Donald Trump’s Fantasy of Mass Deportation Is Political Poison for the GOP.... By Charles Krauthammer

[mystery-ak]

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/422864/print

 Donald Trump’s Fantasy of Mass Deportation Is Political Poison for the GOP
By Charles Krauthammer — August 20, 2015

“This was not a subject that was on anybody’s mind until I brought it up at my announcement.”

— Donald Trump, on immigration, Republican debate, August 6

Not on anyone’s mind? For years, immigration has been the subject of near-constant, often bitter argument within the GOP. But it is true that Trump has brought the debate to a new place — first, with his announcement speech, about whether Mexican migrants are really rapists, and now with the somewhat more nuanced Trump plan.

Much of it — visa tracking, E-Verify, withholding funds from sanctuary cities — predates Trump. Even building the Great Wall is not particularly new. (I, for one, have been advocating that in this space since 2006.) Dominating the discussion, however, are his two policy innovations: (a) abolition of birthright citizenship and (b) mass deportation.

Birthright citizenship.

If you are born in the United States, you are an American citizen. So says the 14th Amendment. Barring some esoteric and radically new jurisprudence, abolition would require amending the Constitution. Which would take years and great political effort. And make the GOP anathema to Hispanic Americans for a generation.

And for what? Birthright citizenship is a symptom, not a cause. If you regain control of the border, the number of birthright babies fades to insignificance. The time and energy it would take to amend the Constitution are far more usefully deployed securing the border.

continued

[bkepley]

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/422864/print

 Donald Trump’s Fantasy of Mass Deportation Is Political Poison for the GOP
By Charles Krauthammer — August 20, 2015

“This was not a subject that was on anybody’s mind until I brought it up at my announcement.”

— Donald Trump, on immigration, Republican debate, August 6

Not on anyone’s mind? For years, immigration has been the subject of near-constant, often bitter argument within the GOP. But it is true that Trump has brought the debate to a new place — first, with his announcement speech, about whether Mexican migrants are really rapists, and now with the somewhat more nuanced Trump plan.

Much of it — visa tracking, E-Verify, withholding funds from sanctuary cities — predates Trump. Even building the Great Wall is not particularly new. (I, for one, have been advocating that in this space since 2006.) Dominating the discussion, however, are his two policy innovations: (a) abolition of birthright citizenship and (b) mass deportation.

Birthright citizenship.

If you are born in the United States, you are an American citizen. So says the 14th Amendment. Barring some esoteric and radically new jurisprudence, abolition would require amending the Constitution. Which would take years and great political effort. And make the GOP anathema to Hispanic Americans for a generation.

And for what? Birthright citizenship is a symptom, not a cause. If you regain control of the border, the number of birthright babies fades to insignificance. The time and energy it would take to amend the Constitution are far more usefully deployed securing the border.

continued

The 14th amendment is being abused and not only or even especially by Hispanics.   http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/04/01/china-usa-birth-tourists-business-strong/24887837/

[aligncare]

if you are born in the United States, you are an American citizen. So says the 14th amendment

Yes, Mr. Krauthammer we have let that constitutional point slip away from us. But you are wrong on the issue. Those that wish to keep birthright citizenship will have to amend the constitution to do so, not the other way around.

Because as previous congresses have shown though legislation, for instance, conferring citizenship on native Americans in a 1924 legislative act, that the constitution grants congress plenary power over immigration. Implied judicial review is the problem, not the 14th amendment.

Congress could end the erroneously accepted birthright citizenship tomorrow if they could muster the political will, because the 14th amendment simply does not support it as as you stated.

[jmyrlefuller]

if you are born in the United States, you are an American citizen. So says the 14th amendment

Yes, Mr. Krauthammer we have let that constitutional point slip away from us. But you are wrong on the issue. Those that wish to keep birthright citizenship will have to amend the constitution to do so, not the other way around.

Because as previous congresses have shown though legislation, for instance, conferring citizenship on native Americans in a 1924 legislative act, that the constitution grants congress plenary power over immigration. Implied judicial review is the problem, not the 14th amendment.

Congress could end the erroneously accepted birthright citizenship tomorrow if they could muster the political will, because the 14th amendment simply does not support it as as you stated.

(Almost) exactly. Not only does the person have to be born here to qualify for automatic birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, they also have to be subject to our country's jurisdiction. Who determines what such people are under our jurisdiction? Congress. It's been noted before that quite a few of the people who actually wrote the 14th Amendment specifically believed that the children of foreign aliens were not under our jurisdiction.

