Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

[rangerrebew]

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment
Oct 30th, 2018 3 min read

Hans A. von Spakovsky

The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. vlana/Getty Images
Key Takeaways

Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally.

Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

Birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.

https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/birthright-citizenship-fundamental-misunderstanding-the-14th-amendment

[Oceander]

Simply wrong.

The debates over the amendment’s language make it clear that a person is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US only if that person has some recognized immunity to some significant portion of US law, as was the case with foreign consuls, ambassadors, their staff as such, and members of the recognized Indian tribes.  The mere fact that one might also be a private subject or citizen of another country did not mean that you were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

[Bigun]

Simply wrong.

The debates over the amendment’s language make it clear that a person is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US only if that person has some recognized immunity to some significant portion of US law, as was the case with foreign consuls, ambassadors, their staff as such, and members of the recognized Indian tribes.  The mere fact that one might also be a private subject or citizen of another country did not mean that you were not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

@Oceander

Hans is completely right and, as usual, YOU are completely wrong!

[Oceander]

@Oceander

Hans is completely right and, as usual, YOU are completely wrong!

Hans is simply wrong.  He is wrong on the law, and he is wrong on the legislative history.  The only individuals who were intended to be carved out were those who had a basis for immunity to some significant portion of US law.  If that were not the case, then the only people to whom the Amendment would apply would be those whose parents were both already US citizens, and who furthermore did not have dual citizenship with some other country.  That is clearly neither the effect of the language itself, nor the intent expressed through the legislative history. 

[skeeter]

@Oceander

Hans is completely right and, as usual, YOU are completely wrong!

They said the same thing about the seven muslim country travel ban. Turned out SCOTUS thinks the president does have latitude in areas affecting national security.

And this clearly is such an area.

[Oceander]

They said the same thing about the seven muslim country travel ban. Turned out SCOTUS thinks the president does have latitude in areas affecting national security.

And this clearly is such an area.

That statement, in this context, makes no sense whatsoever. 

[skeeter]

That statement, in this context, makes no sense whatsoever.

You're right, wrong thread.

I still think you need another hobby though.

[Bigun]

Hans is simply wrong.  He is wrong on the law, and he is wrong on the legislative history.  The only individuals who were intended to be carved out were those who had a basis for immunity to some significant portion of US law.  If that were not the case, then the only people to whom the Amendment would apply would be those whose parents were both already US citizens, and who furthermore did not have dual citizenship with some other country.  That is clearly neither the effect of the language itself, nor the intent expressed through the legislative history.

BS!

We've been over this ground before and YOU lost!

This conclusion that no change of meaning was intended was also confirmed by the provision’s prime author, Senator Lyman Trumbull, who explained to the Congress before it voted, that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” required being “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof,” meaning, as he put it, “not owing allegiance to anyone else.” As Thomas Jefferson earlier wrote, “aliens are the subjects of a foreign power,” and thus owe allegiance to another country; hence, the alien’s children are not U.S. citizens simply by virtue of birth on U.S. soil. Furthermore, Senator Howard’s explanatory words are nearly identical to the Civil Right Act’s words “not [be] subject to any foreign power,” making explicit that the 14th Amendment was intended to put in Constitutional “stone” what Congress had first enacted as legislation. Applying that meaning, the U.S.-born child, returning to the parent’s country, is a citizen of and subject to that foreign country, and thus does not meet this requirement for birthright citizenship.

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,324093.msg1740258.html#msg1740258

[Oceander]

BS!

We've been over this ground before and YOU lost!

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,324093.msg1740258.html#msg1740258

Bullshit right back at you. 

I haven’t lost because the Congressional debates are quite clear, if a little archaic, and clearly did not have the situation of illegal immigrants in mind for the simple reason that at that time, immigration wasn’t a matter of legality at the federal level.  The first federal immigration laws that excluded certain classes of people weren’t enacted until the 1880s, long after the 14th amendment was debated and enacted.

