Lindsey Graham to Introduce Bill Ending Birthright Citizenship ‘Magnet’ for Illegal Immigration

[SirLinksALot]

It would have been more satisfactory if you had - for I presume it was you - quoted Sen. Howard’s oral statement in full, and not elided out the key phrase that qualifies the types of “foreigners, aliens” who, in his view, would be excluded under the amendment as he proposed it; namely, individuals who “belong to the families of embassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States”.

Sen. Howard quite clearly contemplated that even temporary sojourners would qualify if born within the territorial reach of the US. 

His statement, as elided, misrepresents his position.

Here is his quote in FULL, I refer to this site:

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/author-14th-amendment-removes-all-doubt-what-persons-are-or-are-not-citizens

““I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion.”

The first amendment 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.’

“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.”

How does the above qualify the children of  temporary soujourners (your words) who are not legal residents of the United States? It is quite clear that they belong to the category of foreigners and aliens who DO NOT QUALIFY.

My understanding is that persons born to FOREIGNER PARENTS are ALSO FOREIGNERS.

[NavyCanDo]

OK folks, let's discuss -- how do you write either an Executive Order OR a Congressional Bill ending birthright citizenship without bumping up against the 14th Amendment of our Constitution?

Here it is for your reminder (emphasis BOLDED ):

Whether it comes from an executive order or through Congress, it will be very difficult to do because the first section of the 14th Amendment does not state where the parents had to be born. With the way things were in 1868, you would have to assume the parents were Legal Immigrants, and any child born of them does not have to go through all the steps they will have to to become a citizen.

[Oceander]

@SirLinksALot presented documentation to back up his position.  Can you do the same?  @Oceander

By happy coincidence, Bigun happened to post the page of the Congressional Globe containing Sen. Howard’s full statement, circled in red, here:  http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,338433.msg1833839.html#msg1833839

I should think an unredacted, unelided, copy should suffice. 

I would also recommend reading the article “Defining ‘American’” by Judge Ho (who also happens to be a current Trump judicial nominee).  He makes the point quite clearly. 

[Oceander]

Here is his quote in FULL, I refer to this site:

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/author-14th-amendment-removes-all-doubt-what-persons-are-or-are-not-citizens

How does the above qualify the children of  temporary soujourners (your words) who are not legal residents of the United States? It is quite clear that they belong to the category of foreigners and aliens who DO NOT QUALIFY.

My understanding is that persons born to FOREIGNER PARENTS are ALSO FOREIGNERS.

You misread the statement; intentionally or not, I do not know.

In that statement he refers only to foreigners who are members of the families of ambassadors. They are the only foreigners whose children, if born in the US, would not be entitled to birthplace citizenship.  All others would.

Of course, the subsequent debates contained in the Cong. Globe clarify that enemy combatants would not be included either, and nor would members of Indian tribes. 

The common theme, of course, is that all three of these classes of people have immunity, to some significant degree, from legal process under ordinary American law.  It is that immunity that renders them not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, and is why their children do not get birthplace citizenship.  Anyone else physically present within the US is subject to US jurisdiction and their children qualify for birthplace citizenship. 

[verga]

BKMK

[SirLinksALot]

You misread the statement; intentionally or not, I do not know.

In that statement he refers only to foreigners who are members of the families of ambassadors. They are the only foreigners whose children, if born in the US, would not be entitled to birthplace citizenship.  All others would.

The point of dispute is this --- Are FOREIGNERS and ALIENS LIMITED to only foreign ambassadors?

Or, as I believe it should be, are tourist or people here illegally ALSO Foreigners and Aliens?

Common sense tells us that they are foreigners and aliens and NOT Americans.

Let's think about this, why do we call those here illegally --- ILLEGAL ALIENS? we do so because that's what they are -- ILLEGAL and ALIENS.

I find it incredulous to believe that  original intent of the the idea of jurisdiction was merely meant to exclude the children of diplomats and soldiers of hostile armies but was meant to include those with allegiance to any foreign sovereignty ( e.g. tourists or illegals ).

BTW, regarding the word "jurisdiction" as in do we have jurisdiction over these tourists or illegals when they are here?

