SCOTUS to Hear Arguments for Trump's Plan to End Birthright Citizenship

WRONG

Let's go to the debate, in the Senate, May 30th, 1866. Specifically, Senator John Conness from California.

The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.



That's the opinion of one Senator.

There were also no laws in 1866 regulating the immigration of Chinese or anyone else into the country.

The Chinese exclusion act wasn't until 1882. The first law to allow for denial of entry for immigration was in 1875.

And the first overall Immigration law wasn't until 1891.

List of United States immigration laws - Wikipedia
 
That's the opinion of one Senator.

There were also no laws in 1866 regulating the immigration of Chinese or anyone else into the country.

The Chinese exclusion act wasn't until 1882. The first law to allow for denial of entry for immigration was in 1875.

And the first overall Immigration law wasn't until 1891.

List of United States immigration laws - Wikipedia
The Civil Rights act passed previously and contained nearly the same language. And Connesss was laying down the definition of the amendment that was initially accepted and ratified. His position cost him his seat, but it is clearly wrong to claim those that wrote the amendment did not mean for it to apply to all people, here legally or illegally. What part of "children of all parentage whatever" do you not understand?
 
The Civil Rights act passed previously and contained nearly the same language. And Connesss was laying down the definition of the amendment that was initially accepted and ratified. His position cost him his seat, but it is clearly wrong to claim those that wrote the amendment did not mean for it to apply to all people, here legally or illegally. What part of "children of all parentage whatever" do you not understand?

One guy, and at the time there were no laws governing immigration, so anyone who came here, could become a citizen eventually if they met the rules.

There wasn't a concept of legal or illegal immigration at the time.
 
One guy, and at the time there were no laws governing immigration, so anyone who came here, could become a citizen eventually if they met the rules.

There wasn't a concept of legal or illegal immigration at the time.
Senator Trumbull of Illinois.

It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Would the Senator from Wisconsin think for a moment of bringing a bill into Congress to subject these wild Indians with whom we have no treaty to the laws and regulations of civilized life? Would he think of punishing them for instituting among themselves their own tribal regulations? Does the Government of the United States pretend to take jurisdiction of murders and robberies and other crimes committed by one Indian upon another? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in any just sense? They are not subject to our jurisdiction. We do not exercise jurisdiction over them. It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.

The key takeaway here, "who are subject to our laws". Are illegal aliens subject to "our laws"? Take away birthright citizenship, they are not.

Look, I completely understand, you won't read the entire 400 plus pages on the link I left. But the debate in the Senate on May 30th, 1866 is only about 25 pages. It clearly indicates the sentiment of the Senate at the time. They completely understood that ALL children, born to ANYONE in the United States, other than Native Americans living on a reservation, and the children of foreign diplomats, who, to this day, ARE NOT subject to US law, qualified for citizenship
 
Senator Trumbull of Illinois.

It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Would the Senator from Wisconsin think for a moment of bringing a bill into Congress to subject these wild Indians with whom we have no treaty to the laws and regulations of civilized life? Would he think of punishing them for instituting among themselves their own tribal regulations? Does the Government of the United States pretend to take jurisdiction of murders and robberies and other crimes committed by one Indian upon another? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in any just sense? They are not subject to our jurisdiction. We do not exercise jurisdiction over them. It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.

The key takeaway here, "who are subject to our laws". Are illegal aliens subject to "our laws"? Take away birthright citizenship, they are not.

Look, I completely understand, you won't read the entire 400 plus pages on the link I left. But the debate in the Senate on May 30th, 1866 is only about 25 pages. It clearly indicates the sentiment of the Senate at the time. They completely understood that ALL children, born to ANYONE in the United States, other than Native Americans living on a reservation, and the children of foreign diplomats, who, to this day, ARE NOT subject to US law, qualified for citizenship

Before the concept of legal in illegal immigration were created.
 
Our form of government is designed to not be quick and easy for good reason.
Indeed. And under normal / peacetime conditions we all strive to live by that form.

However, under great stress ( wartime or other severe threat ) we DO tend to take 'shortcuts' while trying to preserve form.

And a very good argument can be made that this most recent flood of Illegal Aliens now constitutes such a severe threat.

So I expect we'll devise shortcuts and expedited Due Process that observes the form while hastening mass deportations.

Otherwise it would take centuries to eject them and that is simply not going to be allowed to happen, methinks.
 
Before the concept of legal in illegal immigration were created.
Senator Doolittle from Wisconsin.

