Author Topic: Levin: 'Completely False' That Children Born to Illegals Have Constitutional Right to Citizenship  (Read 5670 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rangerrebew

  • Guest
 


Levin: 'Completely False' That Children Born to Illegals Have Constitutional Right to Citizenship
 
 

Nationally syndicated radio show host Mark Levin [1] explained on Tuesday why children born in the United States to illegal alien parents do not have a constitutional right to U.S. citizenship.

“I had to watch on TV, while I was in California, some so-called experts tell us--and former Bush appointees, and a former superior court judge in New Jersey tell us--that the Constitution embraces birthright citizenship, and there’s not a damn thing we can do about it," said Levin. "Well that, of course, is completely false.”



Here is a transcript of what Mark Levin had to say:


“Birthright citizenship: I have discussed this a few times in my radio career – I think 2009. Maybe it was 2010. I think once or twice since then. And unfortunately, I had to watch on TV, while I was in California, some so-called experts tell us – and former Bush appointees, and a former superior court judge in New Jersey tell us – that the Constitution embraces birthright citizenship, and there’s not a damn thing we can do about it. Well that, of course, is completely false.

“And I don’t know why people who call themselves Constitutionalists swerve back and forth, lurched from the Constitution to Supreme Court decisions, and back and forth. First, let’s figure out what the Constitution says.

“And I see our senior legal analyst friend – and he is a friend of mine, Napolitano – is all over the place. And he’s wrong, as are many other so-called experts.

“I’ve actually spent my life on the Constitution. I wasn’t a superior court judge in New Jersey. I wasn’t a professor for doughnuts and coffee at Shmegegge University or what have you. And this is one of the areas I have poured over, over the decades.

“And yet nobody did a better job at explaining this than Professor Edward Erler, who I’ve talked about over the years. And he’s a professor at California State University. He is also at The Claremont Institute [2], a senior fellow there. But more than that, he happens to be right. And he testified before a subcommittee of Congress many years ago, almost 20 years ago. And he set forth the case.

“Now, he’s not the only one: Professor Thomas West [3] has; Lino Graglia has, professor at University of Texas School of Law School [4]. But even more than them, the framers of the Constitution set forth the basic law. And then we have, after the Civil War, three amendments to the Constitution – the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth – called the Civil War Amendments. And we know pretty much what occurred.

“Professor Erler was testifying. He said, ‘It’s my considered opinion, Congress has the authority, under Section Five of the Fourth Amendment, to define the jurisdiction of the United States [of the Fourteenth Amendment, of course]. Indeed, it is my contention that Congress has exercised that power on many occasions, most recently in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, and I would say they also exercised it with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.”

“He points out, ‘Senator Jacob Howard … .’ You are now going to know more than anybody else, ladies and gentlemen. You know, one of the things I find when I sign books, and it’s good to do it because I get to talk to so many of you, people say, ‘Mark, your show is different because you really get into the substance.’ Now, we have fun. Don’t get me wrong. We do our thing too. But we do get into the substance. It’s one thing to say, ‘Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Obviously the Constitution doesn’t provide that.’ That’s not enough. That’s not enough. So when you’re in a debate format or a political format or a classroom format or this format, you need to back it up, and that’s what we do here. We back it up.

“Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment – he spoke – he told us what he meant. He defined who would fall within the ‘jurisdiction of the United States.’ Ready?

“‘Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, [meaning the states – their jurisdiction] is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. 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 accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.’

“Mr. Call Screener, Mr. Producer, you understand that, right? Is it not plain English? Is he not as clear as can be, that it does not include aliens, it does not include foreigners, it does not include families or with ambassadors or foreign ministers?

“So, the author of the citizenship clause intended to count foreigners, aliens and those born to ambassadors, foreign ministers, as outside the jurisdiction of the United States. That’s Senator Jacob Howard. He knew, as his reference to natural law indicates that the republican basis for citizenship is consent – consent of the country.

“You can’t self-immigrate. You can’t claim jurisdiction because you happen to walk into the United States.

“Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a powerful supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment, remarked on May 30, 1866, that the jurisdiction clause includes those ‘not owing allegiance to anybody else … It’s only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.’ Now this was familiar language.

“The Civil Rights Act of 1866 defined citizens of the United States as ‘all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.’ ‘Not subject to any foreign power.’

“It is universally agreed that the immediate impulse of the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment was to constitutionalize (constitutionalize) the Civil Rights Act of 1866. It was an attempt to put the question of citizenship and matter of federal civil rights beyond the reach of simple congressional majorities. Thus, it was clear, the idea of allegiance, ‘not subject to any foreign power,’ was central to understanding the jurisdiction clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”


 
Source URL: http://cnsnews.com/blog/michael-morris/levin-completely-false-children-born-illegals-have-constitutional-right
« Last Edit: August 20, 2015, 11:34:37 am by rangerrebew »

Online Right_in_Virginia

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 80,050
Quote
You can’t claim jurisdiction because you happen to walk into the United States.

