S.C. needs to keep nose out of immigration policy making decisions, Trump v. Barbara

[Care4all]

Birthright citizenship is BAD PUBLIC POLICY. No one can point to a single benefit, which is why Democrats unanimously support it.

The language of the 14th is ambiguous, and the USSC should use that ambiguity to correct this awful policy mistake, even if it has prevailed virtually since the beginning. They can declare that the children of illegals are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the same State as their parents.

FYI- It isn't ambiguous.

The SC in the Ark case was able to use and examine the debate records on the 14th Amendment from the Senate floor surrounding what ALL PERSONS meant to all of those voting.

Everyone who voted on it, knew that ALL PERSONS meant, all persons.....with the exception of those with diplomatic immunity, and native tribesmen on reservations, both of whom were not under our jurisdiction.

Truths and Untruths About the Constitutional Origins of Birthright Citizenship | Constitutional Accountability Center

As Americans and our elected leaders engage in debate over immigration and the constitutional guarantee of citizenship at birth, there is something we should all be able to agree on: misleading statements about constitutional history do not help us understand the Constitution better or allow us...

www.theusconstitution.org

The Opposition's Arguments​

During the 1866 debates, opponents argued fiercely against the inclusive "all persons" language. They feared it would grant automatic citizenship to groups they deemed undesirable.

Key Quotes from the Debates​

Senator Edgar Cowan (Pennsylvania)


Cowan was one of the most vocal opponents. He specifically feared the amendment would apply to Chinese immigrants in California and the Roma (whom he called "Gypsies") in his home state.

"I am really desirous to know whether... it is the child of the Chinese and the child of the Gypsy... who are to be citizens? ... Is it proposed that the people of California are to now have a flood of Thugs or Thuggees [invading] their State?"

Senator Jacob Howard (Michigan) — The Amendment's Sponsor


To understand the opposition, it helps to see how the amendment's supporters responded. Howard, who introduced the Citizenship Clause, confirmed that it was intended to be sweeping, excluding only a very specific set of people.

"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... but will include every other class of persons."

Senator Lyman Trumbull (Illinois)


Trumbull, a key architect of the era's civil rights legislation, directly answered Cowan's fears about Chinese and Roma children:

"[The child of a Gypsy or Chinese person is] undoubtedly [a citizen]... To be a citizen of the United States is a right which cannot be wrested from any class of persons.

 

[pknopp]

Not the transport rule which is ridiculous. Also, there are many restrictions on where a legal gun holder and permit holder cannot carry, for example, on federal property. How is that legal based on the 2nd Ammendment?

I don't believe it is. I commented on this yesterday.

The answer is that it isn't, but the Supreme Cort allowed it. They interpreted it in a way that it was not written.

The court isn't going to flip immigration so in the end this is all a complete waste of time.

Now if you were trying to convince people to support a Constitutional Amendment, it would at least be worth your time.

 

[SweetTea]

I don't believe it is. I commented on this yesterday.

And yet it is Federal law.

The court isn't going to flip immigration so in the end this is all a complete waste of time.

Then just pass laws that restrict it and let the Supreme Court overturn them, or not, just as they have done with the 2nd Ammendment.

 

[pknopp]

And yet it is Federal law.



Then just pass laws that restrict it and let the Supreme Court overturn them, or not, just as they have done with the 2nd Ammendment.

That's what they are doing. Trump tried. The court was obviously not open to it.

 

[SweetTea]

That's what they are doing. Trump tried. The court was obviously not open to it.

Each state/city could pass laws restricting brithright citizenship on their city/state. The precedent would be that the other ammendments are also restricted.

 

[pknopp]

Each state/city could pass laws restricting brithright citizenship on their city/state. The precedent would be that the other ammendments are also restricted.

The Supreme Court has long ruled this a federal issue. States aren't going to waste the time.

 

[SweetTea]

The Supreme Court has long ruled this a federal issue. States aren't going to waste the time.

Is the 2nd Ammendment a federal issue?

