Gaetz bill would tackle birthright citizenship issue

[libertybele]

Gaetz bill would tackle birthright citizenship issue

Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida has put forward a bill to push back against the idea that any child born on U.S. soil is automatically an American citizen.

"Birthright citizenship has been grossly and blatantly misapplied for decades, recently becoming a loophole for illegal aliens to fraudulently abuse our immigration system. My legislation recognizes that American citizenship is a privilege –– not an automatic right to be co-opted by illegal aliens," Gaetz said, according to a press release.

The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that "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."

The Immigration and Nationality Act likewise stipulates that "a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," qualifies as an American citizen.

Gaetz's measure would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act by stipulating that "the term 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' means, with respect to a person born in the United States, that the person was born to a parent who is, at the time of the person's birth," any of the following: "a national of the United States," "a refugee," "an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence," or "an alien performing active service in the armed forces."..................

https://www.theblaze.com/news/matt-gaetz-bill-birthright-citizenship

[Kamaji]

The Constitution cannot be altered by a mere legislative act.

[DefiantMassRINO]

I'm not conerned with persons coming to the United States to give their children better lives and more opportunity.

I am livid about the lack of enforcement of existing immigration laws by Federal official.

Laws are meaningless words on a piece of paper without enforcement.

Pirate Equity and Vulture Capital firms profit by illegally, and inhumanely employing underage illegal immigrants to clean slaughter houses for their subsidiaries.

There are commercial enterprises whose business model is to exploit illegal immigrants to reduce costs and maximize profit, who lobby politicians for lax immigration law enforcement.

[libertybele]

The Constitution cannot be altered by a mere legislative act.

In the article it states that Gaetz bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act.

[Kamaji]

In the article it states that Gaetz bill would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Indeed.  But that would have no effect on the meaning of the Constitution itself, which establishes that anyone born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen, regardless of the status of their parents, with the exception of tribal indians and foreign ambassadors and their staff.

[libertybele]

Indeed.  But that would have no effect on the meaning of the Constitution itself, which establishes that anyone born in the U.S. is a U.S. citizen, regardless of the status of their parents, with the exception of tribal indians and foreign ambassadors and their staff.

....It read as I'm sure you know --

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It was The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that touched upon ethnicity which you referenced.

Nowhere did I read in the 14th Amendment the wording regardless of the status of their parents ..... etc.....

I don't see where amending the Immigration and Nationality Act wouldn't suffice.

[Kamaji]

....It read as I'm sure you know --

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It was The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that touched upon ethnicity which you referenced.

Nowhere did I read in the 14th Amendment the wording regardless of the status of their parents ..... etc.....

I don't see where amending the Immigration and Nationality Act wouldn't suffice.

The 14th Amendment is rather succinct, and very broad, in its definition of U.S. citizens:

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The only individuals who are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S." when they are born on U.S. soil are indians who still maintain their tribal affiliation and foreign ambassadors and their staff and families.

Thus, if a person is born on U.S. soil, they are a U.S. citizen regardless of how their parents got there, with the sole exception of individuals whose parents are tribal indians, or whose parents are foreign legatees.

And amending the INA is not going to change that.

[libertybele]

The 14th Amendment is rather succinct, and very broad, in its definition of U.S. citizens:

The only individuals who are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S." when they are born on U.S. soil are indians who still maintain their tribal affiliation and foreign ambassadors and their staff and families.

Thus, if a person is born on U.S. soil, they are a U.S. citizen regardless of how their parents got there, with the sole exception of individuals whose parents are tribal indians, or whose parents are foreign legatees.

And amending the INA is not going to change that.

I think it depends on how the INA is amended otherwise I doubt Gaetz would be wasting his time.

[berdie]

This needs to happen. By whatever means.

[libertybele]

This needs to happen. By whatever means.

Absolutely.  Something needs to be done. Enough is enough.

[Bigun]

This needs to happen. By whatever means.

@berdie The people who wrote the 14th amendment were quite clear about what phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. The record is abundantly clear that it means sole and complete, not subject to any other.  You don't have to take my word for that. As I said, the record is very clear.