Good line for a bumper sticker. 

Offline olde north church

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,117
I believe the difference between Levin and Napolitano is the the difference between Federalism and Libertarianism.
Why?  Well, because I'm a bastard, that's why.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Is this guy really a lawyer, or does he just play one on TV?

"Under the jurisdiction" means subject to the laws and authority of the United States (the United States was the name used by the Founders to describe what we now call the Federal government)  and if he wants to argue that foreigners on our soil are not subject to our jurisdiction (subject to our laws), then under what authority does the U.S. government detain, incarcerate and deport foreigners?

After all, their not being under the jurisdiction of the U.S. means that they're neither subject to our laws, or accountable for breaking laws that they're not a subject to.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline Relic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,967
  • Gender: Male
Is this guy really a lawyer, or does he just play one on TV?

Quote from: Wikipedia
Mark Reed Levin was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and grew up in Erdenheim as well as Elkins Park, Pennsylvania. His father, Jack E. Levin, is the author of several books.[1] He graduated from Cheltenham High School after three years in 1974.[2][3] After high school, Levin enrolled at Temple University Ambler including summer classes and graduated with a bachelor's degree in Political Science in 1977 at age 19, summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa.[4] Levin won election to the Cheltenham school board in 1977 on a platform of reducing property taxes.[3] In 1980 Levin earned a juris doctor from Temple University Beasley School of Law.[5] Levin worked for Texas Instruments after law school.[3]

Beginning in 1981, Levin served as an adviser to several members of President Ronald Reagan's cabinet, eventually becoming the associate director of presidential personnel and ultimately chief of staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese during the Iran–Contra affair; Levin also served as deputy assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education at the U.S. Department of Education, and deputy solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior.

He practiced law in the private sector and is president of Landmark Legal Foundation, a public interest law firm founded in 1976 and based in Leesburg, Virginia.

Clearly you can mock him, because your credentials are much more impressive, right?

« Last Edit: August 20, 2015, 02:56:39 pm by Relic »

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,637
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Is this guy really a lawyer, or does he just play one on TV?

"Under the jurisdiction" means subject to the laws and authority of the United States (the United States was the name used by the Founders to describe what we now call the Federal government)  and if he wants to argue that foreigners on our soil are not subject to our jurisdiction (subject to our laws), then under what authority does the U.S. government detain, incarcerate and deport foreigners?

After all, their not being under the jurisdiction of the U.S. means that they're neither subject to our laws, or accountable for breaking laws that they're not a subject to.

He has argued and won MANY cases before the Supreme court and is the founder of Landmark Legal Foundation which, I dare say, makes him a damned site more authoritative on this subject than YOU!
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
He has argued and won MANY cases before the Supreme court and is the founder of Landmark Legal Foundation which, I dare say, makes him a damned site more authoritative on this subject than YOU!

But he's wrong on this.

P.S. I believe the phrase you're looking for is "a damned sight". But maybe I should bow to your greater knowledge of the English language seeing as to how you're a native born citizen while I'm only an English as a second language type.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,637
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
But he's wrong on this.

P.S. I believe the phrase you're looking for is "a damned sight". But maybe I should bow to your greater knowledge of the English language seeing as to how you're a native born citizen while I'm only an English as a second language type.

Maybe you should go piss up a rope!
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
You don't have to have a law degree to understand that if you can be arrested and sentenced to spend time in jail, you're "subject to the jurisdiction" of the government that did it to you.

Diplomats and consular employees are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., so they can't be charged with breaking laws in the U.S. Illegal aliens can, and are constantly being arrested, charged, tried and punished for breaking our laws.

Can't be much clearer than that.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Maybe you should go piss up a rope!

Better, grammatically speaking.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline Relic

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,967
  • Gender: Male
Better, grammatically speaking.

DBAD

Well, I guess that's not possible for you.

Godzilla

  • Guest
If illegals are not subject to US law, then why do we arrest them when they commit a crime?

Why do we deport them for breaking immigration law?  They aren't subject to US laws.

Offline GourmetDan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,277
 
Funny how no one even questions why the 14th Amendment has the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" when it describes birthright citizenship.

If simply being born in the U.S. was enough to confer citizenship, that phrase is unnecessary...

The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans

"Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:"

"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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

"In a nutshell, it means this: The constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child's birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child's citizenship--not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child's parents to Jury Duty - then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?"

"The framers succeeded in their desire to remove all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. They also succeeded in making both their intent and construction clear for future generations of courts and government. Whether our government or courts will start to honor and uphold the supreme law of the land for which they are obligated to by oath, is another very disturbing matter."

