Why I'm Certain Birthright Citizenship Will Fail

[toobfreak]

I have a very meager legal training, but the other night, I caught an actual constitutional scholar on TV being interviewed on the matter of birthright citizenship that confirmed a lot that I've suspected, and why Trump will win his challenge. It made me wonder how the 14th Amendment has been left to go on as long as it has. I guess its a bit like RvW, flawed, but until Trump, no one was willing to challenge it. Let me try to explain it as this guy best explained in his interview.

In the context of the authors, when they said that 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, they were referring to slaves. Back in the early 19th century, there was no such thing as illegal immigration. Further, of course if you enter the country or are born here, you are subject to some degree of jurisdiction of the US government, but they meant subject to the FULL jurisdiction of US law, and illegal aliens obviously are not. Illegal aliens are citizens of other countries under their law and jurisdiction even when they come here. Someone coming here pregnant dropping a kid was never intended that the child suddenly automatically just become a full citizen. This is a discombobulation of the author's original intent, allowed to float for ages under liberal interpretation, and I expect the SCOTUS will overturn it soon.

 

[okfine]

Emphasize on "illegal"

What your dear leader is trying to do (by EO, of course) is illegal.

 

[Unkotare]

Human women give birth, they don’t “drop a kid.”

 

[Rambunctious]

We can't stop pregnant women from coming here on vacation or for business but we can say if you give birth here your baby is a citizen of its parents nation....
Completing the wall which is going up very fast right now will stop a lot of this...

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

birthright citizenship was never meant for illegal border crossers

 

[MarathonMike]

birthright citizenship was never meant for illegal border crossers

Exactly! In other words, it is vital for our leaders to interpret the Constitutional INTENT and the CONTEXT of the times in which certain amendments were written. Anyone with a modicum of common sense can surmise that the 14th amendment was intended to insure the rights of SLAVE'S OFFSPRING and not pregnant illegal immigrants dragging themselves across the border and giving birth.

 

[sparky]

birthright citizenship was never meant for illegal border crossers

no, apparently the original 14thAmd intent suffered 'discombobulation' .....

~S~

 

[protectionist]

birthright citizenship was never meant for illegal border crossers

Correct.
The birthright citizenship clause of the 14th amendment was written particularly FOR BLACKS, and clearly excluded the kids of non-citizens, so said the 1866 author of the 14th amendment, Senator Jacob Howard.

"[The 14th amendment] 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 accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person." [2] (Jacob Howard, May 30, 1866)

Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[protectionist]

Emphasize on "illegal"

What your dear leader is trying to do (by EO, of course) is illegal.

FALSE! It is entirely consistent with the original intent of the14th amendment as created by its author, Sen Jacob Howard in 1866.
See Post # 8.

 

[okfine]

FALSE! It is entirely consistent with the original intent of the14th amendment as created by its author, Sen Jacob Howard in 1866.
See Post # 8.

Where does it say "blacks?"

 

[protectionist]

Where does it say "blacks?"

It says >>> 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

 

[toobfreak]

Exactly! In other words, it is vital for our leaders to interpret the Constitutional INTENT and the CONTEXT of the times in which certain amendments were written. Anyone with a modicum of common sense can surmise that the 14th amendment was intended to insure the rights of SLAVE'S OFFSPRING and not pregnant illegal immigrants dragging themselves across the border and giving birth.

Well the good news is that unlike lower courts, SCOTUS excels in researching the /historical context/ of laws as they were intended as written and that is why the 14th will be written or overturned. Certainly with slavery being a dead issue long ago, their is little point in even keeping the 14th amendment.

 

[JoeB131]

I have a very meager legal training, but the other night, I caught an actual constitutional scholar on TV being interviewed on the matter of birthright citizenship that confirmed a lot that I've suspected, and why Trump will win his challenge. It made me wonder how the 14th Amendment has been left to go on as long as it has. I guess its a bit like RvW, flawed, but until Trump, no one was willing to challenge it. Let me try to explain it as this guy best explained in his interview.