I would say that our jurisdiction is PARTIAL, in the sense that if you commit a crime or are victims of crime in this country, we have the authority to punish or protect you. However, Your allegiance is still to your country of origin. In that sense, we do not have the power to tax your income from say, Mexico. Our jurisdiction ( as in any other country ) is NOT FULL, like we do for those who are citizens and legal residents of this country.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

Tourists or Illegals have access to the embassy of the country from which they came. They can even seek refuge in their embassy should they feel that the US government is persecuting them and we can't do a darn thing about it. Thus US does not have FULL jurisdiction.

[Bigun]

By happy coincidence, Bigun happened to post the page of the Congressional Globe containing Sen. Howard’s full statement, circled in red, here:  http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,338433.msg1833839.html#msg1833839

I should think an unredacted, unelided, copy should suffice. 

I would also recommend reading the article “Defining ‘American’” by Judge Ho (who also happens to be a current Trump judicial nominee).  He makes the point quite clearly.

@Oceander

@SirLinksALot, John Eastman, and I strongly disagree with you and Judge Ho. 

Revoking birthright citizenship would enforce the Constitution

By John Eastman

President Trump’s comments are not even set to air until this weekend, but already they have created a firestorm of commentary, most of it ill-informed.

It is not “within the president’s power to change birthright citizenship,” claimed Lynden Melmed, former chief counsel to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, echoing the views of many in the legal academy. Birthright citizenship is mandated by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and therefore can only be “changed” by constitutional amendment, not by mere executive order or act of Congress, or so the argument goes.

That view depends on reading the 14th Amendment as actually mandating automatic citizenship for anyone and everyone born on US soil, no matter the circumstances. Temporary visitors, such as tourists, students and guest workers, can unilaterally confer citizenship on their children merely by giving birth while here, is the claim.
That view has given rise to the cottage industry known as “birth tourism.” Worse, under this view, citizenship is automatic even if the parents overstay their visas and become illegally present in the United States. Worse still, such citizenship is automatic for children born of parents who were never lawfully present in the United States in the first place.

In a nation such as the United States, which is rooted in the idea that governments are formed based on the consent of the governed, the notion that foreign nationals can unilaterally confer citizenship on their children as the result of illegal entry to the United States (and therefore entirely without our consent) is a bit bizarre.

It rewards lawlessness, undermining the rule of law. It deprives Congress of its constitutional authority to determine naturalization power.

And it essentially destroys the notion of sovereignty itself, since a “people” are not able to define what constitutes them as a “people” entitled, as the Declaration of Independence asserts, to “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.”

That the 14th Amendment settled the question without ever explicitly addressing it is even more bizarre.

The actual language of the 14th Amendment actually contains two requirements for automatic citizenship, not just one. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” — that’s the birth-on-US- soil part — “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It is that second requirement, “subject to the jurisdiction,” that is the source of much confusion today, because to our modern ear, that just means subject to our laws...

Excerpt: Read more at https://nypost.com/2018/10/30/revoking-birthright-citizenship-would-enforce-the-constitution/

PS: So does P.A. Madison and MANY others!

https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html?fbclid=IwAR0-DhCABXd39jwr7iyZW0w1FlLEncCfuidkNVF2LbvpmlJNf2hAMfhOlVc

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/11/01/trump-is-right-ending-birthright-citizenship-is-constitutional/?fbclid=IwAR1gpm5pJMxxd0PeYrjZzZed3ZXvsGauhynJsfoq_G-HrovNC7sm0YFyw1M

[aligncare]

@Oceander

@SirLinksALot, John Eastman, and I strongly disagree with you and Judge Ho. 

Revoking birthright citizenship would enforce the Constitution

By John Eastman

President Trump’s comments are not even set to air until this weekend, but already they have created a firestorm of commentary, most of it ill-informed.

It is not “within the president’s power to change birthright citizenship,” claimed Lynden Melmed, former chief counsel to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, echoing the views of many in the legal academy. Birthright citizenship is mandated by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and therefore can only be “changed” by constitutional amendment, not by mere executive order or act of Congress, or so the argument goes.

That view depends on reading the 14th Amendment as actually mandating automatic citizenship for anyone and everyone born on US soil, no matter the circumstances. Temporary visitors, such as tourists, students and guest workers, can unilaterally confer citizenship on their children merely by giving birth while here, is the claim.
That view has given rise to the cottage industry known as “birth tourism.” Worse, under this view, citizenship is automatic even if the parents overstay their visas and become illegally present in the United States. Worse still, such citizenship is automatic for children born of parents who were never lawfully present in the United States in the first place.

