We’ve all heard the stats: currently, only the United States grants birthright citizenship to illegal aliens and 8% of babies born in the US are so-called “anchor babies” born of illegal aliens. In and of itself, this doesn’t constitute a crisis, but, for many of us, it does illustrate how far we’ve strayed from the Constitution.
Like all babies, “anchor babies” too are sweet and cuddly, and deserving of mother’s love and society’s protection. But automatically conferring citizenship on babies of illegal aliens is an ideologically-motivated perversion not only of internationally accepted legal norms, but, much more importantly, of the Constitution itself.

By nimbly mischaracterizing the motives of birthright citizenship opponents, many in the media and blogosphere—to include attorneys who should know better-- have irresponsibly misrepresented the framers’ intent and have reduced the level of discourse on this legitimate constitutional issue to that of ad hominem, race-baiting, specious legal citations, contrived legal justifications, and mindless pandering. Shamelessly seeking ideological and political supremacy, to these people the Constitution and the rule of law mean absolutely nothing. And for a nation which once prided itself as being a “nation of laws”, that is inexcusable.

During an interview with Mr. Trump last night, what annoyed me greatly was Bill O'Reilly's characteristically bombastic--and wholly erroneous--claim that "the 14th Amendment says that any person born on US soil is a US Citizen. Period".  Poppycock! He couldn't have carefully read the amendment at all to reach this specious conclusion. And the fact that even Judge Napolitano, a Libertarian jurist, a few days earlier asserted this revisionist and ignorant view is nothing short of bewildering and troubling.  But, this does underscore just how flawed and fallible jurists and seemingly bright, well-informed talking heads really are.

That said, for my own edification I decided to take the time to again review the actual words of the 14th’s framers, pertinent case law and the opinions of jurists and legal scholars on both sides of the question to determine the truth in this matter.

Here are my findings and conclusions:

First, while researching pertinent materials, I soon discovered that understanding the clear intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment was much simpler than anticipated. In fact, the meaning of the 14th was surprisingly straightforward. Lesson learned: if one simply abandons one’s ideological blinders for a moment and commit to an honest effort to objectively review a constitutional issue, clarity is nearly always one’s reward.

It also became apparent that from a strictly Constitutional standpoint, and despite many assertions to the contrary from both the left and the right, a constitutional amendment is NOT needed to deny US Citizenship to anchor babies of illegal entrants. In short, I was unable to find ANY convincing constitutional evidence that so-called anchor babies can legitimately and automatically acquire U.S citizenship. Thus, a simple act of Congress--and most certainly NOT an amendment to the Constitution—to clarify the original intent and meaning of the 14th Amendment is all that is really needed to resolve this issue once and for all.

Toward this end, introduced on April 2nd, 2009, and co-sponsored by 93 congressmen, inclusive of one lonely Democratic supporter, Mississippi’s Gene Taylor, HR 1868 (Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009) intended to amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide that a person born in the US is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US for citizenship purposes if the person is born in the US of parents, one of whom is: 1) a US citizen or national; 2) a lawful permanent resident alien who resides in the US; or 3) an alien performing military service in the US Armed Forces.” And if one simply reviews the original meaning of the 14th Amendment one can easily see that there was absolutely nothing at all revolutionary about this bill's language. In any event, the bill failed.

Intended to protect the rights of emancipated Negroes, the 14th Amendment specifically provided that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

And as I very quickly learned, of central importance in this statement is the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, something birthright citizenship proponents have consistently and very conveniently ignored.

To begin, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, co-author of the 14th Amendment, expressly asserted that “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.” And it is in this plain-spoken construction birthright proponents somehow discover ambiguity or a totally different meaning. Amazing!
.
Under Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes, the same Congress which adopted the 14th Amendment confirmed that “all persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

In 1873, the US Atty Gen ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean the absolute and complete jurisdiction. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the US but only to a limited extent. Political and military rights do not pertain to them.”

Sen. Trumbell noted during the drafting of the 14th Amendment that it was the amendment’s goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the US who owe allegiance to the US,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign government he would not be a citizen.”

On March 1, 1866, Rep. James Wilson of Iowa, House Judiciary Committee, added that “we must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to conclude that every person born in the US is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil (jus soli) to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign governments.” This statement served to nicely clarify Sen. Howard’s construction above.

John Bingham, framer of the 14th Amendment’s first section, stated that Sec. 1992 of the Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the US of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of the Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

And if we reach way back to our founders in search of a definition of citizens of a foreign power, Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.”