 

[SweetTea]

BULLSHIT. That's not the meaning of the "jurisdiction" phrase. If you live in the USA, you are under the jurisdiction of the USA, unless you are the ambassador for a foreign nation. Ambassadors, their family and their staff are NOT under the jurisdiction of the USA.

The ONLY people not "under the jurisdiction of the USA" members of the foreign service of a different country.

Trump needs too stop trying to amend the Constitution by Executive Order.

Idiot.

Or enemy invaders...ah yes, there are indeed exceptions.

 

[pknopp]

Is the 2nd Ammendment a federal issue?

Already covered.

 

[SweetTea]

Already covered.

Right, they are both federal and yet one is constrained by state and local laws.

 

[pknopp]

Right, they are both federal and yet one is constrained by state and local laws.

The court is going to over rule Teump. Once that is done, any law comes nowhere close to getting past lower courts.

 

[SweetTea]

The court is going to over rule Teump. Once that is done, any law comes nowhere close to getting past lower courts.

I am simply suggesting that local jurisdictions pass laws that restrict it in some way at the local level. No reason they should not be able to based on the precedent set by laws restricting the 2nd Ammendment.

 

[Dragonlady]

Or enemy invaders...ah yes, there are indeed exceptions.

Immigrants are neither "invaders" nor are they "enemies".

Given your birth rates, within 5 years, you'll be begging for workers to emigrate to the USA to fill your jobs. Trump is already begging white people to move to the USA but white people don't want to live in your shithole country.

We're all MUCH better off where we are. Better wages, universal health care, functioning gun control, lower crime rates, no ICE or other secret police,

Your Chamber of Commerce has been begging your legislators to update the immigration process because you've had worker shortages since Obama was President. Funny how none of you idiots know this stuff.

 

[johnwk]

FYI- It isn't ambiguous.

The SC in the Ark case was able to use and examine the debate records on the 14th Amendment from the Senate floor surrounding what ALL PERSONS meant to all of those voting.

Everyone who voted on it, knew that ALL PERSONS meant, all persons.....with the exception of those with diplomatic immunity, and native tribesmen on reservations, both of whom were not under our jurisdiction.

During the debates on the 14th Amendment, and with regard to the 14th Amendment’s wording, the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States. Mr. TRUMBULL responded as follows SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)

1st column halfway down

“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

It must also be noted that John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment’s Section 1, remarks in the following manner on the intended meaning of “jurisdiction” in connection with citizenship.

*"I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”*Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (March 9th,1866) pg. 1291, middle column half way down.

And just how would aliens relinquish their allegiance to their country of origin so a child born to them thereafter and on American soil would be considered a citizen of the united States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment?

SURPRISE! By our naturalization process which requires an “Oath of Allegiance to the United States” and which renounces an allegiance to their country of origin, which is one of the requirements referenced in the debates during the framing of the 14th Amendment!

Trump’s Executive Order is acting within Executive Office powers in changing existing citizenship public policy with regard to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil. keep in mind the Biden Administration ignored the general welfare of the United States and her citizens, and allowed millions of foreign nationals to cross our border without being vetted, and included tens of thousands criminals, child molesters, mentally ill, drug dealers, etc.

Does our Supreme Court need to be reminded that Elections have consequences?

See ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003) …..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress’ action, however, is not within our province to second guess.

The S.C. needs to keep its stricken nose out of policy make decisions of this magnitude, Trump v. Barbara, especially when Congress is authorized by the terms of the 14th Amendment to make adjustments if needed, and not our Supreme Court.

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment:

“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

 

[johnwk]

BULLSHIT. That's not the meaning of the "jurisdiction" phrase. If you live in the USA, you are under the jurisdiction of the USA,

Not within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment!

Mr. TRUMBULL clarifies as follows SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)

1st column halfway down

“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

It must also be noted that John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment’s Section 1, remarks in the following manner on the intended meaning of “jurisdiction” in connection with citizenship.

"I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (March 9th,1866) pg. 1291, middle column half way down.

 

[BackAgain]

I mean, it's not like this hasn't been covered many times including current threads.

You lost. Continually repeating yourself isn't going to change anything.

