So what?

 

[Care4all]

Not sure what you are trying to say. Illegals aren't slaves, so the law isn't written with them in mind.

Try learning a little of our History Quimby.

We had jus Soli, birthright citizenship for all children born of whom came here to colonize or live BEFORE the 14th Amendment after the Civil War was written....primarily based on English Common law...all born on British soil were subjects of the King.... All, except slaves had birthright citizenship.

The 14th Amendment simply codified what we already practiced in America, birthright citizenship, but now included slaves....by saying ALL PERSONS born on this soil, were citizens.

Birthright citizenship was nothing new.

This court case in 1844, almost 25 years before the civil war and the 14th proved we had birthright citizenship to anyone born here with parents not citizens that came here.


--------

The Fourteenth Amendment and the Citizenship Clause​

The 1844 New York court case of Lynch v. Clarke was one of the first cases to address the concept of birthplace-based citizenshipin the United States, even though it did so in the context of deciding an inheritance in New York. Julia Lynch was born in New York to two Irish parents who were temporary visitors in the United States. Soon after her birth, Lynch and her family returned to Ireland without declaring an intent to be naturalized. Although she remained in Ireland for twenty years after her birth, a U.S. court later used the principle of jus soli, or birthplace-based citizenship,todecide that she was an American citizen at the time of her birth. The Court ruled that her prolonged residence in Ireland succeeding her birth did not affect her birthright citizenship in the United States. Judge Lewis Sandford wrote in 1844, “I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. The Lynch case is one of the few examples of how courts at the time applied the basic principle of citizenship based on some people’s birth in the United States.

I can entertain no doubt, but that by law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.

Judge Lewis Sandford​

But such decisions only addressed the citizenship of white persons born in the United States, and those citizenship rights did not apply to all those born inside the country. Thirteen years after Lynch, the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision addressed the question of whether the descendants of people who were enslaved and brought to the United States were citizens entitled to the relevant rights and privileges granted to citizens under the Constitution. The Court enshrined the principle that enslaved people and people of African descent were not citizens of the United States, and in doing so rejected birthright citizenship for people of color and abrogated the concept that Black Americans were citizens of the United States by virtue of being born in the country.

The Fourteenth Amendment, which guaranteed certain rights for African Americans in all the states, was enacted following the end of the Civil War and sought to rectify the Dred Scott decision. Among other things, the Fourteenth Amendment sought to ensure birthright citizenship for everyone born on U.S. territory regardless of race.

The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment states the following: “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.” While the fight for citizenship recognition continued well after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the aim of the Amendment was to eliminate the existence of a class of people who were subjected to American law, but excluded from American legal rights. In essence, the use of jus soli to confer citizenship to those born on U.S. soil was to ensure that all those born within the country’s territory, regardless of race, would be citizens. Nevertheless, some groups continued to be excluded from recognition as citizens on the basis of race. Birthright Citizenship in the United States - American Immigration Council

 

[MayorQuimby]

I am not disputing any of that. But I am just saying that the intention behind the 14th, was to grant children of slaves citizenship, it was not written about the children of illegals. It's like I said, the Founding fathers was not thinking in terms of illegals, because back then they weren't such a huge problem.

 

[Hafar1014]

As you admit here, the child obtains citizenship through no illegal actions of its own. Child is legal, parents are not.

Folks here that want to twist the meaning behind "jurisdiction" are exercising the same sort of nonsense that those who twist the meaning of "militia" in regard to the 2nd amendment.

Expect the SC to ruke the mother must be citizen for the child to be born one
Heller settled the militia question its an individual right

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Seems we have a variety of federal laws that prohibit the benefiting from illegal actions. What is the first word in "Illegal Immigrant"?

What’s the first word in “American child of that illegal immigrant “?

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Expect the SC to ruke the mother must be citizen for the child to be born one
Heller settled the militia question its an individual right

 

[Hafar1014]

View attachment 1206879

Yes its already in the law " not subject to any other jurisdiction"

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Yes its already in the law " not subject to any other jurisdiction"

A person illegally in the United States kills someone in the USA , and USA has jurisdiction to put them in jail. Correct? What were you saying about jurisdiction? Tell me more about the nowhere place where you read there are different kinds of jurisdictions.

 

[Concerned American]

What’s the first word in “American child of that illegal immigrant “?
View attachment 1206877

Citizenship is not bestowed because you choose to tack American onto a phony description. BOOM. Moron. Anchor babies are not Americans anymore than a child of a diplomat is a an American citizen. You are not a good representative of GA public schools effectiveness.

 

[Hafar1014]

A person illegally in the United States kills someone in the USA , and USA has jurisdiction to put them in jail. Correct? What were you saying about jurisdiction? Tell me more about the nowhere place where you read there are different kinds of jurisdictions.

NO the parent who gives birth must not be under any other jurisdiction. A citizen of another country

 

[Unkotare]

... Anchor babies are not Americans...

There is no such thing as an "anchor baby."

 

[BackAgain]

Meh, this was always going to be a SCOTUS decision.

Exactly. And that was the whole point.

As we use that term (mistakenly), these days, “birthright citizenship” should be limited to the children of US citizens OR those others (ie, aliens) who have succeeded in being granted Naturalization.

The 14th Amendment should not be “interpreted” as demanding that the children born here to illegal aliens somehow become, automatically, US citizens.

Indeed, as has been noted right here at USMB on many occasions, those who put-together the Amendment within Congress were actually pretty clear that the intent was to make freed former slaves “citizens,” not the children of aliens based on the happenstance of birth location.

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

NO the parent who gives birth must not be under any other jurisdiction. A citizen of another country

You guys never cite a legal source for that claim.