In the context of the authors, when they said that 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, they were referring to slaves. Back in the early 19th century, there was no such thing as illegal immigration. Further, of course if you enter the country or are born here, you are subject to some degree of jurisdiction of the US government, but they meant subject to the FULL jurisdiction of US law, and illegal aliens obviously are not. Illegal aliens are citizens of other countries under their law and jurisdiction even when they come here. Someone coming here pregnant dropping a kid was never intended that the child suddenly automatically just become a full citizen. This is a discombobulation of the author's original intent, allowed to float for ages under liberal interpretation, and I expect the SCOTUS will overturn it soon.

I doubt SCOTUS will overturn US v. Wong, given the kind of chaos it would cause.

Can you easily prove both of your parents were legal? I might have a hard time, given both of mine died in the 1980s and I don't have access to any of their documentation at this point.

The problem with your jurisdictional argument is that all illegals (and for that matter, legal) aliens could now claim extraterritoriality. It would give every alien protection from US Laws. Sure, this might make it easier to deport them, but harder to hold them accountable if they do anything serious, as you've effectively given them diplomatic immunity.

 

[Care4all]

I have a very meager legal training, but the other night, I caught an actual constitutional scholar on TV being interviewed on the matter of birthright citizenship that confirmed a lot that I've suspected, and why Trump will win his challenge. It made me wonder how the 14th Amendment has been left to go on as long as it has. I guess its a bit like RvW, flawed, but until Trump, no one was willing to challenge it. Let me try to explain it as this guy best explained in his interview.

In the context of the authors, when they said that 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, they were referring to slaves. Back in the early 19th century, there was no such thing as illegal immigration. Further, of course if you enter the country or are born here, you are subject to some degree of jurisdiction of the US government, but they meant subject to the FULL jurisdiction of US law, and illegal aliens obviously are not. Illegal aliens are citizens of other countries under their law and jurisdiction even when they come here. Someone coming here pregnant dropping a kid was never intended that the child suddenly automatically just become a full citizen. This is a discombobulation of the author's original intent, allowed to float for ages under liberal interpretation, and I expect the SCOTUS will overturn it soon.

Why didn't the amendment writers just simply say children born of slaves or previous slaves instead of ALL PERSONS? Slaves or children born in the USA to slaves or previous slaves, was easy peasy to simply write and make it clear that this amendment was only applied to slaves? They did NOT do that....why not?

Why did they even mention "subject to the jurisdiction thereof...."? All slaves, or ex slaves were ALL under our jurisdiction....so why even word it that way, unless they were talking about birthright citizenship of ALL PERSONS....?

And everyone one here is subject to the FULL jurisdiction thereof...there is no such thing as partial jurisdiction, with the exception of foreign diplomats etc, of which they and family are under the jurisdiction of their country when they are sent here to work for their government....this is called "diplomatic immunity" now, and called such, also back then. (Note, Native Americans at the time were under the jurisdiction of their native American government on their reservation)

Me thinks you got snowed by this guy and were too eager to believe him....without any thought or reasoning or questioning on your part....

FYI
Also, there were immigrants that were not accepted in to the USA at the time and would be called illegal immigrant at the time....as example if you were not healthy and sick when you arrived or carried a disease...you were deported back to the country you came from...., you could not be disabled or unable to work, you would be deported back to where you came from...

 

[protectionist]

Why didn't the amendment writers just simply say children born of slaves or previous slaves instead of ALL PERSONS? Slaves or children born in the USA to slaves or previous slaves, was easy peasy to simply write and make it clear that this amendment was only applied to slaves? They did NOT do that....why not?

Why did they even mention "subject to the jurisdiction thereof...."? All slaves, or ex slaves were ALL under our jurisdiction....so why even word it that way, unless they were talking about birthright citizenship of ALL PERSONS....?

And everyone one here is subject to the FULL jurisdiction thereof...there is no such thing as partial jurisdiction, with the exception of foreign diplomats etc, of which they and family are under the jurisdiction of their country when they are sent here to work for their government....this is called "diplomatic immunity" now, and called such, also back then. (Note, Native Americans at the time were under the jurisdiction of their native American government on their reservation)

Me thinks you got snowed by this guy and were too eager to believe him....without any thought or reasoning or questioning on your part....

FYI
Also, there were immigrants that were not accepted in to the USA at the time and would be called illegal immigrant at the time....as example if you were not healthy and sick when you arrived or carried a disease...you were deported back to the country you came from...., you could not be disabled or unable to work, you would be deported back to where you came from...