Lol

The decision is pending.

So your claim that anybody already “lost” is just plainly and undeniably false.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

When will we all learn that the left hate America.

They are stupid, but not stupid enough to not realize that we are being taken advantage of, and we have millions of people coming here in order to be able to have a child in order to gain taxpayer benefits while not having allegiance to America. They know this, and also know that this is another tool they can use to bring down a capitalistic nation.

 

[Care4all]

During the debates on the 14th Amendment, and with regard to the 14th Amendment’s wording, the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States. Mr. TRUMBULL responded as follows SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)

1st column halfway down

“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

It must also be noted that John A. Bingham, considered the architect of the 14th Amendment’s Section 1, remarks in the following manner on the intended meaning of “jurisdiction” in connection with citizenship.

*"I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”*Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (March 9th,1866) pg. 1291, middle column half way down.

And just how would aliens relinquish their allegiance to their country of origin so a child born to them thereafter and on American soil would be considered a citizen of the united States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment?

SURPRISE! By our naturalization process which requires an “Oath of Allegiance to the United States” and which renounces an allegiance to their country of origin, which is one of the requirements referenced in the debates during the framing of the 14th Amendment!

Trump’s Executive Order is acting within Executive Office powers in changing existing citizenship public policy with regard to the offspring of illegal entrant foreign nationals born on American soil. keep in mind the Biden Administration ignored the general welfare of the United States and her citizens, and allowed millions of foreign nationals to cross our border without being vetted, and included tens of thousands criminals, child molesters, mentally ill, drug dealers, etc.

Does our Supreme Court need to be reminded that Elections have consequences?

See ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003) …..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress’ action, however, is not within our province to second guess.

The S.C. needs to keep its stricken nose out of policy make decisions of this magnitude, Trump v. Barbara, especially when Congress is authorized by the terms of the 14th Amendment to make adjustments if needed, and not our Supreme Court.

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment:

“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Were children born by foreign immigrants, born citizens prior to the 14th amendment? What was the law we followed for kids of the British, Irish, Scottish, Danes, French, Swiss etc?

Did they have to go through a naturalization process with lengthy paper work that we would have records on for the newly born of these immigrants listed above.....? What was the process and can you show proof that no one born on our soil from an alien foreigner was a citizen at birth.....? The answer is NO.

AND since THEY WERE CITIZEN BIRTHS prior to the 14th amendment as tge Common Law we followed dictated, WHY WOULD THE 14TH or Bingham, leave them out in the 14th? He didn't.

Who in your mind were the ALL PERSONS in the 14th? SLAVES alone? If only slaves, why did they word it ALL PERSONS?

 

[johnwk]

Were children born by foreign immigrants, born citizens prior to the 14th amendment?

in the case Wong Kim Ark, (1898), the facts stated in Wong Kim Ark confirm,

(1)Wong Kim Ark’s parents were not in the United States illegally;

(2) had been settled in American for quite some time;

(3) the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States;

(4) they were carrying on a lawful business;

(5) and the parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.

After the above facts were established by the Court, Justice Gray then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship:

For the reasons above stated, the court was of the opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

The above conditions are not being meet by the millions of foreign nationals who entered our country illegally under the Biden Administration, and thus, the offspring born to the above mentioned illegal entrant foreign nationals on American soil are not eligible for U.S. citizenship upon their birth.

 

[Care4all]

in the case Wong Kim Ark, (1898), the facts stated in Wong Kim Ark confirm,

(1)Wong Kim Ark’s parents were not in the United States illegally;

(2) had been settled in American for quite some time;

(3) the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States;

(4) they were carrying on a lawful business;

(5) and the parents were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.

After the above facts were established by the Court, Justice Gray then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship:

For the reasons above stated, the court was of the opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

The above conditions are not being meet by the millions of foreign nationals who entered our country illegally under the Biden Administration, and thus, the offspring born to the above mentioned illegal entrant foreign nationals on American soil are not eligible for U.S. citizenship upon their birth.

