The case for birthright citizenship.

[Delldude]

A couple of excellent articles defining what birthright citizenship is under COTUS. It has been abused and has strayed from the original intent. It's time for this abuse or the law to be dealt with.

President Trump’s second term thrusts the question of birthright citizenship to the forefront of American politics: should the United States automatically grant citizenship to any child who happens to be born on US soil? Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution requires doing such a thing. Yet defenders of birthright shut down any debate by framing opposition as cruel and racist — and obviously wrong as a legal matter.

But there is a strong constitutional and moral case for limiting birthright citizenship. It’s the argument that led the Trump administration to issue an executive order that defines a new status quo: going forward, children of illegal aliens won’t receive recognition of their citizenship by the US Department of State or any other executive agency.

The case for ending birthright citizenship

unherd.com

Claremont Institute scholars, including me, Ed Erler, Tom West, John Marini, and Michael Anton, President Trump’s incoming Director of Policy Planning at the State Department, have been contending for years—decades, really—that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause does not provide automatic citizenship for everyone born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances. Other prominent scholars, such as the late University of Texas law Professor Lino Graglia, University of Pennsylvania Professor Rogers Smith, and Yale Law Professor Emeritus Peter Schuck, have come to the same conclusion based on their own extensive scholarly research.
___________________
Our argument is straightforward. The text of the 14th Amendment contains two requirements for acquiring automatic citizenship by birth: one must be born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. The proper understanding of the Citizenship Clause therefore turns on what the drafters of the amendment, and those who ratified it, meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Was it merely a partial, temporary jurisdiction, such as applies to anyone (except for diplomats) who are subject to our laws while they are within our borders? Or does it instead apply only to those who are subject to a more complete jurisdiction, one which manifests itself as owing allegiance to the United States and not to any foreign power?

Birthright Citizenship: Game On!

The Supreme Court will likely have the opportunity to acknowledge that the Claremont Institute’s view of the Citizenship Clause is correct.

americanmind.org

 

[Cougarbear]

A couple of excellent articles defining what birthright citizenship is under COTUS. It has been abused and has strayed from the original intent. It's time for this abuse or the law to be dealt with.

President Trump’s second term thrusts the question of birthright citizenship to the forefront of American politics: should the United States automatically grant citizenship to any child who happens to be born on US soil? Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution requires doing such a thing. Yet defenders of birthright shut down any debate by framing opposition as cruel and racist — and obviously wrong as a legal matter.

But there is a strong constitutional and moral case for limiting birthright citizenship. It’s the argument that led the Trump administration to issue an executive order that defines a new status quo: going forward, children of illegal aliens won’t receive recognition of their citizenship by the US Department of State or any other executive agency.

The case for ending birthright citizenship

unherd.com

Claremont Institute scholars, including me, Ed Erler, Tom West, John Marini, and Michael Anton, President Trump’s incoming Director of Policy Planning at the State Department, have been contending for years—decades, really—that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause does not provide automatic citizenship for everyone born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances. Other prominent scholars, such as the late University of Texas law Professor Lino Graglia, University of Pennsylvania Professor Rogers Smith, and Yale Law Professor Emeritus Peter Schuck, have come to the same conclusion based on their own extensive scholarly research.
___________________
Our argument is straightforward. The text of the 14th Amendment contains two requirements for acquiring automatic citizenship by birth: one must be born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. The proper understanding of the Citizenship Clause therefore turns on what the drafters of the amendment, and those who ratified it, meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Was it merely a partial, temporary jurisdiction, such as applies to anyone (except for diplomats) who are subject to our laws while they are within our borders? Or does it instead apply only to those who are subject to a more complete jurisdiction, one which manifests itself as owing allegiance to the United States and not to any foreign power?

Birthright Citizenship: Game On!