[Luis Gonzalez]

(Almost) exactly. Not only does the person have to be born here to qualify for automatic birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, they also have to be subject to our country's jurisdiction. Who determines what such people are under our jurisdiction? Congress. It's been noted before that quite a few of the people who actually wrote the 14th Amendment specifically believed that the children of foreign aliens were not under our jurisdiction.

During Congressional discussion on the passing of the Amendment, one side opposed the idea of birthright citizenship as granted by the verbiage of the Amendment, and one supported it.

Both sides agreed that Section 1 would created a birthright citizenship right.

The side that supported birthright citizenship won the debate and the Amendment was ratified as written, with the birthright citizenship leading the way.

The fact that some may have disagreed with it does not nullify the opinion of the greater number who supported the clause and ratified the Amendment.   

[Luis Gonzalez]

if you are born in the United States, you are an American citizen. So says the 14th amendment

Yes, Mr. Krauthammer we have let that constitutional point slip away from us. But you are wrong on the issue. Those that wish to keep birthright citizenship will have to amend the constitution to do so, not the other way around.

Because as previous congresses have shown though legislation, for instance, conferring citizenship on native Americans in a 1924 legislative act, that the constitution grants congress plenary power over immigration. Implied judicial review is the problem, not the 14th amendment.

Congress could end the erroneously accepted birthright citizenship tomorrow if they could muster the political will, because the 14th amendment simply does not support it as as you stated.

Congress passed the XIV Amendment with the full understanding that Section 1 conferred birthright citizenship to the U.S. born children of foreign nationals.
 
Those who opposed the idea fully understood that this was the intent and the meaning of Section 1, which is why they opposed the clause. The fact that there was both opposition and support for the clause resulting from the birthright citizenship implied by the clause in Congress clearly shows that Congress was fully aware of the impact and the meaning of the clause.

Those who opposed the clause because it would confer birthright citizenship to the U.S. born children of foreign nationals lost the argument and the Amendment was ratified.

[Bigun]

Congress passed the XIV Amendment with the full understanding that Section 1 conferred birthright citizenship to the U.S. born children of foreign nationals.
 
Those who opposed the idea fully understood that this was the intent and the meaning of Section 1, which is why they opposed the clause. The fact that there was both opposition and support for the clause resulting from the birthright citizenship implied by the clause in Congress clearly shows that Congress was fully aware of the impact and the meaning of the clause.

Those who opposed the clause because it would confer birthright citizenship to the U.S. born children of foreign nationals lost the argument and the Amendment was ratified.

In that case you should be able to show us in the record where there was even a word of opposition expressed to the views I have posted several times here already.  Good luck finding that because I've looked and it isn't there!

[Luis Gonzalez]

In that case you should be able to show us in the record where there was even a word of opposition expressed to the views I have posted several times here already.  Good luck finding that because I've looked and it isn't there!

Maybe you should try reading something other than Levin.

TRUTHS AND UNTRUTHS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL ORIGINS OF BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

Elizabeth B. Wydra
January 20, 2011

As Americans and our elected leaders engage in debate over immigration and the constitutional guarantee of citizenship at birth, there is something we should all be able to agree on:  misleading statements about constitutional history do not help us understand the Constitution better or allow us to tackle immigration reform in good faith.

It was thus disheartening to see Rep. Lamar Smith, new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, seriously mislead the public in a letter to the editor printed in the Los Angeles Times.  Writing about the Constitution’s guarantee of citizenship at birth for all children born on U.S. soil and “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, Rep. Smith asserted: “during the debate on the 14th Amendment in 1866, a senator who helped draft the amendment said it would ‘not of course include persons born in the United States who are foreigners.’”  However, this was an incomplete quote.  Had Rep. Smith included the entire quote—or better yet, included the entire quote and helped explain its significance—it would not have supported his reading of the 14th Amendment.   Perhaps that is why he cut the quote off where he did.

Such distortions of history are unhelpful at best.  Here is the full quote from the 1866 Congressional Globe, which is attributed to Sen. Jacob Howard, principal draftsman of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment:

Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to 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.

