Birthright Citizenship

[one...two...tree 2,762]

1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

.

- IF the intent was simply -anyone born- in the US.... the following condition would not have been added.-and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ...these children are under the subject and protection of their parents (and their) country of citizenship.

-There are exceptions to this rule already spelled out, Children of ambassadors I think is one.

- The Constitution is designed to be altered and I think clearly with ease of transportation what it is.... now is the time.

-It seems the vast majority would favor a more commonsense redefining of this issue, why is there no steam behind getting it done?

The highest court in the land has already made this clear...

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, was proposed by Representative Homer P. Snyder ® of New York and granted full U.S. citizenship to America's indigenous peoples, called "Indians" in this Act. (The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to persons born in the U.S., but only if "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; this latter clause excludes certain indigenous peoples.) The act was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924.^[1][2][3]

^........

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent about the role of jus soli (birth in the United States) as a factor in determining a person's claim to United States citizenship. The citizenship status of Wong—a man born around 1871 to Chinese parents who were domiciled in the United States—was challenged, based on an 1882 law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. Eventually, this issue reached the Supreme Court, which ruled in Wong's favor, deciding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution could not be impaired in its effect by an act of Congress.

......

In a 6–2 decision^[18][28] issued on March 28, 1898,^[29] the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark had indeed acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and that "the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth."^[30] The majority opinion was written by Justice Horace Gray, who was joined by Justices David J. Brewer, Henry B. Brown, George Shiras Jr., Edward Douglass White, and Rufus W. Peckham.^[18]

Upholding the concept of jus soli (citizenship based on place of birth),^[31] the court's majority held that the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause needed to be interpreted in light of English common law,^[32] which had included as subjects virtually all native-born children, excluding only those who were (1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.^[33][34][35] The court's majority held that the subject to the jurisdiction phrase in the Citizenship Clause excluded from U.S. citizenship only those persons covered by one of these three exceptions^[36] (plus a fourth—namely, that Indian tribes "not taxed" were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction^[37][38]). The majority concluded that none of these four exceptions to U.S. jurisdiction applied to Wong; in particular, they observed that "during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China".^[12] As a result, the majority opinion concluded that Wong was a U.S. citizen from birth, via the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the restrictions of the Chinese Exclusion Act did not apply to him. An act of Congress, they held, does not trump the Constitution; such a law "cannot control [the Constitution's] meaning, or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in subordination to its provisions."^[39][40]

In construing the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court in Wong Kim Ark made reference to a case pre-dating that amendment, namely The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon.^[41] Relying heavily on the 1812 opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall in The Exchange, the Court in Wong Kim Ark reiterated that, "The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself."^[42][43]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

[Misha & Ira 113]

I don't read it that way Danno, 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' simply means that the state has jurisdiction over them. Yes, the constitution can be changed...it has been amended many times...but what do you propose to put in its place? Do you think that simply changing this will stop the hordes from coming here illegally?

The problem I have is that they are giving my money away...stop giving my money to these people and I could care less how many come.

[Danno 1,228]

Obama has stopped deportations of all but felons & high misdomeanors and almost completely stopped workplace raids. In any case the illegals snared in these few raids are let go. In addition to that all those already in deportation proceedings will be released and given work authorization. If that pisses you off, then don't vote for this traitor and his cronies. You don't necessarily have to vote Republican, just don't support this treason against the American people by voting for this traitor. He and his cronies care more for the Hispanic voting block than they do the best interests of all Americans. As long as the American people keep supporting this self serving treason by politicians by voting for them, nothing will ever change.

Bush's position on this very thing is what drove his numbers so low, it's easy to get the opposition against you but when your base turns on you in such numbers, you really screwed up.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Danno

[Dakine10 5,452]

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

But isn't someone here legally in the US subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Tourist visa for example. If a tourist murders a USC, who do you think has jurisdiction? There are very few non immigrant categories that have immunity. Courts have been very clear on what this meant.

[peejay 327]

The highest court in the land has already made this clear...

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, was proposed by Representative Homer P. Snyder ® of New York and granted full U.S. citizenship to America's indigenous peoples, called "Indians" in this Act. (The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to persons born in the U.S., but only if "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; this latter clause excludes certain indigenous peoples.) The act was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924.^[1][2][3]

^........

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent about the role of jus soli (birth in the United States) as a factor in determining a person's claim to United States citizenship. The citizenship status of Wong—a man born around 1871 to Chinese parents who were domiciled in the United States—was challenged, based on an 1882 law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. Eventually, this issue reached the Supreme Court, which ruled in Wong's favor, deciding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution could not be impaired in its effect by an act of Congress.

......