In a nation such as the United States, which is rooted in the idea that governments are formed based on the consent of the governed, the notion that foreign nationals can unilaterally confer citizenship on their children as the result of illegal entry to the United States (and therefore entirely without our consent) is a bit bizarre.

It rewards lawlessness, undermining the rule of law. It deprives Congress of its constitutional authority to determine naturalization power.

And it essentially destroys the notion of sovereignty itself, since a “people” are not able to define what constitutes them as a “people” entitled, as the Declaration of Independence asserts, to “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.”

That the 14th Amendment settled the question without ever explicitly addressing it is even more bizarre.

The actual language of the 14th Amendment actually contains two requirements for automatic citizenship, not just one. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” — that’s the birth-on-US- soil part — “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It is that second requirement, “subject to the jurisdiction,” that is the source of much confusion today, because to our modern ear, that just means subject to our laws...

Excerpt: Read more at https://nypost.com/2018/10/30/revoking-birthright-citizenship-would-enforce-the-constitution/

PS: So does P.A. Madison and MANY others!

https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html?fbclid=IwAR0-DhCABXd39jwr7iyZW0w1FlLEncCfuidkNVF2LbvpmlJNf2hAMfhOlVc

To read the 14th in any way other than Mr. Eastman correctly outlines is to admit the amendment is a constructed suicide pact.

[Bigun]

To read the 14th in any other way than Mr. Eastman correctly outlines is to admit the amendment is a constructed suicide pact.

@aligncare

  Couldn't agree more!

[skeeter]

To read the 14th in any other way than Mr. Eastman correctly outlines is to admit the amendment is a constructed suicide pact.

To assert that the founders and subsequent jurists would be would be fine knowing their writings & opinions would be interpreted to mean maternity holidays and illegal alien anchor babies are A okay is the best example of idiocy masquerading as learned legal opinion as I can imagine.

[catfish1957]

"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) announced on Tuesday that he plans to introduce legislation ending birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants on American soil, citing it as a “magnet for illegal immigration.”"

Am I being callous if I state that McCain dying is the best thing to happen to the GOP in the past 50 years?

[SirLinksALot]

[aligncare]

"Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) announced on Tuesday that he plans to introduce legislation ending birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants on American soil, citing it as a “magnet for illegal immigration.”"

Am I being callous if I state that McCain dying is the best thing to happen to the GOP in the past 50 years?

You reminded me of what Mark Twain said, "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it."

[Oceander]

@Oceander

@SirLinksALot, John Eastman, and I strongly disagree with you and Judge Ho. 

Revoking birthright citizenship would enforce the Constitution

By John Eastman

President Trump’s comments are not even set to air until this weekend, but already they have created a firestorm of commentary, most of it ill-informed.

It is not “within the president’s power to change birthright citizenship,” claimed Lynden Melmed, former chief counsel to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, echoing the views of many in the legal academy. Birthright citizenship is mandated by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and therefore can only be “changed” by constitutional amendment, not by mere executive order or act of Congress, or so the argument goes.

That view depends on reading the 14th Amendment as actually mandating automatic citizenship for anyone and everyone born on US soil, no matter the circumstances. Temporary visitors, such as tourists, students and guest workers, can unilaterally confer citizenship on their children merely by giving birth while here, is the claim.
That view has given rise to the cottage industry known as “birth tourism.” Worse, under this view, citizenship is automatic even if the parents overstay their visas and become illegally present in the United States. Worse still, such citizenship is automatic for children born of parents who were never lawfully present in the United States in the first place.

In a nation such as the United States, which is rooted in the idea that governments are formed based on the consent of the governed, the notion that foreign nationals can unilaterally confer citizenship on their children as the result of illegal entry to the United States (and therefore entirely without our consent) is a bit bizarre.

It rewards lawlessness, undermining the rule of law. It deprives Congress of its constitutional authority to determine naturalization power.

And it essentially destroys the notion of sovereignty itself, since a “people” are not able to define what constitutes them as a “people” entitled, as the Declaration of Independence asserts, to “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.”

That the 14th Amendment settled the question without ever explicitly addressing it is even more bizarre.

The actual language of the 14th Amendment actually contains two requirements for automatic citizenship, not just one. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” — that’s the birth-on-US- soil part — “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It is that second requirement, “subject to the jurisdiction,” that is the source of much confusion today, because to our modern ear, that just means subject to our laws...