The reason why this is important is because anti-citizenship advocates seize upon the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment’s guarantee that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”  They argue that illegally present immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.  The incomplete portion of the quote used by Rep. Smith in his L.A. Times letter appears to support the view that the Citizenship Clause was drafted to exclude children of “foreigners” who are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

But the full sentence shows otherwise.  Sen. Howard’s description of the only class of children born on U.S. soil who would not be U.S. citizens automatically at birth was merely a summary of the widely accepted understanding that children of foreign diplomats would not be birthright citizens.  This is because of the legal fiction that diplomats, while physically present here, are sort of floating along in a little bubble of their home country—hence the concept of diplomatic immunity.  Sen. Howard used the terms “foreigners” and “aliens” in the sentence quoted above to describe those “who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.”  If Howard were intending to list several categories of excluded persons (e.g., foreigners, aliens or families of diplomats) he could have said so. Instead, the language he used strongly suggests he was describing a single excluded class, limited to families of diplomats.

Indeed, the history of the Constitution’s Citizenship Clause shows that citizenship at birth for children of “foreigners” was expressly contemplated.  For example, Sen. Edgar Cowan expressed concern that the citizenship proposal would expand the number Chinese in California and Gypsies in his home state of Pennsylvania by granting birthright citizenship to their children, even (as he put it) the children of those who owe no allegiance to the United States and routinely commit “trespass” within the United States.  Supporters of the Citizenship Clause did not take issue with Cowan’s understanding of the effect of the Clause, but instead defended it as a matter of sound policy.  Sen. John Conness of California declared:  “The proposition before us . . . relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. . . . I am in favor of doing so. . . .”

In contrast to the current debate over the meaning of the Citizenship Clause, the legislative debates occurring at the time Congress approved the Clause demonstrate that both its proponents and opponents agreed that it recognizes and protects birthright citizenship for the children of aliens born on U.S. soil.

And since 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court has also agreed.  In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Court held that a U.S.-born child of Chinese immigrants was entitled to citizenship, explaining that the “14th Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory . . . including all children here born of resident aliens.”  In 1982, the Court explained in Plyler v. Doe that the 14th Amendment extends to anyone “who is subject to the laws of a state,” including the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens.  Similarly, in the 1985 case INS v. Rios-Pineda, the Court stated that a child born on U.S. soil to an undocumented immigrant was a U.S. citizen from birth.

Complete quotes and adequate explanations do not always fit the word limit for letters to the editor or make for good TV soundbites.  But it is the duty of our elected officials to be straight with the American people, especially when discussing the meaning of our Constitution.  Looking at the facts—the text and history of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and more than a century of Court precedent—I think it is unquestionable that the Constitution guarantees citizenship at birth to children born on U.S. soil (with the exception of children born to diplomats), including children born to parents who are undocumented immigrants.  Rep. Smith and other anti-citizenship activists are certainly entitled to disagree—but they aren’t entitled to create their own version of history.

Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to 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.

http://theusconstitution.org/text-history/2687

[Bigun]

Maybe you should try reading something other than Levin.

I'm very well aware that there are those who disagree with the CLEAR record Luis!  I just happen to disagree with them!

And what you posted here is most definitely NOT a part of the official record of the debates surrounding the 14th amendment!

 

[aligncare]

If the author of the 14th amendment and the citizenship clause wanted birth on American soil as the only determining factor of citizenship, section 1 would have read:

"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."

Why even include the qualifier "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof?":

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Why the qualifier?

[Bigun]

If the author of the 14th amendment and the citizenship clause wanted birth on American soil as the only determining factor of citizenship, section 1 would have read:

"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."

Why even include the qualifier "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof?":

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Why the qualifier?

Again you have hit the nail squarely on it's head and perfectly exposed what is being attempted here which is to simply strike language which is CLEARLY there from the amendment!

[Luis Gonzalez]

If the author of the 14th amendment and the citizenship clause wanted birth on American soil as the only determining factor of citizenship, section 1 would have read:

"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."

Why even include the qualifier "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof?":

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Why the qualifier?

Two reasons...

Some people can be born in the United States but not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (children of foreign diplomats, etc) so without the qualifier the children of people who aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States can claim citizenship.

At the time of the ratification, there were vast stretches of land that were part of the nation but not States, so that land wasn't part of the United States per se but people i it were subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. so they were born citizens in spite of the fact that they weren't technically born in the United States.

Arizona did not become a State until 1912 but people born in Arizona in 1911 were citizens by virtue of the carve out. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

Again you have hit the nail squarely on it's head and perfectly exposed what is being attempted here which is to simply strike language which is CLEARLY there from the amendment!

So the child of the Cuban Ambassador born in the George Washington University Hospital is both a U.S. citizen and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

That's creative.

[Bigun]

So the child of the Cuban Ambassador born in the George Washington University Hospital is both a U.S. citizen and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

That's creative

YOU left out a very important word Luis!  So the child of the Cuban Ambassador born in the George Washington University Hospital is bot[h not a U.S. citizen and not subject solely to the jurisdiction of the United States?

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'm very well aware that there are those who disagree with the CLEAR record Luis!  I just happen to disagree with them!

And what you posted here is most definitely NOT a part of the official record of the debates surrounding the 14th amendment!

So everyone that you agree with is an exert beyond reproach and anyone that supports my point of view is a liar.

Is that right?

http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/Documents/Ho-DefiningAmerican.pdf

 

[Bigun]

So everyone that you agree with is an exert beyond reproach and anyone that supports my point of view is a liar.

Is that right?

http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/Documents/Ho-DefiningAmerican.pdf

NO! They are just wrong. Just like you are!

[truth_seeker]

Maybe take this discussion in another direction. I think that US officials look to intent, when considering immigration by those who seek to marry a US citizen. They interview the applicant, to determine their sincerity.

Disclaimer: I have no experience. I am not a lawyer, Constitutional or otherwise.

https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=marriage+immigration+fraud&oq=marriage+immigration+&gs_l=hp.1.2.0l10.653701.658346.0.662870.23.12.0.11.11.0.162.1522.1j11.12.0....0...1c.1.64.hp..2.21.1636.0.Xs3LzTEjUVE

It is called "Marriage Fraud" and carries significant penalties

If a foreign national enters the US briefly for childbirth, why would that be different, conceptually?

https://www.google.com/search?q=childbirth+immigration+fraud&oq=childbirth+immigration+fraud&gs_l=serp.12...356090.359450.0.361960.11.11.0.0.0.0.179.1264.4j7.11.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..3.8.838._kIZAQPNhc0

Or same foreign national overstays visa and has several children?

There is a thriving specialty within the US lawyer profession, concerning Immigration

A naturalized US citizen from say Vietnam, arranges for a relative to come visit on a tourist visa, but they overstay AND get an attorney working on their case. If handled correctly they are allowed to stay almost indefinitely.

Think of these cases in the millions. The Donald and his operatives are going to be in court a lot.

Over half of the so-called illegal immigrants overstayed visas. (It is very easy to get a tourist visa to enter the US)

[Luis Gonzalez]

YOU left out a very important word Luis!  So the child of the Cuban Ambassador born in the George Washington University Hospital is bot[h not a U.S. citizen and not subject solely to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Really Bigun?

So now you want to ignore the part of the Amendment that you left standing?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens."

That's what you and aligncare say that the Amendment should read, right?

You can't both decide that the language in the Amendment is irrelevant and that even the language that you consider relevant doesn't say what it plainly says.

If the jurisdiction part is stricken, that child is a citizen by the text of your amended Amendment

[Bigun]

Really Bigun?

So now you want to ignore the part of the Amendment that you left standing?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens."

That's what you and aligncare say that the Amendment should read, right?

You can't both decide that the language in the Amendment is irrelevant and that even the language that you consider relevant doesn't say what it plainly says.

If the jurisdiction part is stricken, that child is a citizen by the text of your amended Amendment

No Luis! I commented on Aligncare's post and pointed out the FACT that YOU and others are attempting to remove words from the amendment to wit "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

[Luis Gonzalez]

YOU left out a very important word Luis!  So the child of the Cuban Ambassador born in the George Washington University Hospital is bot[h not a U.S. citizen and not subject solely to the jurisdiction of the United States?

So, exactly what is shared jurisdiction Bigun?

If Mexico claims shared jurisdiction over Kathryn Steinle's killer, and argue that his trial should take place in a Mexican courtroom, you'd be OK with that?

[Luis Gonzalez]

No Luis! I commented on Aligncare's post and pointed out the FACT that YOU and others are attempting to remove words from the amendment to wit "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

No, I am not.

Illegal aliens on US soil are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, so their US born children fulfill both qualifications for citizenship under the text of the XIV Amendment

[Bigun]

So, exactly what is shared jurisdiction Bigun?

If Mexico claims shared jurisdiction over Kathryn Steinle's killer, and argue that his trial should take place in a Mexican courtroom, you'd be OK with that?

No I'm not ok with that at all and it has not one thing to do with what we are talking about here! Just more chaff thrown up in the air by you!

[Bigun]

No, I am not.