SCOTUS has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

"The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens,"

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

"(A)ll children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Nowhere did I read in the 14th Amendment the wording regardless of the status of their parents ..... etc.....

Well, the 14th also doesn't say "regardless of whether or not the parents could sing and dance", but that doesn't permit Congress to impose that requirement by legislation.  The Constitution says that you're a citizen born if 1) you were born here, and 2) are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.  Congress can't, by legislation, add any additional requirements to that no matter how much sense they make.  And I personally like where Gaetz drew the line.

I don't see where amending the Immigration and Nationality Act wouldn't suffice.

Because it would contradict the 14th Amendment.  The Act can make it easier to be a citizen at birth, but not harder.

[The_Reader_David]

I'm afraid it won't work.  I suppose one might try declaring that like children born to foreign diplomats or tribal indians, children born to parents in the U.S. illegally are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then further requiring persons in the territory of the United States and not subject to its jurisdiction be expeditiously removed from the United States, unless they have tribal or diplomatic status.

[Right_in_Virginia]

@berdie The people who wrote the 14th amendment were quite clear about what phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. The record is abundantly clear that it means sole and complete, not subject to any other.  You don't have to take my word for that. As I said, the record is very clear.

SCOTUS has never applied the term "natural born citizen" to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)

"The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens,"

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

"(A)ll children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

Thank you @Bigun

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The Constitution cannot be altered by a mere legislative act.

Yep. He’s pandering to the base. He knows this won’t pass.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Yep. He’s pandering to the base. He knows this won’t pass.

An amendment can be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress.  A long-shot?  Absolutely.  But, how about supporting an effort to debate this issue and keep it on the radar?

[LilLamb]

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

https://community.hannity.com/t/what-does-subject-to-the-jurisdiction-really-mean/32552

[Kamaji]

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

Except that it's not.  It is very clear that it was intended to give citizenship to everyone who was born on U.S. soil, except for those whose parents were tribal indians or foreign ambassadors, their family, and their staff.

[LilLamb]

Except that it's not.  It is very clear that it was intended to give citizenship to everyone who was born on U.S. soil, except for those whose parents were tribal indians or foreign ambassadors, their family, and their staff.

You really don’t understand this do you?

[Bigun]

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

https://community.hannity.com/t/what-does-subject-to-the-jurisdiction-really-mean/32552

 

[Bigun]

You really don’t understand this do you?

Intentionally obtuse.

[LilLamb]

“Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.”

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

[LilLamb]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/11/01/framers-never-wanted-birthright-citizenship/1831577002/

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Yep. He’s pandering to the base. He knows this won’t pass.

Exactly.  Gaetz and the FC demanded a vote on this specific issue because it is one in which their base is heavily invested.  But I'm also sure they know there is a 0% chance of it passing, and that it would be overturned even if it did.  So it really is nothing more than pandering political theater.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

"The amendment specifies that “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.” If the framers simply intended to make citizens of any person born in U.S. territory, then that central clause has no purpose."

The Framers did not intend "to make citizens of any person born in U.S. territory.  They intended to exclude agents of foreign governments -- foreign diplomatic personnel. Foreign diplomatic personnel and their families have diplomatic immunity, and therefore "are not subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.  It's a clear carveout that has been applied in that exact fashion for over a hundred years.

I don't think anyone seriously wants to argue that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore cannot be prosecuted for any crimes they commit here.

In terms of "intent", it has to be remembered that there were no such thing as illegal aliens when the 14th Amendment passed because we had no laws restricting immigration at that time.  If you got here, no matter how you got here, you could stay.  And that means that the Framers of the 14th could not possibly have intended to exclude the children of illegal aliens because the concept didn't even exist.

Maybe we should have amended the 14th once we started limiting who could immigrate, but we didn't.  So, we're stuck with everyone except those with diplomatic immunity getting citizenship if they are born here.  Not what I'd choose...but that's what it says.

It would have been extraordinarily easy to write an Amendment stating that all slaves freed by the 13th Amendment are hereby declared citizens, rather than the far more broad formulation that the 14th actually contains.  So clearly, it has to apply to more than just former slaves or the wording makes no sense at all.