Excerpt: Read more at https://nypost.com/2018/10/30/revoking-birthright-citizenship-would-enforce-the-constitution/

PS: So does P.A. Madison and MANY others!

https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html?fbclid=IwAR0-DhCABXd39jwr7iyZW0w1FlLEncCfuidkNVF2LbvpmlJNf2hAMfhOlVc

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/11/01/trump-is-right-ending-birthright-citizenship-is-constitutional/?fbclid=IwAR1gpm5pJMxxd0PeYrjZzZed3ZXvsGauhynJsfoq_G-HrovNC7sm0YFyw1M

And you’re entitled to disagree with me all you want.  That doesn’t change the fact that the 14th Amendment was intended to confer birthplace citizenship on anyone born here with only limited exceptions for diplomats, foreign combatants, and Indians. 

If you read the debates - which are available free online - it becomes quite clear that they debated the issue of whether the clause would grant citizenship to all comers, that all agreed the language as proposed would do so, and nonetheless they enacted exactly that language, and that language was ratified by the states as required by the Constitution. 

[Jazzhead]

And you’re entitled to disagree with me all you want.  That doesn’t change the fact that the 14th Amendment was intended to confer birthplace citizenship on anyone born here with only limited exceptions for diplomats, foreign combatants, and Indians. 

If you read the debates - which are available free online - it becomes quite clear that they debated the issue of whether the clause would grant citizenship to all comers, that all agreed the language as proposed would do so, and nonetheless they enacted exactly that language, and that language was ratified by the states as required by the Constitution.

Senator Howard's explanation of the limiting clause is broader than diplomats,  it also includes "foreigners" and "aliens".   @Oceander  ,  have you read the Wong Kim Ark case and its lengthy explanation of the subject of birthright citizenship under the common law of England and elsewhere?   

Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children, even of aliens, born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto, are subjects by birth

What are your thoughts?   How can an undocumented person,  who purposely enters the country without informing the government of her presence, be said to be "resident  . . . and owing a temporary allegiance" to the United States?   

As I argued above,  there is an implication of mutuality here - and neither the person nor the federal government acknowledge the person's presence here.   There is neither evidence of "temporary allegiance"  nor an obligation of protection.   Such evidence is contained in documentation - whether a visa,  a green card, or even the presentation of a passport acknowledging an intent to legally enter.   

[Oceander]

Senator Howard's explanation of the limiting clause is broader than diplomats,  it also includes "foreigners" and "aliens".   @Oceander  ,  have you read the Wong Kim Ark case and its lengthy explanation of the subject of birthright citizenship under the common law of England and elsewhere?   

What are your thoughts?   How can an undocumented person,  who purposely enters the country without informing the government of her presence, be said to be "resident  . . . and owing a temporary allegiance" to the United States?   

As I argued above,  there is an implication of mutuality here - and neither the person nor the federal government acknowledge the person's presence here.   There is neither evidence of "temporary allegiance"  nor an obligation of protection.   Such evidence is contained in documentation - whether a visa,  a green card, or even the presentation of a passport acknowledging an intent to legally enter.   

Actually, no, Howard’s statement is not broader than just diplomats.  Read it carefully (and remember that this is a transcription of an oral statement, so it may help to read it aloud).   The clause about persons who are members of the family of an ambassador or other accredited foreign minister modifies the conjunction “foreigners, aliens” and is therefore a limitation on the class of foreigners who are considered as exempt, not an independent clause that exists separate and apart from “foreigners, aliens”. 

[SirLinksALot]

This one is taken from the book: Sovereignty and Borders: You Can’T Have One Without the Other By Edger J. Burton

Although the Supreme Court has never (yet) ruled directly on the "jurisdiction" clause of the 14th amendment, their past comments give us a hint:

"(N)o one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in (the 13th, 14th and 15th) amendments, lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him."

That's why the amendment refers to people who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States "and of the state wherein they reside." For generations, African-Americans were domiciled in this country. The only reason they weren't citizens was because of slavery, which the country had just fought a civil war to end.

The 14th Amendment fixed that.

The amendment didn't even make Indians citizens. Why? Because it was about freed slaves. Sixteen years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court held that an American Indian, John Elk, was not a citizen, despite having been born here.

Instead, Congress had to pass a separate law making Indians citizens, which it did, more than half a century after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. (It's easy to miss -- the law is titled: "THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924.") Why would such a law be necessary if simply being born in the U.S. was enough to confer citizenship?