To a man, among the framers the premise behind “within the jurisdiction thereof” was that all children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the US; thus, not only must a child be born on US soil (jus soli) but born of parents whose complete allegiance is to the US.

Subsequently, Sen. Howard further explained that “only thru expatriation, which could be accomplished thru law alone, and not thru any immigrant acting on his own outside the law—and certainly not by any act of birth alone—could an alien become a citizen.” This, of course, would mean that the alien/sojourner would need to affirmatively renounce his allegiance to his/her country of origin before s/he could be considered completely within the jurisdiction of the US.

Sen. Howard also stated the following: “…the word 'jurisdiction', as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the US, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the US, whether exercised by Congress, the executive, or the judiciary; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the US now.” In effect, he was saying that an alien may, by treaty arrangements with his country of origin, avail himself of the protection of the US, much as sojourning US citizens in the alien’s country of origin would avail themselves of that country’s protection, but that an alien's physical presence in the US alone would not render him/her under the "complete jurisdiction" of the US. Simple enough.

The rationale behind not granting automatic citizenship can be easily illustrated by the fact that Indians could not be subject to the jurisdiction of the US because the US dealt with them through treaties. By logical extension, aliens sojourning in the US are extended privileges and protections by virtue of treaties in force with their countries of origin, much as American citizens are granted similar rights and privileges—but not citizenship--when sojourning in those countries. Logically, therefore, only if an alien voluntarily and affirmatively renounces his citizenship and expresses an intent to swear allegiance to the US may the alien, through operation of law (a formal naturalization process) be granted US citizenship. Thus, in a nutshell, since neither children of tourists/sojourners nor of diplomats born in the US can be US citizens, children of illegal entrants cannot be lawfully granted the privilege of US citizenship.

In 1867, George Yeaman, American Minister to Denmark, in his highly respected treatise on allegiance and citizenship and for whom the framers had great respect, asserted that “the idea of a double allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or governments, is simply an impossibility.” Thus, dual citizenship was also a no-no. (Take note, BHO.)

P. A. Madison, a modern day master of constitutional analysis, points out that “since illegal aliens are unlawfully in the US, their native country has a proper and primary claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the US is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.” Slam dunk obvious, I’d say.

Also, Rep. Aaron Sargent, a representative from California during the Naturalization Act of 1870 debates, said the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause was not a de-facto right for aliens to obtain citizenship. Significantly, none of his contemporaries disputed that assertion.

Adding to this mix, here is a little case law since the 14th’s ratification.

In the Slaughterhouse Cases(1873), the Supreme Court observed that the 14th Amendment overturned the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction, citizens of the US; the ruling went on to point out “that [the 14th Amendment’s] main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the Negro” and that “the phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, AND citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States", thus reinforcing Sen. Howard’s construction above. So, since they cannot be subject to US jurisdiction, children of citizens of foreign sovereignties and children of foreign ministers/consuls/ambassadors cannot be lawfully considered US Citizens. Makes perfect sense.

Then, in Elk v Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians—because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction. In effect, the court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the childand not merely the fortuitous birth of that child on American soil. (Note: not until the Citizens Act of 1924 was U S citizenship granted to American Indians. As with many whimsical court rulings over the years, I was unable to understand the legal grounding for this reversal. Thus, it would seem that judicial arbitrariness is not an affliction peculiar to modern day American courts alone.)

In US v Wong Kim Ark (1889), the courts held that children born in the US of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child’s birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the US and are carrying on business in the US, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of US territory, become a citizen of the US at the time of birth. As expressed in the minority opinion, this decision violated the 14th Amendment. But, in any case, how many new illegal aliens have permanent domiciles in the US and how many of them are carrying on business in the US at the moment of their child's birth on US soil? I suspect precious few. (Note too that the parents of Wong Kim Ark were in the US legally. They were not illegal entrants.)

In Steel v Citizens for a Better Environment (1998), the court stated that “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Au contraire! As can be clearly seen above, Sen. Trumbell and, yes, Sen. Howard, 14th Amendment co-authors, had long ago provided an unambiguous definition by declaring that “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 ‘complete jurisdiction thereof'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” And this from the framers' themselves! (Clearly, majority jurists in the Steel v Citizens court didn’t bother to research the framers’ clear intent and meaning. And one must wonder if a neophyte, such as I, can easily deduce original meaning, why can't trained jurists? Could it be incompetence or do political agendas get in the way of constitutional law?)

Despite the clear meaning and intent of the 14th's framers, we fast forward to the somewhat enigmatic ruling in US ex rel. Hintopoulis v Shaughnessy (1982), which some bloggers and others have used to justify birthright citizenship. In that case, and out of whole cloth, somewhere in the ruling it asserted, almost unconsciously/unwittingly, that although a child born in the US to two illegal aliens was a US Citizen (????) that, nonetheless, “suspending the alien parents’ deportation based upon “the accident of birth in the US of their son would be to deprive others, who are patiently awaiting visas…” Thus, since the glancing allusion to the legality of birthright citizenship, though gratuitous—and erroneous—appeared in the text of this suspension of deportation decision, birthright proponents often blithely and excitedly cite this case to substantiate the legality of birthright citizenship. Grabbing at straws, I'd say.

Then, true to activist form, in Plyler v Doe (1982) the court, apparently without access to or proper reliance on the 14th framers’ erudition and written words, mysteriously ruled 5-4 that there is “no plausible distinction” with respect to “jurisdiction” between resident aliens who entered the country lawfully and those resident aliens who entered unlawfully. Wowee! Clearly a yawning violation of the framers’ clear meaning and intent. Seems judicial activism was as alive and well in 1982 as it is today.

To me, these two rulings which capriciously and arrogantly turned Thomas Jefferson and the framers of the 14th on their heads are clearly unlawful at worst, convenient contrivances at best.

When I explained all this on-line to an attorney who is also a strong proponent of birthright citizenship, this was her reply: “I disagree with your interpretation of the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. The first rule of statutory construction is that we don’t look to the drafters’ intent if the words are plain and unambiguous…If the drafters meant to include some allegiance test, they would have. They didn’t.” That sort of revisionism, gobbledegook, willful ignorance and dishonesty is, folks, what this country is up against. My rejoinder was civil, but to the point: “It wasn’t MY lowly interpretation. It was the framers’ interpretation. But, ignore original intent and meaning? A living constitution is like having no constitution at all. We can merely make it up as we go along and continue to hand-off an increasingly irrelevant document to the next generation. While I sincerely hope this isn’t what you have in mind, at this juncture I can see there’s really nothing more to discuss with you on this or any other constitutional issues. How very sad.”

Finally, based upon what I now understand, we must be faithful to the 14th Amendment framers’ clear intent and meaning—surely a tall order with so many political activists, globalists and social engineers infesting our courts these days. In the case of "birthright citizenship", Congress is constitutionally empowered to re-assert the original meaning of the the 14th Amendment, and that's precisely what it should do.

Views: 1602

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Unfortunately Col. Ronald A. Nelson USA Retired you are speaking to the choir ! People who have read and understand the US Constitution know the Fourteenth Amendment was meet so that newly freed slaves could become US Citizens as they were brought to the US against their will owning an allegiance to the land from which they came . It is all about votes with the liberal/socialist democrats ! In California over three Million ILLEGAL ALIENS ( So called undocumented emigrants) voted in the 2016 presidential election . Hillary Rotten Clinton could not have won the popular vote without the ILLEGAL VOTE !

Exactly... that is why we must not let them continue to get away with this unconsdtitutinoal and illegal hoak on the American people.  Pres. Trump needs to issue an EO that will be challenged in the US Supreme Cout... but he  must insure that the DOJ doesn't deliberately throw the case... which has and is happeing in our courts today.

Good point. I believe that there still are too many deep state employees loyal to the progressive agenda. If there has to be another Saturday Night Massacre at the DOJ so be it.

Either we're a sovereign nation or we're not!

So you're claiming that Stanley Armour Dunham was not the father of Stanley Ann Dunham?

Good try but no cigar.

7 FAM 1113 NOT INCLUDED IN THE MEANING OF "IN THE UNITED STATES" 
C. Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:
(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.
(2) The status of diplomatic and consular premises arises from the rules of law relating to immunity from the prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction of the receiving State; the premises are not part of the territory of the United States of America. (See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law, Vol.
1, Sec. 466, Comment a and c (1987). See also, Persinger v. Iran, 729 F.2d 835 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

As for McCain, please see: https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1089&a...

I was aware of the law regarding US military installations outside the US. Unfortunately your URL didn't work :-( so I went to the Unv. of Michigan's main site and did a search. It has arguments claiming BOTH sides of the debate about the Late Sen. McCain's citizenship status.

I agree with the view that he was a US NBC at birth since his parents were both US citizens and his father was stationed in Panama on orders from the US government, even if his birth had happened off base in a Panamanian hospital.

