TemplarKormac
Political Atheist
Liberals and proponents of longstanding tenet of the 14th Amendment, or "birthright citizenship," are up in arms after newly minted second-term President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning birthright citizenship for children born of illegal immigrants. The argument goes that since they are born here, they are under the jurisdiction of our laws, and thus citizens under the 14th Amendment. But in this context, what is the nature of 'jurisdiction'?
My opinion is that jurisdiction should only apply to legally born citizens, and those who break the law (including illegal immigrants), but not their children.
Jurisdiction in this case would seem to suggest that illegal aliens and their unborn children were not under such jurisdiction until they came here and gave birth. The nature of the jurisdiction should not and did not change simply because the child was born here. Both the parent(s) and their progeny should still not be under US jurisdiction until or even after the child is born, with exception to being subjected to all the penal consequences of our immigration law therein.
One argument, "Jus Soli" rooted in English common law, is used to make the suggestion we should allow citizenship to anyone born here, regardless of legal status, simply for not wanting to create a class of "stateless individuals." Firstly, Jus Soli was more suited for monarchies, not modern forms of government. Secondly, you can address the issue of "stateless individuals" by not granting them citizenship upon birth, and simply deporting them and their parents back to their nation of origin.
Another argument suggests that the "broad interpretation" of the amendment by the courts allows for birthright citizenship for illegal immigrant children. Sorry. Broad interpretations make for terrible arguments. Broad interpretations are simply a vehicle for those who lack a factual basis for or against something.
Now, Senator Jacob Howard, one of the amendment's drafters, stated during debates that it excluded individuals not fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction, such as foreign diplomats and their children, and members of sovereign Native American tribes who maintained allegiance to their tribes. As it stands now, illegals entering this country are not assured of owing their allegiance to the US. It does not grant that the children they produce will be taught to swear that same allegiance. The lack of allegiance should therefore limit the US jurisdiction to crimes they commit and obedience to the laws already in place, notwithstanding the laws they broke getting here.
A cat born of a cat may have different spots, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still a cat. That means that a child born of an illegal should remain illegal, human though they may be. The birth in itself isn't illegal. Being human isn't illegal. Their very presence on the other hand IS. That is the crux of MY argument.
Case in point, the jurisdiction of the US should be limited regarding illegals and their children, simply to sending them home and punishing the parents for coming illegally. "Yeah" you'll say, "but these children couldn't help it." Not my problem. Not the US's problem. When the law does not allow for an adult illegal's presence here, it shouldn't allow for the child's either.
That is the nature of "jurisdiction."
My opinion is that jurisdiction should only apply to legally born citizens, and those who break the law (including illegal immigrants), but not their children.
Jurisdiction in this case would seem to suggest that illegal aliens and their unborn children were not under such jurisdiction until they came here and gave birth. The nature of the jurisdiction should not and did not change simply because the child was born here. Both the parent(s) and their progeny should still not be under US jurisdiction until or even after the child is born, with exception to being subjected to all the penal consequences of our immigration law therein.
One argument, "Jus Soli" rooted in English common law, is used to make the suggestion we should allow citizenship to anyone born here, regardless of legal status, simply for not wanting to create a class of "stateless individuals." Firstly, Jus Soli was more suited for monarchies, not modern forms of government. Secondly, you can address the issue of "stateless individuals" by not granting them citizenship upon birth, and simply deporting them and their parents back to their nation of origin.
Another argument suggests that the "broad interpretation" of the amendment by the courts allows for birthright citizenship for illegal immigrant children. Sorry. Broad interpretations make for terrible arguments. Broad interpretations are simply a vehicle for those who lack a factual basis for or against something.
Now, Senator Jacob Howard, one of the amendment's drafters, stated during debates that it excluded individuals not fully subject to U.S. jurisdiction, such as foreign diplomats and their children, and members of sovereign Native American tribes who maintained allegiance to their tribes. As it stands now, illegals entering this country are not assured of owing their allegiance to the US. It does not grant that the children they produce will be taught to swear that same allegiance. The lack of allegiance should therefore limit the US jurisdiction to crimes they commit and obedience to the laws already in place, notwithstanding the laws they broke getting here.
A cat born of a cat may have different spots, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still a cat. That means that a child born of an illegal should remain illegal, human though they may be. The birth in itself isn't illegal. Being human isn't illegal. Their very presence on the other hand IS. That is the crux of MY argument.
Case in point, the jurisdiction of the US should be limited regarding illegals and their children, simply to sending them home and punishing the parents for coming illegally. "Yeah" you'll say, "but these children couldn't help it." Not my problem. Not the US's problem. When the law does not allow for an adult illegal's presence here, it shouldn't allow for the child's either.
That is the nature of "jurisdiction."
Last edited: