Now read my post and try again.
Ending birthright citizenship
- Thread starter vraiblonde
- Start date
Now read my post and try again.
HemiHauler
Well-Known Member
No thanks.
Clem72
Well-Known Member
Natives.....born on reservations to parents that were not citizens. If they were born off the rez or had a parent that was a citizen then they were a citizen. So that's not exactly inconsistent.
And to date it is being done by executive fiat.
You mean like Roe v Wade? As to a particular interpretation, with regard to the 14th, it would seem that would be up to Congress to do that, but haven't.
LightRoasted
If I may ...
For your consideration ...
A though project then ......
A pregnant German woman who is only a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany, somehow manages to gain entry to Ramstein Air Base. Soon she is found out and detained, while, at the exact same time, her water breaks and contractions start strong and her cervix is now at 5cm. Rather than risk a transport to a hospital off base, medics onsite take her to the base hospital which is much closer and she gives birth. Under your premise, since the child was born on sovereign US territory, it is now a US citizen. This, would never happen. Both mother and child, after given medical care, would be, when deemed medically safe, be promptly escorted off base with possible prosecution afterwords.
The 14th applies to those born to natural US Citizens, or those those born to Naturalized US citizens. Just as those citizens that are born to US Citizens in another country are US Citizens, since, those US Citizens, that gave birth to that child, are "subject to the [US] jurisdiction thereof", and are afforded the legal and international protections thereof.
A though project then ......
A pregnant German woman who is only a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany, somehow manages to gain entry to Ramstein Air Base. Soon she is found out and detained, while, at the exact same time, her water breaks and contractions start strong and her cervix is now at 5cm. Rather than risk a transport to a hospital off base, medics onsite take her to the base hospital which is much closer and she gives birth. Under your premise, since the child was born on sovereign US territory, it is now a US citizen. This, would never happen. Both mother and child, after given medical care, would be, when deemed medically safe, be promptly escorted off base with possible prosecution afterwords.
The 14th applies to those born to natural US Citizens, or those those born to Naturalized US citizens. Just as those citizens that are born to US Citizens in another country are US Citizens, since, those US Citizens, that gave birth to that child, are "subject to the [US] jurisdiction thereof", and are afforded the legal and international protections thereof.
HemiHauler
Well-Known Member
As usual, your tomes don’t require much “thought”.
As I understand the 14th, Besides providing citizenship to freed slaves, the meaning was "expanded" to include the children of Chinese nationals who came here to work on building projects in the West. The Chinese were not considered immigrants as we think of those peoples from Europe.
Tech
Well-Known Member
US bases are not US sovereign land. Americans born there are German citizens.
HemiHauler
Well-Known Member
That hasn’t been adjudicated by a court. See John McCain.
Tech
Well-Known Member
McCain was born in the canal zone to US citizens and by a 1937 law is a natural born citizen.
Maybe - we just need to specifically abolish or otherwise restrict “jus soli”.
Since it exists without restriction pretty much only in the New World. And for good reason. How do you restrict citizenship to “jus sanguinus” when everyone is an immigrant?
Jus soli is antiquated. Most of the world doesn’t permit it.
Since it exists without restriction pretty much only in the New World. And for good reason. How do you restrict citizenship to “jus sanguinus” when everyone is an immigrant?
Jus soli is antiquated. Most of the world doesn’t permit it.
Tech
Well-Known Member
Children born to bonafide diplomats are not citizens due to this clause. The US has no jurisdiction over them due immunity?
Tilted
..
There was considerable discussion on this point during the congressional debates over the 14th Amendment. That provision was understood to exclude children of diplomats and many Indians (as they lived in areas over which they had been granted sovereignty). Others born here - to include children of noncitizens - were understood to become citizens at birth.
Illegal aliens, present in the United States, are most certainly subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. If they weren't we wouldn't have the authority to, e.g., imprison them for murder.
As for the notion of certain people being here illegally, that didn't really exist at the time. But this is much the point of the Constitution: It sets out rules which Congress must abide by. Congress doesn't get to make it illegal for some people to be here and in so doing get around this established constitutional rule. (To be clear, Congress probably does get to make it illegal for some people to be or come here; it just doesn't get to deprive their children born here of birthright citizenship in so doing.)
President Trump can't do what he suggested he would do. I'm sure his advisors realize that. It's just political bluster. Not only would the Constitution prevent it but existing U.S. law makes people born here citizens at birth and a President can't invalidate that law through executive order.
I remember discussions HERE about that, and the number of decisions made since then. I just think that the wording was clumsily fashioned because the concept of illegal immigration wasn't a thing, then. Like most amendments, the words are put in like a lot of laws - to include or exclude certain conditions. I don't think at the time, they would have to deal with people living here illegally.
There's also the rationale behind jus soli versus jus sanguinus, which is how most of the world works but not the New World, because we were all NEW nations, and the concept of being Brazilian born or Peruvian was still somewhat "new". People immigrated here, but although loyal to the United States, they were still Italian - or Irish - or Chinese - and so forth.
Countries outside the New World - if they use any form of jus soli - it's conditional and that is sensible. In these nations, a child born on their soil becomes a citizen automatically IF one parent is a citizen.
Frankly I think it's absurd that we have a law that grants citizenship to a child born here and neither parent is here legally.
I've no doubt he can't do that - but it's not uncommon for Presidents or any politician in Washington to claim they will accomplish something that is impossible for them to accomplish. At best, they can strongly influence it.
I think it's been addressed here already, though - if we're going to grant citizenship to children born here to parents who are here illegally - then we must deal with it by removing the parents back to their country of origin (presumably, taking their American citizen with them). Because we cannot tolerate continuing the concept of an "anchor" to usher in people to enter here. It never ends - one child, one parent, a sister, a father - the chain keeps going.
It needs to stop. I don't know of another developed nation that allows people to simply enter and live in a nation illegally. It may HAPPEN elsewhere, but it's still against their law.
Do you believe - as is common, on the left - that there's really no such thing as someone here, illegally?
awpitt
Main Streeter
This just shows how little Trump understands the law and the Constitution. His proposed Executive Order would have as much meaning as a couple of pieces of toilet paper. Birthright citizenship is part of the Constitution (14th) and was codified by the 1898 Supreme Court decision. The sad thing is that there are some out there who erroneously believe that Trump would have that power just because Trump said so. Supposedly, Trump is arguing that children of foreign nationals born in the U.S. are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. which is completely false. The only case where that would be true would be in the case of children born to foreign diplomats who enjoy diplomatic immunity and thus are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.
You are correct in that the newborn’s parents could be given a choice of leaving the U.S. citizen baby in the U.S. while they return to their home country or taking the baby with them back to their home country.
Last edited:
awpitt
Main Streeter
The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to those “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The 14th does not treat babies born to U.S. citizens differently from babies born to non-U.S. citizens.
awpitt
Main Streeter
Mostly likely to cover those born overseas. Like in the case of John McCain who was born on a U.S. military base in Panama.
OccamsRazor
Well-Known Member
Off the rails yet again....
The OP is not debating the issue of babies born at all. The issue is with the illegal/non-naturalized/non-citizen PARENTS and how they are "assumed" to be citizens since their baby was born in the US.
Back on track???
The OP is not debating the issue of babies born at all. The issue is with the illegal/non-naturalized/non-citizen PARENTS and how they are "assumed" to be citizens since their baby was born in the US.
Back on track???