In a 6–2 decision^[18][28] issued on March 28, 1898,^[29] the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark had indeed acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and that "the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth."^[30] The majority opinion was written by Justice Horace Gray, who was joined by Justices David J. Brewer, Henry B. Brown, George Shiras Jr., Edward Douglass White, and Rufus W. Peckham.^[18]

Upholding the concept of jus soli (citizenship based on place of birth),^[31] the court's majority held that the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause needed to be interpreted in light of English common law,^[32] which had included as subjects virtually all native-born children, excluding only those who were (1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.^[33][34][35] The court's majority held that the subject to the jurisdiction phrase in the Citizenship Clause excluded from U.S. citizenship only those persons covered by one of these three exceptions^[36] (plus a fourth—namely, that Indian tribes "not taxed" were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction^[37][38]). The majority concluded that none of these four exceptions to U.S. jurisdiction applied to Wong; in particular, they observed that "during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China".^[12] As a result, the majority opinion concluded that Wong was a U.S. citizen from birth, via the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the restrictions of the Chinese Exclusion Act did not apply to him. An act of Congress, they held, does not trump the Constitution; such a law "cannot control [the Constitution's] meaning, or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in subordination to its provisions."^[39][40]

In construing the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court in Wong Kim Ark made reference to a case pre-dating that amendment, namely The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon.^[41] Relying heavily on the 1812 opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall in The Exchange, the Court in Wong Kim Ark reiterated that, "The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself."^[42][43]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

1898? There were no illegal aliens when that ruling was made. In any event I don't think this is relevant today. Things in the constitution are reinterpreted as the times change. I would like to see the Supreme Court render a decision in regards to anchor babies born here to illegals now in the 21st century. Hopefully someone with $$$ will fund such an endevour. Probably after a law denying citizenship to anchor babies is enacted in the US congress.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Things in the constitution are reinterpreted as the times change.

So long as that mentality doesn't apply to the 2nd Amendment, right? Funny, I never would have had you pegged as in favor of judicial activism.

[peejay 327]

Bush's position on this very thing is what drove his numbers so low, it's easy to get the opposition against you but when your base turns on you in such numbers, you really screwed up.

Last I heard Bush stopped being president years ago. The buck now stops with Obama and he owns it now.

[Danno 1,228]

I don't read it that way Danno, 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' simply means that the state has jurisdiction over them. Yes, the constitution can be changed...it has been amended many times...but what do you propose to put in its place? Do you think that simply changing this will stop the hordes from coming here illegally?

The problem I have is that they are giving my money away...stop giving my money to these people and I could care less how many come.

Your main point is of course basic logic: Stop subsidizing illegals.

But your last sentence seem contradictory, the mere presence of these folks creates a depression in wages, an unreal expense in the legal system and an ungodly amount of money spent educating their children, these are just a few of the examples of -unavoidable expenses lowly educated 3rd world immigrants present by simply coming here.

When you say you don't care how many come, you are saying, you are willing to bear the cost.

Presently we have an underclass... why would you want to grow this burdensome responsibility?

[peejay 327]

So long as that mentality doesn't apply to the 2nd Amendment, right? Funny, I never would have had you pegged as in favor of judicial activism.

You'd have a lot easier time deporting illegal aliens and their spawn than you would taking millions of guns away from lawful American citizens. In any event illegal aliens are deportable by laws passed by the US congress. Yet Obama refuses to enforce the law. Where is the outrage by the libs that continually whine about "rule of law"? Obama deserves to be dumped for this and many other transgressions in 2012. He is a liar that lies by omitting the facts depending what audience he wishes to bamboozle.

[Leatherneck 693]

But isn't someone here legally in the US subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Tourist visa for example. If a tourist murders a USC, who do you think has jurisdiction? There are very few non immigrant categories that have immunity. Courts have been very clear on what this meant.

Well here is what Lyman Trumbull had to say about jurisdiction;

Congressional Globe, 1st Session, 39th Congress, pt. 4, p. 2893. Trumbull, during the debate, said, "What do we [the committee reporting the clause] mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

[Danno 1,228]

So long as that mentality doesn't apply to the 2nd Amendment, right? Funny, I never would have had you pegged as in favor of judicial activism.

I think your misunderstanding is based on the confusion of the "right to bare arms" actually with "right to bear Guns"..... your thinking is that the founders never envisioned automatic type weapons.

The fact is that right is not specific to guns at all, but rather the ability to properly arm ones self.. to limit the dominance of an over reaching gov't.

Interesting question: Were artillery pieces banned from possession at the time of the Constitution?

[Leatherneck 693]

The highest court in the land has already made this clear...

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, was proposed by Representative Homer P. Snyder ® of New York and granted full U.S. citizenship to America's indigenous peoples, called "Indians" in this Act. (The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to persons born in the U.S., but only if "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; this latter clause excludes certain indigenous peoples.) The act was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924.^[1][2][3]

^........

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a United States Supreme Court decision that set an important legal precedent about the role of jus soli (birth in the United States) as a factor in determining a person's claim to United States citizenship. The citizenship status of Wong—a man born around 1871 to Chinese parents who were domiciled in the United States—was challenged, based on an 1882 law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. Eventually, this issue reached the Supreme Court, which ruled in Wong's favor, deciding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution could not be impaired in its effect by an act of Congress.

......