Referring to his 14th amendment he was authoring, Howard said "will not, of course, include..." That means EXCLUDE.
See Post # 8.

 

[toobfreak]

Why didn't the amendment writers just simply say

Moot question since we cannot ask them why they wrote or didn't write things xyz way 200 years ago.

Why did they even mention "subject to the jurisdiction thereof...."?

Obviously to exclude people born here who were /NOT/ subject to the full legal and administrative jurisdiction of the U.S. government!

And everyone one here is subject to the FULL jurisdiction thereof...

Obviously not, since no illegal aliens sneaking across our borders is immediately given a social security card and a right to vote in our elections, among other things reserved solely for the privilege of actual US citizens. THAT is full jurisdiction of US law. If Eva Braun and Adolf had a kid here while passing through to Guantanamo Bay prison, I suppose you would argue that we are now committed to take their child in, give it a home, and the right to grow up as a citizen with full say in who leads the country and how? What country could be stupid enough to obligate itself to taking in its own enemies as citizens giving them full say then in how we even run our country???

You argued yourself right out of that one, cupcake, even though you'll never admit it.

 

[Care4all]

Moot question since we cannot ask them why they wrote or didn't write things xyz way 200 years ago

We have their arguments, in writing, from the time the amendment was being introduced.

Obviously to exclude people born here who were /NOT/ subject to the full legal and administrative jurisdiction of the U.S. government!

All foreign people that were here, with the exception of those foreigners with diplomatic immunity, were subject to the (full) jurisdiction thereof. And this term of 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof', was already defined in Common Law. And it has the same legal meaning today....which was argued in the courts....supreme court if memory serves.

Obviously not, since no illegal aliens sneaking across our borders is immediately given a social security card and a right to vote in our elections, among other things reserved solely for the privilege of actual US citizens.

Those are reserved for citizens but that is not remotely part of this discussion. The child born and bred here, when 18 yrs old, will have the right to vote as a natural born citizen.

THAT is full jurisdiction of US law. If Eva Braun and Adolf had a kid here while passing through to Guantanamo Bay prison, I suppose you would argue that we are now committed to take their child in, give it a home, and the right to grow up as a citizen with full say in who leads the country and how? What country could be stupid enough to obligate itself to taking in its own enemies as citizens giving them full say then in how we even run our country???

Fyi-Foreign Enemies are an exception, along with diplomats not under our jurisdiction. So NO, THAT CAN'T HAPPEN!!!

You argued yourself right out of that one, cupcake, even though you'll never admit it.

I did no such thing!

 

[Care4all]

Referring to his 14th amendment he was authoring, Howard said "will not, of course, include..." That means EXCLUDE.
See Post # 8.

Will not include foreigners, the aliens with diplomatic immunity....when on our soil....those who are working for their foreign country.

Those in our govt, when traveling in the other's foreign country, have diplomatic immunity.....as well.

 

[toobfreak]

We have their arguments, in writing, from the time the amendment was being introduced.

Words, written 200 years ago, language and intent varies with time. Ever listen to or read Old English? For instance, in the 2A they say a "well-regulated" militia--- by well-regulated, in those days, they meant well armed, not well controlled.

All foreign people that were here, with the exception of those foreigners with diplomatic immunity, were subject to the (full) jurisdiction thereof.

WRONG. An invading illegal alien trespassing here is not entitled to vote, so quite blowing smoke up your ass that they are entitled to the same full set of accoutrements as any US citizen--- if nothing else, that is an insult to and greatly devalues being a citizen here.

But why argue with you. Argue with yourself and tell yourself it is just Trump's bent and warped SCOTUS when it reaches their desk and they rule in Trump's favor.

A baby being born here cannot be a US citizen unless one of two conditions are met:

1. They are naturalized as a citizen at some point in their life through application and acceptance.
2. At the time of their birth, at least one of their parents was already a full US citizen.

 

[Unkotare]

Words, written 200 years ago, language and intent varies with time. Ever listen to or read Old English? For instance, in the 2A they say a "well-regulated" militia--- by well-regulated, in those days, they meant well armed, not well controlled.
...

That was nowhere near Old English. You would be unlikely to understand a word of Old English.