In all those vast territories which we acquired from Mexico, we took the sovereignty and the jurisdiction of the soil and the country from Mexico, just as Mexico herself had held it, just as Spain had held it before the Mexican republic was established; and what was the power that was held by Spain and by Mexico over the Indian tribes? They did not recognize even the possessory title of an Indian in one foot of the jurisdiction of those territories. In reference to the Indians of California, we have never admitted that they had sufficient jurisdiction over any part of its soil to make a treaty with them, The Senate of the United States expressly refused to make treaties with the Indians of California, on the ground that they had no title and no jurisdiction whatever in the soil; they were absolutely subject to the authority of the United States, which we derived from our treaty with Mexico. The opinion of Attorney General Cushing, one of the ablest men who has ever occupied the position of Attorney General, has been read here, in which he states clearly that the Indians, though born upon our soil, owing us allegiance, are not citizens; they are our subjects; and that is the very word which is used in this amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States, declaring that if they be "subject" to our jurisdiction, born on our soil, they are, ipso facto, citizens of the United States.
 
Senator Doolittle from Wisconsin.

In all those vast territories which we acquired from Mexico, we took the sovereignty and the jurisdiction of the soil and the country from Mexico, just as Mexico herself had held it, just as Spain had held it before the Mexican republic was established; and what was the power that was held by Spain and by Mexico over the Indian tribes? They did not recognize even the possessory title of an Indian in one foot of the jurisdiction of those territories. In reference to the Indians of California, we have never admitted that they had sufficient jurisdiction over any part of its soil to make a treaty with them, The Senate of the United States expressly refused to make treaties with the Indians of California, on the ground that they had no title and no jurisdiction whatever in the soil; they were absolutely subject to the authority of the United States, which we derived from our treaty with Mexico. The opinion of Attorney General Cushing, one of the ablest men who has ever occupied the position of Attorney General, has been read here, in which he states clearly that the Indians, though born upon our soil, owing us allegiance, are not citizens; they are our subjects; and that is the very word which is used in this amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States, declaring that if they be "subject" to our jurisdiction, born on our soil, they are, ipso facto, citizens of the United States.

Lots of thinking from others, little thinking on your own.

Again, when did this happen?
 
The problem is an amendment requires 2/3 of the house.

So he will lose this case, and have to campaign for the citizens to give him a 2/3 house.....

The only way this will change to me is a Constitutional Convention.
Thanks for refreshing my memory. I had forgotten it takes a 2/3rds majority. Wouldn't it be nice if the Democrats could come around to agreeing that a new amendment is needed to clarify citizenship status for those born here regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status?
 
Thanks for refreshing my memory. I had forgotten it takes a 2/3rds majority. Wouldn't it be nice if the Democrats could come around to agreeing that a new amendment is needed to clarify citizenship status for those born here regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status?

Wishful thinking.
 
Senator Doolittle from Wisconsin.

In all those vast territories which we acquired from Mexico, we took the sovereignty and the jurisdiction of the soil and the country from Mexico, just as Mexico herself had held it, just as Spain had held it before the Mexican republic was established; and what was the power that was held by Spain and by Mexico over the Indian tribes? They did not recognize even the possessory title of an Indian in one foot of the jurisdiction of those territories. In reference to the Indians of California, we have never admitted that they had sufficient jurisdiction over any part of its soil to make a treaty with them, The Senate of the United States expressly refused to make treaties with the Indians of California, on the ground that they had no title and no jurisdiction whatever in the soil; they were absolutely subject to the authority of the United States, which we derived from our treaty with Mexico. The opinion of Attorney General Cushing, one of the ablest men who has ever occupied the position of Attorney General, has been read here, in which he states clearly that the Indians, though born upon our soil, owing us allegiance, are not citizens; they are our subjects; and that is the very word which is used in this amendment proposed to the Constitution of the United States, declaring that if they be "subject" to our jurisdiction, born on our soil, they are, ipso facto, citizens of the United States.
There is merely the opinion and spin-doctoring of a former Attorney General.

The question is, whether a newborn of Illegal Aliens who are on US soil illegally can claim birthright citizenship for that child.

That was certainly not the intent of the people who drafted the 14th.

Had they foreseen this loophole coming they would certainly have closed it before sending it around for ratification.

So, a modern-day Supreme Court re-interpretation of that aspect of the 14th Amendment would close the loophole.

Other than enforcing their proper behaviors while on our soil their sovereign jurisdiction is their country of origin.

We have interim law enforcement jurisdiction over them but their own countries have SOVEREIGN jurisdiction.

Sovereign jurisdiction "trumps" interim jurisdiction. :banana:
 
The problem is an amendment requires 2/3 of the house.
I agree. I'm glad the SC took the case. This will then lead to Trump proposing the amendment, and since he has the house, he should strike while the iron is hot.
Levin had a lot to say about this. He covered it again this weekend on Fox.

 
I have a feeling this will be 9-0 to 7-2 against, as the amendment clearly uses "all persons born", and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is too vague to overturn something so entrenched.

What Trump then needs to do is propose a Constitutional amendment.
What do you mean by entrenched?

The words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" have meaning. The current policy is to just ignore they exist.
 
Last edited:
What do you mean by entrenched?

The words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" have meaning. The current policy is to just ignore they exist.

I agree in principle, I just don't see the current court reaching that far.
 
Back
Top Bottom