In a 6–2 decision^[18][28] issued on March 28, 1898,^[29] the Supreme Court held that Wong Kim Ark had indeed acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and that "the American citizenship which Wong Kim Ark acquired by birth within the United States has not been lost or taken away by anything happening since his birth."^[30] The majority opinion was written by Justice Horace Gray, who was joined by Justices David J. Brewer, Henry B. Brown, George Shiras Jr., Edward Douglass White, and Rufus W. Peckham.^[18]

Upholding the concept of jus soli (citizenship based on place of birth),^[31] the court's majority held that the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause needed to be interpreted in light of English common law,^[32] which had included as subjects virtually all native-born children, excluding only those who were (1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.^[33][34][35] The court's majority held that the subject to the jurisdiction phrase in the Citizenship Clause excluded from U.S. citizenship only those persons covered by one of these three exceptions^[36] (plus a fourth—namely, that Indian tribes "not taxed" were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction^[37][38]). The majority concluded that none of these four exceptions to U.S. jurisdiction applied to Wong; in particular, they observed that "during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China".^[12] As a result, the majority opinion concluded that Wong was a U.S. citizen from birth, via the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the restrictions of the Chinese Exclusion Act did not apply to him. An act of Congress, they held, does not trump the Constitution; such a law "cannot control [the Constitution's] meaning, or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in subordination to its provisions."^[39][40]

In construing the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court in Wong Kim Ark made reference to a case pre-dating that amendment, namely The Schooner Exchange v. M'Faddon.^[41] Relying heavily on the 1812 opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall in The Exchange, the Court in Wong Kim Ark reiterated that, "The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself."^[42][43]

http://en.wikipedia....v._Wong_Kim_Ark

Even the Supreme Court screws up and gets it wrong at times. Not sure how those justices could have ruled the way they did in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), considering how just a mere 14 years before the Supreme Court ruled entirely differently in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884).

These are the very clear and unambiguous words from Senator Jacob M. Howard-the author of the Citizenship Clause.

During debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, he argued for including the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Howard said:

[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.

Sounds pretty clear to me, I guess I would have to educated at Havard or Yale or be a Supreme Court Justice to be confused about the historical legislative intent of the 14th Amendemnt.

[Misha & Ira 113]

Your main point is of course basic logic: Stop subsidizing illegals.

But your last sentence seem contradictory, the mere presence of these folks creates a depression in wages, an unreal expense in the legal system and an ungodly amount of money spent educating their children, these are just a few of the examples of -unavoidable expenses lowly educated 3rd world immigrants present by simply coming here.

When you say you don't care how many come, you are saying, you are willing to bear the cost.

Presently we have an underclass... why would you want to grow this burdensome responsibility?

The New Colossus

(Sonnet on the Statue of Liberty)

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Emma Lazarus, 1883

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Colossus

We have always had this underclass...it is what our country was founded upon. The idea that you could come to America and raise your standard of living by being free. But that also meant that they were free to fail. Now we have a welfare state mentality where everyone is entitled to nearly everything without having to produce. The idea that America was that in a free economy even the refuse of other countries would flourish...because we had a system that allowed that to happen.

Your examples point again to subsidizing them...education and on the legal system...this I do not support.

The principles that made this country great were individual responsibility, hard work, thrift and being free from a intrusive and burdensome government.

[Leatherneck 693]

The New Colossus

(Sonnet on the Statue of Liberty)

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Emma Lazarus, 1883

http://en.wikipedia....he_New_Colossus

We have always had this underclass...it is what our country was founded upon. The idea that you could come to America and raise your standard of living by being free. But that also meant that they were free to fail. Now we have a welfare state mentality where everyone is entitled to nearly everything without having to produce. The idea that America was that in a free economy even the refuse of other countries would flourish...because we had a system that allowed that to happen.

Your examples point again to subsidizing them...education and on the legal system...this I do not support.

The principles that made this country great were individual responsibility, hard work, thrift and being free from a intrusive and burdensome government.

Well said, too bad so many feel they are entitled to a free ride paid for by someone else. With real freedom comes responsibility, which most people are afraid to be truly free-that is, free to succeed and free to fail. They want government there to catch them with someone else's money.

[peejay 327]

The New Colossus

(Sonnet on the Statue of Liberty)

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name

Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she

With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Emma Lazarus, 1883

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Colossus

1883? As if American immigration policy today in a 21st century 1st world industrialized welfare state should be run like it was in 1883? I don't buy it nor is it in the best interests of the vast majority of the American people. People tend to romanticize American immigration history through rose colored glasses or horse blinders. They see what they want to see and ignore stuff that doesn't fit their prenotions. America severely cut immigration in the 1920's and it remained a low immigration country well into the early 1970's. Immigration used to be about growing and prospering the country. Instead large numbers of immigrant families are on public assistance themselves or through their US born children. Immigration should not be a charity event to make liberals feel good about themselves at public expense. The days of importing an endless stream of uneducated, unskilled, and dependent immigrants both legal and illegal should have ended long ago or should at least be adjusted to reflect the high chronic American unemployment we now suffer with. There are literally billions of poverty stricken peoples all around the world. Importing them to America is not the answer nor is it in the best interests of the American people. American immigration policy should be a lot more selective and stricter to modernize into the 21st century.