Lying to you again, aren't they...

« Last Edit: August 20, 2015, 09:21:48 pm by GourmetDan »
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." - Ecclesiastes 10:2

"The sole purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party." - GourmetDan

Offline evadR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,190
  • Gender: Male
pot/kettle/black
November 6, 2012, a day in infamy...the death of a republic as we know it.

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,916
  • Gender: Male
You don't have to have a law degree to understand that if you can be arrested and sentenced to spend time in jail, you're "subject to the jurisdiction" of the government that did it to you.

Diplomats and consular employees are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., so they can't be charged with breaking laws in the U.S. Illegal aliens can, and are constantly being arrested, charged, tried and punished for breaking our laws.

Can't be much clearer than that.

If you can be arrested?

That's your supporting argument, that you can be a citizen because your undocumented parent(s) –that is here illegally parent(s)– can be subject to arrest? Peculiar legal test.

Anybody can be subject to arrest. Depending on the severity of the crime, even diplomats and their families.  I'm not sure how that bolsters your argument?
« Last Edit: August 21, 2015, 01:17:59 am by aligncare »

Offline GourmetDan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,277
If you can be arrested?

Your supporting argument is, your a citizen because your undocumented –illegally in the United States– parents can be subject to arrest if they commit a crime? Peculiar legal test.

Anybody can be subject to arrest. Depending on the severity of the crime, even diplomats and their families.  I'm not sure how that bolsters your argument?

If you could not be subject to arrest, then what consequence for being here illegally?  None?  Being here illegally is a crime in itself.  You don't need to commit another one.

That seems to be the crux of the argument.  You must either acknowledge 'anchor babies' or un-touchable illegal aliens.

Pure stupidity...

"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." - Ecclesiastes 10:2

"The sole purpose of the Republican Party is to serve as an ineffective alternative to the Democrat Party." - GourmetDan

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
If you can be arrested?

That's your supporting argument, that you can be a citizen because your undocumented parent(s) –that is here illegally parent(s)– can be subject to arrest? Peculiar legal test.

Anybody can be subject to arrest. Depending on the severity of the crime, even diplomats and their families.  I'm not sure how that bolsters your argument?

No. my supporting argument is the text of the XIV Amendment and prevailing U.S. laws and statutes:

Section 1 - All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

Two requirements:

1. Born ~~ in the United States
2. Subject to the jurisdiction thereof (the thing just mentioned, in this case, the United States).

So, once a person in born on U.S. soil and if that person is subject to U.S. laws and judicial authority, that person is a citizen.

So what types of persons are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

§ 515.329 Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The term person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States includes:
(a) Any individual, wherever located, who is a citizen or resident of the United States;
(b) Any person within the United States as defined in § 515.330;
(c) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, territory, possession, or district of the United States; and
(d) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization, wherever organized or doing business, that is owned or controlled by persons specified in paragraphs (a) or (c) of this section.]
[50 FR 27437, July 3, 1985, as amended at 68 FR 14145, Mar. 24, 2003]

§ 515.330 Person within the United States.
(a) The term person within the United States, includes:
(1) Any person, wheresoever located, who is a resident of the United States;
(2) Any person actually within the United States;
(3) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, territory, possession, or district of the United States; and
(4) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization, wherever organized or doing business, which is owned or controlled by any person or persons specified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(3) of this section.

What persons are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Quote
Diplomatic immunity is a status granted to diplomatic personnel that exempts them from the laws of a foreign jurisdiction.

The Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations (1961), which most states have ratified, offers diplomats acting as officials of state almost total protection from subjection to criminal, administrative, and civil laws belonging to the country in which the diplomatic mission is located. Diplomats assigned to missions located in foreign countries remain subject to the laws of their home countries. The diplomat's country of origin has prerogative over whether or not a host country may prosecute a diplomat under its (i.e. 'foreign') laws.

How far does this immunity extend?

22 U.S. Code § 254a - Definitions

(1) the term “members of a mission” means—
(A) the head of a mission and those members of a mission who are members of the diplomatic staff or who, pursuant to law, are granted equivalent privileges and immunities,
(B) members of the administrative and technical staff of a mission, and
(C) members of the service staff of a mission,
as such terms are defined in Article 1 of the Vienna Convention;
(2) the term “family” means—
(A) the members of the family of a member of a mission described in paragraph (1)(A) who form part of his or her household if they are not nationals of the United States, and
(B) the members of the family of a member of a mission described in paragraph (1)(B) who form part of his or her household if they are not nationals or permanent residents of the United States,
within the meaning of Article 37 of the Vienna Convention;
(3) the term “mission” includes missions within the meaning of the Vienna Convention and any missions representing foreign governments, individually or collectively, which are extended the same privileges and immunities, pursuant to law, as are enjoyed by missions under the Vienna Convention; and
(4) the term “Vienna Convention” means the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of April 18, 1961 (T.I.A.S. numbered 7502; 23 U.S.T. 3227), entered into force with respect to the United States on December 13, 1972.

