The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: mystery-ak on August 28, 2015, 08:53:02 pm
-
http://canadafreepress.com/article/74841
By Tim Dunkin -- Bio and Archives August 28, 2015
Once again, Donald Trump has managed to open up a robust national discussion about an issue that up to this point had been largely ignored by the political class. This time, the discussion is about so-called “birthright citizenship,” the idea that whenever a foreign national (regardless of legal status and with a very few exceptions) has a child on American soil, this child automatically becomes an American citizen from birth. This approach to citizenship has been the de facto (though not de jure) approach to the issue of “anchor babies,” the children of illegal aliens who come to the United States so that they can have their children here, thus allowing the parents to remain as well, usually helping themselves to generous American benefit monies.
Defenders of unrestricted birthright citizenship - primarily found among liberals, establishment GOP types, and the more uninformed types of libertarians—adamantly argue from the 14th amendment’s Citizenship Clause that birthright citizenship is not only legal, but is in fact constitutionally protected, and is what the 14th amendment has meant all along. They often try to buttress their arguments by appealing to English common law with its historical provisions for birthright citizenship. However, is this sort of “swim a river, fill our quiver” approach really what the 14th amendment meant? Is it really what English common law, which forms the basis for much of our own law and constitutional interpretation, historically upheld? The answer to these questions is, “No.”
The crux about which the discussion revolves is the Citizenship Clause found in the 14th amendment, Section 1,
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
continued
-
One more try to claim that the Supreme Court doesn't know wereof they speak. What's this up to now, 16 threads?
-
It is now an interpretation which benefits from many decades and many generations of legal precedent.
Now the concept of "precedent" may well be outside the legal knowledge of the know-nothings now raising this issue, but "precedent" in found in "Introduction to Law, #100."
I'm pretty sure I had classmates that fell into this category. Tell them today that Republicans insist they aren't citizens, so their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren aren't either.
Many served in uniform. And finally ask them to be sure to vote for Republicans.
-
Not intending to stir the pot on this issue... it has been beat to death.
If you move to a new state, most states do not recognize you as an official "resident" of the state for at least 1 year.
This would be for in-state tuition and other state "support" functions.
So if you come across the border illegally and have a baby before your even an official state resident, why would your offspring automatically be a US Citizen?
I understand all the court rulings so don't bother with all that AGAIN....
It seems to me that the feds are overruling state authority.
-
Not intending to stir the pot on this issue... it has been beat to death.
If you move to a new state, most states do not recognize you as an official "resident" of the state for at least 1 year.
This would be for in-state tuition and other state "support" functions.
So if you come across the border illegally and have a baby before your even an official state resident, why would your offspring automatically be a US Citizen?
I understand all the court rulings so don't bother with all that AGAIN....
It seems to me that the feds are overruling state authority.
State's don't grant federal citizenship. For tuition purposes they grant state "residency."
-
Not intending to stir the pot on this issue... it has been beat to death.
If you move to a new state, most states do not recognize you as an official "resident" of the state for at least 1 year.
This would be for in-state tuition and other state "support" functions.
So if you come across the border illegally and have a baby before your even an official state resident, why would your offspring automatically be a US Citizen?
I understand all the court rulings so don't bother with all that AGAIN....
It seems to me that the feds are overruling state authority.
Uhh, I wouldn't count on using that argument to avoid paying income tax on all of your income to the state you just moved into. Depending on whether the state uses the concept of domicile or physical presence, or some combination, you will almost always be a resident of a state once you've been in-state for 183 days or more in a given year; and to prevent game playing, many states also use the concept of domicile to continue to treat state residents as residents even if they try to manipulate the system by switching into and out of the state.
And for other purposes the time period is even shorter. Typically, many states require you to register for an in-state drivers license within 30 to 90 days of moving into the state. In other words, for these purposes you are considered a resident of the state almost instantly.
-
One more try to claim that the Supreme Court doesn't know wereof they speak. What's this up to now, 16 threads?
The supreme court has NEVER ruled on this issue! Not yet anyway!
-
Bigun wrote above:
[[ The supreme court has NEVER ruled on this issue! Not yet anyway! ]]
True.
And we cannot move forward towards settling the issue, until they do.