Immigration & Nationality Act \ INA: ACT 301 - Nationals & Citizens of the United States at Birth:

Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] (c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

What some die-hard purists argue is that the above in an unconstitutional interpretation of the Constitution. In fact, they disregard all of the Immigration & Nationality Act. That's why I maintain we need a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, not a law and certainly not an EO, to clear up the matter.

OK, lets do it ! Turn off the magnet, than start on the welfare !!! Nothing for invaders, and that is what they are !
Is anyone familiar with neonrevolt.com There is another one that they call Q …. I have been on that one a number of times. I have to look up the name of the Q website.....it is unbelievable !
https://qanon.pub/
That is a good site, anyone that can decode should really look at it.
The policy of Birthright Citizenship, there is no amended laws to support this if there is show me.

http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topics/policy-of-birthright-citiz...

Now you and others might not agree with this. However, pursuant to the 14th Amendment AND the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (H.R. 2580; Pub.L. 89–236, 79 Stat. 911, Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401]) , US citizenship is automatically granted to any person born within and subject to the jurisdiction of the US (known as jus soli). This includes the territories of Puerto Rico, the Marianas (Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands), and the US Virgin Islands. Birthright citizenship also applies to children born elsewhere in the world to US citizens (paragraphs c, d, & e with certain exceptions), (known as jus sanguinis).

Again, I say we need a constitutional amendment to clean up the mess pettifoggers have created.

DACA is the result of an EO by Mr. Obama, so it was his policy, not law. Sanctuary cities are city and state policies, but not laws.

However, Birthright Citizenship is law, You can deny that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (H.R. 2580; Pub.L. 89–236, 79 Stat. 911, Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401]) is not a law, but you'd be wrong. if you don't like it, and I don't, you and I can tell our representatives to change it either through law, or preferably through an amendment.

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Chip BokPolitical Cartoons by Steve Kelley

ALERT ALERT

The Fall Of Fake News!! Quiet Shake-Up At MSNBC After Station Hemorrhages Viewers Following Mueller Debacle 

Reports are surfacing about a quiet shake-up of personnel at MSNBC after the cable news station lost more than 30% of their audience after the Mueller debacle.

Apparently MNSBC doesn’t think their financial woes are newsworthy given that they didn’t run any breathless stories about their own failings.

News of MSNBC’s collapse can’t come as a surprise to insiders who undoubtedly are fully aware that their audience no longer trusts them.

One source familiar told Mediaite the changes came amidst mounting complaints from NBC News chief Andy Lack about a dip in MSNBC’s ratings following the end of the Mueller investigation. In May, ratings for the network in the advertiser coveted 25-54 demo were down 32% year over year.

MSNBC viewers were asked: How much do you agree that MSNBC regularly reports made up or fake news about Donald Trump and his administration?

The responses were devastating! While 35% or respondents agree that MSNBC pushes Fake News, only 24% disagreed. That’s a ratings death sentence!

What do you expect from a channel that boasts disgraced liar, Brian Williams, and race pimp, Al Sharpton?

Bright Start News@BRIGHTstrt
 

MAJOR SHAKEUP AT MSNBC - Ratings crater after Mueller Report Debacle! 

MSNBC Shakeup: Jonathan Wald and Dan Arnall Take Dayside

MSNBC quietly implemented a sweeping shakeup in programming this week, Mediaite has learned, appointing SVP of programming and development Jonathan Wald and MSNBC executive editor Dan Arnall to lead...

Flashback: MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow’s Ratings Plummet To Yearly Low

MSNBC primetime host Rachel Maddow brought in her worst weekly ratings of the year last week.

Her show last week averaged 2,324,000 viewers, with an average audience of 337,000 in the 25-54 age demographic, both of which mark yearly lows for the liberal television host, according to Nielsen Media Research.

Maddow first saw a dramatic drop in ratings following the conclusion of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. Her previous low for a week in 2019 was the last week in March, the first full week after Mueller submitted his conclusion to Attorney General William Barr, where she averaged 2,458,000 viewers with 392,000 in the demo.

She spent two years dissecting every aspect of the special counsel’s investigation into whether President Donald Trump conspired with the Russians to win the 2016 presidential election. The night Mueller submitted his findings to Barr, Maddow appeared to hold back tears over the fact that neither the president nor any family members were indicted.

Compared to Maddow’s low ratings last week, Fox News’ Sean Hannity, whose program is often the most-watched among all cable news shows, averaged 3,108,000 viewers with just under half-a-million viewers in the key demographic.

She also nearly tripled CNN’s Chris Cuomo’s weekly ratings. His program only had 880,000 viewers with 225,000 in the key demo.

SPECIAL VIDEOS

© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service