Illegal aliens are not given any manner of immunity from U.S. laws, and as such and as defined by § 515.329(b) and § 515.330(2) they are persons "within the United States" so they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

So, persons who do not have diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations (1961) and 22 U.S. Code § 254a can be arrested, charged with crimes, tried and sentenced. Illegal aliens in the United States can be arrested, charged with crimes, tried and sentenced, so their children that are born in the United States (requirement #1 in Section 1 of the XIV Amendment) and just like his or her parents being subject to the jurisdiction thereof (requirement #2 in Section 1 of the XIV Amendment), are citizens.

Mark Levin knows all this.

He's just playing to his radio audience and trying to sell some books.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2015, 03:50:40 am by Luis Gonzalez »
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline Carling

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,240
  • Gender: Male
But he's wrong on this.

P.S. I believe the phrase you're looking for is "a damned sight". But maybe I should bow to your greater knowledge of the English language seeing as to how you're a native born citizen while I'm only an English as a second language type.

What about the part where it excludes the children of foreigners or aliens?  Are you going to address that part?
Trump has created a cult and looks more and more like Hitler every day.
-----------------------------------------------

Offline Paladin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,476
  • Gender: Male
"P.S. I believe the phrase you're looking for is "a damned sight". But maybe I should bow to your greater knowledge of the English language seeing as to how you're a native born citizen while I'm only an English as a second language type."

Be careful of cutesy pie stuff like that, Luis. Just remember, what goes around, comes around.
Members of the anti-Trump cabal: Now that Mr Trump has sewn up the nomination, I want you to know I feel your pain.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
What about the part where it excludes the children of foreigners or aliens?  Are you going to address that part?

§ 515.329 and § 515.330 above.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
"P.S. I believe the phrase you're looking for is "a damned sight". But maybe I should bow to your greater knowledge of the English language seeing as to how you're a native born citizen while I'm only an English as a second language type."

Be careful of cutesy pie stuff like that, Luis. Just remember, what goes around, comes around.

i take a long time to craft posts.

I do research and try to post cogent thoughts with as much back up and references as possible.

Then some guy copies and pastes some OpEd and dismisses my entire post because Mark Levin or some other talking head who is allegedly an expert says something that contradicts my post and I am just some guy on the Internet.

It gets old
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline Paladin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,476
  • Gender: Male
"i (sic) take a long time to craft posts."

Possibly, but apparently you don't spend an equivalent amount of time concerning yourself with proper capitalization.

(Warned you, Sparky)
Members of the anti-Trump cabal: Now that Mr Trump has sewn up the nomination, I want you to know I feel your pain.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,621
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
"i (sic) take a long time to craft posts."

Possibly, but apparently you don't spend an equivalent amount of time concerning yourself with proper capitalization.

(Warned you, Sparky)

Hahahaha!

Well played!

 :beer:
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline aligncare

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 25,916
  • Gender: Male
i take a long time to craft posts.

I do research and try to post cogent thoughts with as much back up and references as possible.

Then some guy copies and pastes some OpEd and dismisses my entire post because Mark Levin or some other talking head who is allegedly an expert says something that contradicts my post and I am just some guy on the Internet.

It gets old

Mark Levin and Landmark Legal foundation, founded in 1976 by Mr. Levin, files briefs in cases before the Supreme Court.

Landmark Legal is a 501(c)(3) non-profit and "America's oldest conservative, non-profit, public interest law firm."

http://www.landmarklegal.org/desktopdefault.aspx

He writes many well researched, footnoted and scholarly best selling books on American history and the constitution of the United States.

He's also a nationally syndicated radio talk show host with millions of daily listeners.

And you treat him as if he were just some anonymous poster and amateur legal beagle with a keyboard whose day job is working for a grocery and restaurant supplier in Florida.

Offline evadR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,190
  • Gender: Male
Mark Levin and Landmark Legal foundation, founded in 1976 by Mr. Levin, files briefs in cases before the Supreme Court.

Landmark Legal is a 501(c)(3) non-profit and "America's oldest conservative, non-profit, public interest law firm."

http://www.landmarklegal.org/desktopdefault.aspx

He writes many well researched, footnoted and scholarly best selling books on American history and the constitution of the United States.

He's also a nationally syndicated radio talk show host with millions of daily listeners.

And you treat him as if he were just some anonymous poster and amateur legal beagle with a keyboard whose day job is working for a grocery and restaurant supplier in Florida.
There are people that are "just some guy on the internet"....and then there's Mark Levin.

It's important to know the difference.
November 6, 2012, a day in infamy...the death of a republic as we know it.