If they did not consider American Indians (BORN HERE) to be Citizens (because of the jurisdiction clause), by what stretch of the imagination must we re-imagine the original intent of the 14th amendment to favor children born of foreigners here illegally?

Whether the children born to legal immigrants are citizens is controversial enough. But at least there's a Supreme Court decision claiming that they are -- U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. That's "birthright citizenship."

It's something else entirely to claim that an illegal alien, subject to deportation, can drop a baby and suddenly claim to be the parent of a "citizen."

No Supreme Court has ever held that children born to illegal aliens are citizens. No Congress has deliberated and decided to grant that right. It's a made-up right, grounded only in the smoke and mirrors.

Obviously, it would be better if Congress passed a law clearly stating that children born to illegals are not citizens. (Trump won't be president forever!) But until that happens, the president of the United States is not required to continue a ridiculous practice that has absolutely no basis in law.

[Jazzhead]

Actually, no, Howard’s statement is not broader than just diplomats.  Read it carefully (and remember that this is a transcription of an oral statement, so it may help to read it aloud).   The clause about persons who are members of the family of an ambassador or other accredited foreign minister modifies the conjunction “foreigners, aliens” and is therefore a limitation on the class of foreigners who are considered as exempt, not an independent clause that exists separate and apart from “foreigners, aliens”.

I understand how you are reading Sen. Howard's statement but I think there may a missing word in the transcription of his remarks.   You read the words describing members of ambassadors' families as a limitation of the preceding words "foreigners, aliens", but it can just as plausibly be read as a list.   There should, it seems, be an "or" or an "and" following the words "foreigners, aliens",  but it is missing, thereby creating ambiguity.    Be that as it may, my views of the extent of birthright citizenship derive from my reading of Wong Kim Ark,  not Mr. Howard's statement.   What are your views regarding Wong Kim Ark? 

@Oceander 

[Bigun]

And you’re entitled to disagree with me all you want.  That doesn’t change the fact that the 14th Amendment was intended to confer birthplace citizenship on anyone born here with only limited exceptions for diplomats, foreign combatants, and Indians. 

If you read the debates - which are available free online - it becomes quite clear that they debated the issue of whether the clause would grant citizenship to all comers, that all agreed the language as proposed would do so, and nonetheless they enacted exactly that language, and that language was ratified by the states as required by the Constitution.

See you in court counselor.

[Bigun]

Author of 14th Amendment: ‘Removes All Doubt as to What Persons Are or Are Not Citizens’

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/author-14th-amendment-removes-all-doubt-what-persons-are-or-are-not-citizens

[Oceander]

I understand how you are reading Sen. Howard's statement but I think there may a missing word in the transcription of his remarks.   You read the words describing members of ambassadors' families as a limitation of the preceding words "foreigners, aliens", but it can just as plausibly be read as a list.   There should, it seems, be an "or" or an "and" following the words "foreigners, aliens",  but it is missing, thereby creating ambiguity.    Be that as it may, my views of the extent of birthright citizenship derive from my reading of Wong Kim Ark,  not Mr. Howard's statement.   What are your views regarding Wong Kim Ark? 

@Oceander 

I don’t think it can be plausibly read as a list because (a) that requires inserting a word that is not there (as opposed to drawing an inference only from the words that are there and the given grammatical structure), and (b) that renders the first two terms as separate terms as well, and that makes no sense at all because that requires assuming that Sen. Howard repeated the first list item twice - there is no basis from which to infer that the words “foreigners” and “aliens” have different, distinct meanings in this context.  It also renders the rest of the discussion, particularly the comments by the senator from California, meaningless because he quite clearly goes to great lengths to explain that it is his understanding that the amendment would give birthplace citizenship to the children of any Chinese (or Mongols, as the senator from Pennsylvania referred to them) who happened to be physically present in the US at the time of the child’s birth.  He also makes it clear that the amendment would have this effect even though most of the Chinese then in California were clearly transients who almost always returned to China sooner or later. 

[Oceander]

See you in court counselor.

I’d love to brief and/or argue the case; sadly that will never happen. 

[IsailedawayfromFR]

When you want to lie with someone else’s text, what better technique than the artful ellipsis.

What fairy tale are you alluding to this time?

[Oceander]

What fairy tale are you alluding to this time?

It’s already been fully discussed in the thread above. 

[Jazzhead]

I’d love to brief and/or argue the case; sadly that will never happen.

It sure would be a kick, wouldn't it?