The Supreme Court will likely have the opportunity to acknowledge that the Claremont Institute’s view of the Citizenship Clause is correct.

americanmind.org

"Jurisdiction" with the 14th amendment means "The Citizenship Clause establishes the principle of birthright citizenship, but there are exceptions to this general rule; the key language reads “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”; this means that the non-citizen must owe full allegiance to the United States and to no other country." A new born child would have no way to answer this allegiance question. Without the parents being citizens of the U.S., there is question on what the loyalty of the child may be when the child grows up. With parents who are citizens, there is a good reasonable chance that the child will grow up and owe its allegiance to the U.S. I have a feeling that 5 or 6 of the judges will view this the same as this.

 

[Delldude]

"Jurisdiction" with the 14th amendment means "The Citizenship Clause establishes the principle of birthright citizenship, but there are exceptions to this general rule; the key language reads “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”; this means that the non-citizen must owe full allegiance to the United States and to no other country." A new born child would have no way to answer this allegiance question. Without the parents being citizens of the U.S., there is question on what the loyalty of the child may be when the child grows up. With parents who are citizens, there is a good reasonable chance that the child will grow up and owe its allegiance to the U.S. I have a feeling that 5 or 6 of the judges will view this the same as this.

The jurisdiction the parents come from will be the sole argument. Children won't matter.....basically they are an after the fact issue.

 

[Moonglow]

A couple of excellent articles defining what birthright citizenship is under COTUS. It has been abused and has strayed from the original intent. It's time for this abuse or the law to be dealt with.

President Trump’s second term thrusts the question of birthright citizenship to the forefront of American politics: should the United States automatically grant citizenship to any child who happens to be born on US soil? Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution requires doing such a thing. Yet defenders of birthright shut down any debate by framing opposition as cruel and racist — and obviously wrong as a legal matter.

But there is a strong constitutional and moral case for limiting birthright citizenship. It’s the argument that led the Trump administration to issue an executive order that defines a new status quo: going forward, children of illegal aliens won’t receive recognition of their citizenship by the US Department of State or any other executive agency.

The case for ending birthright citizenship

unherd.com

Claremont Institute scholars, including me, Ed Erler, Tom West, John Marini, and Michael Anton, President Trump’s incoming Director of Policy Planning at the State Department, have been contending for years—decades, really—that the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause does not provide automatic citizenship for everyone born on U.S. soil, no matter the circumstances. Other prominent scholars, such as the late University of Texas law Professor Lino Graglia, University of Pennsylvania Professor Rogers Smith, and Yale Law Professor Emeritus Peter Schuck, have come to the same conclusion based on their own extensive scholarly research.
___________________
Our argument is straightforward. The text of the 14th Amendment contains two requirements for acquiring automatic citizenship by birth: one must be born in the United States and be subject to its jurisdiction. The proper understanding of the Citizenship Clause therefore turns on what the drafters of the amendment, and those who ratified it, meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Was it merely a partial, temporary jurisdiction, such as applies to anyone (except for diplomats) who are subject to our laws while they are within our borders? Or does it instead apply only to those who are subject to a more complete jurisdiction, one which manifests itself as owing allegiance to the United States and not to any foreign power?

Birthright Citizenship: Game On!

The Supreme Court will likely have the opportunity to acknowledge that the Claremont Institute’s view of the Citizenship Clause is correct.

americanmind.org

The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution that requires states to treat people equally under the law. It guarantees that all citizens are treated fairly, regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, immigration status, or other factors.

How it works

• The Equal Protection Clause requires that people in similar situations be treated the same.
  
  
• The government cannot deny people equal protection of its laws.
  
  
• • The government must treat people in the same way as others in similar circumstances.

 

[Moonglow]

The jurisdiction the parents come from will be the sole argument. Children won't matter.....basically they are an after the fact issue.

What is the jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment?


“Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.”10 hours ago

How the modern Supreme Court might look at the 14th ... - CNN​

 

[Delldude]

The Equal Protection Clause is a part of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution that requires states to treat people equally under the law. It guarantees that all citizens are treated fairly, regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, immigration status, or other factors.

“Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.”

Legal jurisdiction.......................not political jurisdiction.

 

[wamose]

The jurisdiction the parents come from will be the sole argument. Children won't matter.....basically they are an after the fact issue.

I agree. To me, citizenship of the parents is the only way to determine the child's citizenship status that is fair and consistent. If a US couple went on an African safari, and the woman delivered her baby prematurely, is that baby an African citizen? No way. Maybe we should even look at denying dual citizenship in the future.