1. No category of people were in the country illegally....including Chinese Migrants when the Wongs arrived.

2. Time here mattered not vs the time by other immigrants, time here is not in the 14th.

3. Yes, they were living here in a home, like ALL other PERSONS did that migrated here.

4. So what? People working for others or people working for themselves at their own business was indistinguishable.... AND mentioned no where in the 14th.

5. The parents were not diplomats but under Chinese rule according to opponents of Wong's citizenship, all Chinese born in China loyally serve the Emperor from birth until death....this lead to the U.S. creating the Chinese Exclusion act of 1882, prior to the Wong case in court. The opponents used that to disallow Wong back in to the country, saying he could not be a citizen since his parents couldn't be..... due to their lifetime loyalty to the Chinese Emperor.



The Opinions of the Justices in the case:

AMENDMENT XIV

In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court did not have individual opinions written by every justice. Instead, the court split 6–2 (with one justice not participating), resulting in one comprehensive majority opinion and one joint dissenting opinion.


Here is the breakdown of the individual justices, their specific opinions, and the overall picture of the case.

The Lineup of Justices​

• The Majority (6): Horace Gray, David J. Brewer, Henry B. Brown, George Shiras Jr., Edward D. White, and Rufus W. Peckham.

• The Dissent (2): Chief Justice Melville Fuller and John Marshall Harlan.

• Did Not Participate (1): Joseph McKenna (he had just joined the court and did not take part in the decision).

The Majority Opinion​

Written by Justice Horace Gray


Justice Gray authored a massive, deeply researched opinion for the six-justice majority. His opinion focused heavily on legal history and the text of the Constitution:

• The English Common Law Rule: Gray argued that when the Founders wrote the Constitution and when Congress wrote the 14th Amendment, they understood citizenship based on English common law. For centuries, English law used the principle of jus soli (right of the soil)—if you are born within the territory, you are a subject/citizen.

• The Exceptions are Few and Specific: Gray noted that under common law, the onlyexceptions to birthright citizenship on a country's soil were:
  1. Children of foreign diplomats/ambassadors.
  1. Children born on foreign public ships (like warships).
  1. Children born to alien enemies during a hostile military occupation.

on.

• Application to Wong Kim Ark: Because Wong's parents were permanent residents running a business and were not diplomats or invading soldiers, Wong was born "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. and was therefore a citizen.

• Irrelevance of the Chinese Exclusion Act: Gray explicitly stated that while Congress had the right to ban Chinese immigrants from becoming naturalized citizens, Congress did not have the power to take away the birthright citizenship of someone born on American soil, as that right was protected by the Constitution.

The Dissenting Opinion​

Written by Chief Justice Melville Fuller (Joined by Justice John Marshall Harlan)


Chief Justice Fuller wrote the dissent, and Justice Harlan (who is famously known as the lone "Great Dissenter" in the racist Plessy v. Ferguson case, but voted with the majority against Wong here) agreed with him. Their opinion focused on international law and the concept of political allegiance:

• The "Right of Blood" (Jus Sanguinis): Fuller argued that instead of using old English common law, the court should look to "civil law" and international law. He believed a child's citizenship should follow the nationality of the parents, regardless of where they were born.
• The Meaning of "Jurisdiction": Fuller argued that "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States didn't just mean you had to obey U.S. laws while living here. He argued it meant a complete, absolute, and exclusive political allegiance.

• The Emperor of China Argument: Fuller leaned heavily into the point you mentioned in your first question. He argued that because the Emperor of China claimed absolute loyalty from his subjects and their children from birth to death, Wong's parents could not give full allegiance to the U.S. Therefore, Wong was born with a primary allegiance to China, not the United States.

The Overall Picture & Legacy​

The Wong Kim Ark case is one of the most important Fourteenth Amendment cases in American history.


By ruling 6–2 in favor of Wong, the Supreme Court shut the door on the idea that Congress or the President could use a person's race or their parents' immigration status to deny them citizenship if they were born on U.S. soil. It permanently enshrined the concept of birthright citizenship (jus soli) as the supreme law of the land, heavily restricting the government's ability to create an inherited class of non-citizens.