The debates around the 14th made it clear that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” covered everybody other than those individuals who had some significant immunity from US law based on that individual’s relationship to another sovereign, such as ambassadors and their staff, and Indians who were members of tribes (the so-called “wild Indians” in the debates).

I know it’s painful for you that the amendment gainsays your fondest ideological wishes, but that it does. 

[Bigun]

Bullshit right back at you. 

I haven’t lost because the Congressional debates are quite clear, if a little archaic, and clearly did not have the situation of illegal immigrants in mind for the simple reason that at that time, immigration wasn’t a matter of legality at the federal level.  The first federal immigration laws that excluded certain classes of people weren’t enacted until the 1880s, long after the 14th amendment was debated and enacted.

The debates around the 14th made it clear that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” covered everybody other than those individuals who had some significant immunity from US law based on that individual’s relationship to another sovereign, such as ambassadors and their staff, and Indians who were members of tribes (the so-called “wild Indians” in the debates).

I know it’s painful for you that the amendment gainsays your fondest ideological wishes, but that it does.

So Senator Lyman Trumbull doesn't know what he is talking about but @Oceander does!  Forgive me for 

[endicom]

Hans is simply wrong.  He is wrong on the law, and he is wrong on the legislative history.  The only individuals who were intended to be carved out were those who had a basis for immunity to some significant portion of US law.  If that were not the case, then the only people to whom the Amendment would apply would be those whose parents were both already US citizens, and who furthermore did not have dual citizenship with some other country.  That is clearly neither the effect of the language itself, nor the intent expressed through the legislative history.

Constitutional amendments are to purpose so what would have the the purpose to having anyone, with the stated exceptions, born on US soil be a citizen?

[Bigun]

Constitutional amendments are to purpose so what would have the the purpose to having anyone, with the stated exceptions, born on US soil be a citizen?

@endicom

There was only one purpose and they said so many times.  The purpose was to incorporate the then existing statute into the Constitution.

You can read the debates in their entirety https://www.scribd.com/document/36527058/Congressional-Debates-of-the-14th-Amendment

[Oceander]

So Senator Lyman Trumbull doesn't know what he is talking about but @Oceander does!  Forgive me for 

Trumbull pointed out that the term excluded the wild Indians because they were immune from much of US law on account of their membership in a tribe that was recognized as a separate sovereign.   

In other words, Trumbull is saying the same thing I am. 

[Chosen Daughter]

So Senator Lyman Trumbull doesn't know what he is talking about but @Oceander does!  Forgive me for 

He's probably a lawyer for illegal immigrants. 

[RoosGirl]

He's probably a lawyer for illegal immigrants.

@Oceander Are you an immigration attorney?

[Oceander]

@Oceander Are you an immigration attorney?

Nope. 

[Oceander]

He's probably a lawyer for illegal immigrants. 

Why would you assume that?

[Wingnut]

@Oceander Are you an immigration attorney?

La Raza activist.

[Oceander]

La Raza activist.

And why would you assume that?

[Chosen Daughter]

Why would you assume that?

Why wouldn't I? 

[Oceander]

Why wouldn't I? 

I can think of any number of reasons, some charitable, some not. 

[Bigun]

Trumbull pointed out that the term excluded the wild Indians because they were immune from much of US law on account of their membership in a tribe that was recognized as a separate sovereign.   

In other words, Trumbull is saying the same thing I am.

You would think a American lawyer could read and properly interpret the English language but I see that is not so.

[Oceander]

You would think a American lawyer could read and properly interpret the English language but I see that is not so.

That’s just because you can’t read or understand English.  My comprehension is just fine. 

[Wingnut]

That’s just because you can’t read or understand English.  My comprehension is just fine.

You think that.  But most people who learned english as a second language say the same thing.

[Bigun]

That’s just because you can’t read or understand English.  My comprehension is just fine.

Really?   Interpret this for me "Trumbull, who explained to the Congress before it voted, that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” required being “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof,” meaning, as he put it, “not owing allegiance to anyone else.”