 

[Curried Goats]

Legal jurisdiction.......................not political jurisdiction.

That was the wording of the Supreme Court in its ruling of United States v Wong Kim Ark. His parents were in America when he was born but were subjects of the emperor of China and left America and took him back to China with them when he was 14th. As an adult he returned to United States to work a couple times and on his second trip back to the States his entry was denied and citizenship questioned. The Supreme Court ruled that even though their stay temporary, that they were under the complete jurisdiction of the United States while here. The only exception were to indigenous tribes and children of diplomats.


United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

 

[wamose]

Birthright citizenship for children of aliens born in this country, was never the intent of the framers of the 14th amendment. Actually, our current interpretation breeds chaos and is a threat to our national security.

 

[DBA]

Birthright citizenship for children of aliens born in this country, was never the intent of the framers of the 14th amendment. Actually, our current interpretation breeds chaos and is a threat to our national security.

It most certainly was not the intent, but current Democrats want their interpretation to hold for obvious reasons…future votes. They know that wasn’t the intent…ALL OF THEM.

 

[Unkotare]

I agree. To me, citizenship of the parents is the only way to determine the child's citizenship status that is fair and consistent. If a US couple went on an African safari, and the woman delivered her baby prematurely, is that baby an African citizen? No way. Maybe we should even look at denying dual citizenship in the future.

You realize Africa is not a country, right?

 

[Curried Goats]

It most certainly was not the intent, but current Democrats want their interpretation to hold for obvious reasons…future votes. They know that wasn’t the intent…ALL OF THEM.

It was the intent you morons. Before the 14th amendment foreigners from Europe could immigrate here and have children who would be considered American citizens under the idea of jus soli. So long as they were white. All the 14th did was expand this to everyone while still clearly making exceptions for indigenous tribes and diplomats which was always the case.

 

[wamose]

You realize Africa is not a country, right?

I do but thank you for the clarification.

 

[DBA]

You realize Africa is not a country, right?

Not that many would want/need most African country’s citizenship, but, how many countries in Africa would allow birthright citizenship as we do in the US, without restrictions or conditions?

Other than the US, the only countries in the world that allow unrestricted birthright citizenship are Canada, Argentina and Mexico.

It’s funny how Democrats believe that we should follow the lead of the rest of the world, especially Europe, on nearly every issue, accept for this one. Shouldn’t the US progress like most other countries and get rid of these antiquated ideas?

 

[Delldude]

That was the wording of the Supreme Court in its ruling of United States v Wong Kim Ark. His parents were in America when he was born but were subjects of the emperor of China and left America and took him back to China with them when he was 14th. As an adult he returned to United States to work a couple times and on his second trip back to the States his entry was denied and citizenship questioned. The Supreme Court ruled that even though their stay temporary, that they were under the complete jurisdiction of the United States while here. The only exception were to indigenous tribes and children of diplomats.


United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

The group I linked claim Wong was a bad decision.

 

[Curried Goats]

The group I linked claim Wong was a bad decision.

Of course they did. They however didn't happen to be members of the Supreme Court did they? Because I can find opinions from randos about all sorts of things. It's the Supreme Courts opinion that matters in regards to the Constitution.

 

[Delldude]

Of course they did. They however didn't happen to be members of the Supreme Court did they? Because I can find opinions from randos about all sorts of things. It's the Supreme Courts opinion that matters in regards to the Constitution.

They have done the same.

And opinions have been challenged and overturned before.

So there.....

 

[Curried Goats]

They have done the same.

And opinions have been challenged and overruled before.

So there.....

The Slaughter house ruling was not about birthright citizenship and has no bearing on it. Wonk Kim Ark actually was about birthright citizenship and it settled jurisdiction.

 

[Delldude]

The Slaughter house ruling was not about birthright citizenship and has no bearing on it. Wonk Kim Ark actually was about birthright citizenship and it settled jurisdiction.

Settled jurisdiction at the time.

 

[Curried Goats]

Settled jurisdiction at the time.

And all the time since then.