Illegal aliens on US soil are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, so their US born children fulfill both qualifications for citizenship under the text of the XIV Amendment

They are not SOLELY subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and thus NOT automatically citizens at birth!

What does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean? Jurisdiction can take on different meanings that can have nothing to do with physical boundaries alone--and if the framers meant geographical boundaries they would have simply used the term "limits" rather than "jurisdiction" since that was the custom at the time when distinguishing between physical boundaries and reach of law.

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:

Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to 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 desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]

It is clear the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil, something our courts have wrongfully assumed. But what exactly did "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean to the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment? Again, we are fortunate to have on record the highest authority to tell us, Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:

[T]he 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.

Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is 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.[2]

Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull's construction:

Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]

In other words, only children born to American citizens can be considered citizens of the United States since only a American citizen could enjoy the "extent and quality" of jurisdiction of an American citizen now. Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the constitution:

[Now], all this amendment [citizenship clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4]

No doubt in the Senate as to what the citizenship clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:

In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:

find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...[6]

Further convincing evidence for the demand of complete allegiance required for citizenship can be found in the "Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America," an oath required to become an American citizen of the United States. It reads in part:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen...

Of course, this very oath leaves no room for dual-citizenship, but that is another troubling disregard for our National principles by modern government. Fewer today are willing to renounce completely their allegiance to their natural country of origin, further making a mockery of our citizenship laws. In fact, recently in Los Angeles you could find the American flag discarded for the flag of Mexico in celebration after taking the American Citizenship Oath.

It's noteworthy to point out a Supreme Court ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), where the court completely discarded the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause scope and intent by replacing it with their own invented Citizenship Clause. The court in effect, ruled that fourteenth amendment had elevated citizenship to a new constitutionally protected right, and thus, prevents the cancellation of a persons citizenship unless they assent.

Unfortunately for the court, Sen. Howard effectively shoots down this feeble attempt to replace his clause with their own home grown Citizenship Clause. Firstly, Howard finds no incompatibility with expatriation and the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause when he says: "I take it for granted that when a man becomes a citizen of the United States under the Constitution he cannot cease to be a citizen, except by expatriation for the commission of some crime by which his citizenship shall be forfeited."

Secondly, Sen. Howard expressly stated, "I am not yet prepared to pass a sweeping act of naturalization by which all the Indian savages, wild or tame, belonging to a tribal relation, are to become my fellow-citizens and go to the polls and vote with me and hold lands and deal in every other way that a citizen of the United States has a right to do."

The question begs: If Howard had no intention of passing a sweeping act of naturalization--how does the court elevate Howard's Citizenship Clause to a new constitutionally protected right that cannot be taken away since this would certainly require a sweeping act with explicit language to enumerate such a new constitutional right? Remember, the court cannot create new rights that are not already expressly granted by the constitution.

A third problem for the court is the fact both Howard and Bingham viewed the citizenship clause as simply "declaratory" of what they regarded "as the law of the land already." This then requires flights of fantasy to elevate Howard's express purpose of inserting the Citizenship Clause as simply removing "all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States," and not to elevate citizenship to a new protected constitutional right. Citizenship is a privilege, not a right as say the right to freedom of religion is, and therefore, can be taken away just as any other privilege can be.

James Madison defined who America seeked to be citizens among us along with some words of wisdom:

When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuse. It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.[7]


What does it all mean?

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.


Footnotes

[1]. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890 (view actual page)
[2]. Id. at 2893
[3]. Id. at 2895
[4]. Id. at 2893
[5]. Id. at 2897
[6]. Id. at 1291
[7]. James Madison on Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, Feb. 3, 1790.
 

Complete with actual QUOTES from the Congressional Globe covering the debates surrounding the 14th amendment Luis! Now show us the ones from that source that support your side of the argument!

[Luis Gonzalez]

They are not SOLELY subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and thus NOT automatically citizens at birth!

You can't have it both ways Bigun.

You can't argue that the US has the right to round up and deport illegal aliens in the country then turn around and claim that we don't have sovereign jurisdiction over non-diplomats that are in the country.

If illegal aliens are not subject to our jurisdiction, they are not bound by our laws an in fact exist outside our laws, so they can't be here illegally.

[Luis Gonzalez]

They are not SOLELY subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and thus NOT automatically citizens at birth!

Complete with actual QUOTES from the Congressional Globe covering the debates surrounding the 14th amendment Luis! Now show us the ones from that source that support your side of the argument!

"The amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States."

Wow...

Thanks for proving my point Bigun.