14th Amendment: U.S. Citizenship NOT Automatic!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monte_RCMS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Monte_RCMS

Guest
judiciary.house.gov/legacy/6042.htm

Excerpt:

Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, defined who would fall within the “jurisdiction of the United States”:

[E]very 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.

Clearly, the author of the citizenship clause intended to count “foreigners,” “aliens,” and those born to “ambassadors or foreign ministers” as outside the “jurisdiction of the United States.” Senator Howard knew, as his reference to natural law indicates, that the republican basis for citizenship is consent. This is the natural law principle of the Declaration of Independence that proclaims that legitimate governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a powerful supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment, remarked on May 30th, 1866, that the jurisdiction clause includes those “Not owing allegiance to anybody else. . . 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.”
 
Amen to your post. What has happened in our country through the years is that the politicians have forgotten what was originally intended with the various amendments to the Constitution. They have done this to enhance THEIR power, at the expense of the well being of the nation. Common sense would tell you that their new way of discerning the Constitution would be abused by the folks. We are seeing this with the placement of that mosque near ground zero in NYC. Those for it are citing the 1st Amendment, ignoring that this mosque at that place would be a “victory” building for the muslims. They can build anywhere in NYC, but it should not be allowed there! Their 1st Amendment right to worship is not being curtailed.
 
I was told that even I should not qualify for birth right citizen ship because my parents were legal residents, not citizens.

I guess neither would my DH.

A baby born today born to illegals, cannot legally sponser their parent for US residency until his/ her 21st birthday.

When my DD was born, my room mate was a lovely lady from Jamaica,who was had her baby while on a trip to the US to visit family. Her baby was a US citizen and her mom was leaving the US as soon as baby was able to travel.

Is that a threat?
 
Hard cases, they say, make bad law.

What determines the applicability of the Constitution or of a law is not one’s personal situation, but the law itself.
 
Note the qualifier
[E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction
Click to expand...
Children of accredited diplomats are not subject to US jursidiction, hence the 14th Ammendment does not apply.

If a claim is made that children of illegal immigrants are not subject to US jursidiction, it effectively means that such children really have diplomatic immunity.
 
Brendan said:
Note the qualifier

Children of accredited diplomats are not subject to US jursidiction, hence the 14th Ammendment does not apply.

If a claim is made that children of illegal immigrants are not subject to US jursidiction, it effectively means that such children really have diplomatic immunity.
Click to expand...
Yes, remember years ago NYC had problems because they could not issue parking and traffic tickets to UN diplomats?

Tourists, temporary workers, students on visas, all need to comport themselves according to US law, even though they are not citizens…

Also foreign diplomats often bring support staff from their own countries, those people are often given temporary work Visas. They don’t have diplomatic immunity.

Thanks for pointing that out, I thought I needed to maybe stop voting and also hire an immigration attorney…😃
 
Monte_RCMS said:
judiciary.house.gov/legacy/6042.htm

Excerpt:

Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, defined who would fall within the “jurisdiction of the United States”:

[E]very 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.

Clearly, the author of the citizenship clause intended to count “foreigners,” “aliens,” and those born to “ambassadors or foreign ministers” as outside the “jurisdiction of the United States.” Senator Howard knew, as his reference to natural law indicates, that the republican basis for citizenship is consent. This is the natural law principle of the Declaration of Independence that proclaims that legitimate governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a powerful supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment, remarked on May 30th, 1866, that the jurisdiction clause includes those “Not owing allegiance to anybody else. . . 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.”
Click to expand...
Interesting. I didn’t realize that.

I’ll play devil’s advocate for a moment. The intent of the author of the law is not necessarily the only voice in determining how that law is actually implemented and enforced. FIrst example that comes to mind is the Supreme Court decision that determined that corporations are individuals when it comes to certain rights (like free speech). Did the original framers actually ponder that? I doubt it.

Also, lots of senators and congressmen voted for that bill. I’m sure they all had their own nuanced view of what it meant and how it should be interpreted.
 
ON THE OTHER HAND, since some justices want to rely on foreign law for guidance in interpreting the Constitution, perhaps we could consider how Sweden confers citizenship:

anncoulter.com/
 
Monte_RCMS said:
Senator Lyman Trumbull…
Click to expand...
Since you posted one scholar’s opinion, and his reliance on Senator Trumbull, I thought it would be edifying to post an argument from an opposing scholar:

From “The Significance Of Domicile In Lyman Trumbull’s Conception Of Citizenship”, by Mark Shawhan (Yale Law Journal - April, 2010):

"The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment establishes citizenship as a birthright for all children born in the United States, so long as they are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” In recent years, as intense disagreement over U.S. immigration policy has grown, so too has academic and popular debate over the scope of this “subject to the jurisdiction” exception. In particular, a number of revisionist scholars have challenged the orthodox, “territorial” view that birth within the United States alone is sufficient to create citizenship except in certain extremely rare and narrow circumstances. They argue that in addition to territorial birth, “subject to the jurisdiction” requires a mutual consensual relationship between individuals and the U.S. political community; children of undocumented immigrants, lacking such a relationship, are thus putatively precluded from constitutional birthright citizenship. This position has underlain conservative grassroots activism and multiple bills aimed at narrowing birthright citizenship by statute.

The debate, however, has overlooked a significant piece of historical evidence. The Amendment’s Citizenship Clause draws heavily on the text of a similar citizenship provision in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, written by Senator Lyman Trumbull. In a letter to President Andrew Johnson summarizing the draft Act, Trumbull said that birthright citizenship depended on whether the parents of children born in the United States were living permanently, “domiciled,” here. Revisionist consensualist scholars have frequently cited Trumbull’s public statements as significant evidence in favor of their interpretation of the Citizenship Clause. Yet this previously unanalyzed letter shows that consensualist reliance on Senator Trumbull in fact runs contrary to his actual position on citizenship."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top