Citizenship Should Not Be A Birthright

[Edgetho]

I tend to agree.

Go here if you run into the WaPo's greedy capitalist paywall: Ace of Spades HQ

Opinion | Citizenship shouldn’t be a birthright

A Supreme Court confirmation fight always raises constitutional hopes and stokes constitutional fears. With one more justice, they'll repeal Obamacare! If they get one more justice, they'll overturn Roe v. Wade ! To arms!

These periodic, now-inevitable freak-outs are a sad by-product of our country's drift away from political rule and over-investiture of power in the judiciary. But happily, the most urgent constitutional challenge of our time needn't wait on a court ruling. Each political branch of government has the constitutional authority needed to fix it.

I refer, here, to ending birthright citizenship.

The notion that simply being born within the geographical limits of the United States automatically confers U.S. citizenship is an absurdity -- historically, constitutionally, philosophically and practically.

Constitutional scholar Edward Erler has shown that the entire case for birthright citizenship is based on a deliberate misreading of the 14th Amendment. The purpose of that amendment was to resolve the question of citizenship for newly freed slaves. Following the Civil War, some in the South insisted that states had the right to deny citizenship to freedmen. In support, they cited 1857's disgraceful Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which held that no black American could ever be a citizen of the United States.

A constitutional amendment was thus necessary to overturn Dred Scott and to define the precise meaning of American citizenship.

...

Some will argue that the Supreme Court has already settled this issue, establishing birthright citizenship in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. But this is wrong. The court has only ruled that children of legal residents are citizens. That doesn't change the status of children born to people living here illegally.

...

The problem can be fixed easily. Congress could clarify legislatively that the children of noncitizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and thus not citizens under the 14th Amendment. But given the open-borders enthusiasm of congressional leaders of both parties, that's unlikely.

It falls, then, to Trump. An executive order could specify to federal agencies that the children of noncitizens are not citizens.

...

Birthright citizenship was a mistake whose time has gone.

 

[OODA_Loop]

If Democrats get their way and control of the levers of governance citizenship will continue to erode until it means nothing.

 

[DGS49]

While the Opinion Piece is right as rain, it will take the perfect case brought before the court in order for the Court to correct this egregious and long-standing error. Some taxpayer group or agency would have to challenge the citizenship of an Anchor Baby in court, and the case would have to make it all the way up the line to the USSC.

If Trump wins a second term and retains both houses of Congress, one might hope for a legislative solution, but the legislator who proposes such a thing would have to have a lot of company, because he will be savaged in every news outlet in the country for all time. Even Fox News would pile on.

 

[Syriusly]

I tend to agree.

Go here if you run into the WaPo's greedy capitalist paywall: Ace of Spades HQ

Opinion | Citizenship shouldn’t be a birthright

A Supreme Court confirmation fight always raises constitutional hopes and stokes constitutional fears. With one more justice, they'll repeal Obamacare! If they get one more justice, they'll overturn Roe v. Wade ! To arms!

These periodic, now-inevitable freak-outs are a sad by-product of our country's drift away from political rule and over-investiture of power in the judiciary. But happily, the most urgent constitutional challenge of our time needn't wait on a court ruling. Each political branch of government has the constitutional authority needed to fix it.

I refer, here, to ending birthright citizenship.

The notion that simply being born within the geographical limits of the United States automatically confers U.S. citizenship is an absurdity -- historically, constitutionally, philosophically and practically.

Constitutional scholar Edward Erler has shown that the entire case for birthright citizenship is based on a deliberate misreading of the 14th Amendment. The purpose of that amendment was to resolve the question of citizenship for newly freed slaves. Following the Civil War, some in the South insisted that states had the right to deny citizenship to freedmen. In support, they cited 1857's disgraceful Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which held that no black American could ever be a citizen of the United States.

A constitutional amendment was thus necessary to overturn Dred Scott and to define the precise meaning of American citizenship.

...

Some will argue that the Supreme Court has already settled this issue, establishing birthright citizenship in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. But this is wrong. The court has only ruled that children of legal residents are citizens. That doesn't change the status of children born to people living here illegally.

...

The problem can be fixed easily. Congress could clarify legislatively that the children of noncitizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and thus not citizens under the 14th Amendment. But given the open-borders enthusiasm of congressional leaders of both parties, that's unlikely.

It falls, then, to Trump. An executive order could specify to federal agencies that the children of noncitizens are not citizens.

...

Birthright citizenship was a mistake whose time has gone.

I have to admit- I will laugh if any of the Justices who proclaim themselves strict Constitutionalists decide that the words of the 14th Amendment- don't really mean what the words of the 14th Amendment actually say.

You want to change the 14th Amendment- the Amendment process is there for you- but you want judicial activism.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Pretty straight forward and clear language.

Not one word about slaves.

 

[Edgetho]

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.

Pretty straight forward and clear language.

Not one word about slaves.

Explain to us what the bolded part means

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I tend to agree.

Go here if you run into the WaPo's greedy capitalist paywall: Ace of Spades HQ

Opinion | Citizenship shouldn’t be a birthright

A Supreme Court confirmation fight always raises constitutional hopes and stokes constitutional fears. With one more justice, they'll repeal Obamacare! If they get one more justice, they'll overturn Roe v. Wade ! To arms!

These periodic, now-inevitable freak-outs are a sad by-product of our country's drift away from political rule and over-investiture of power in the judiciary. But happily, the most urgent constitutional challenge of our time needn't wait on a court ruling. Each political branch of government has the constitutional authority needed to fix it.

I refer, here, to ending birthright citizenship.

The notion that simply being born within the geographical limits of the United States automatically confers U.S. citizenship is an absurdity -- historically, constitutionally, philosophically and practically.

Constitutional scholar Edward Erler has shown that the entire case for birthright citizenship is based on a deliberate misreading of the 14th Amendment. The purpose of that amendment was to resolve the question of citizenship for newly freed slaves. Following the Civil War, some in the South insisted that states had the right to deny citizenship to freedmen. In support, they cited 1857's disgraceful Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which held that no black American could ever be a citizen of the United States.

A constitutional amendment was thus necessary to overturn Dred Scott and to define the precise meaning of American citizenship.

...

Some will argue that the Supreme Court has already settled this issue, establishing birthright citizenship in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. But this is wrong. The court has only ruled that children of legal residents are citizens. That doesn't change the status of children born to people living here illegally.

...

The problem can be fixed easily. Congress could clarify legislatively that the children of noncitizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and thus not citizens under the 14th Amendment. But given the open-borders enthusiasm of congressional leaders of both parties, that's unlikely.

It falls, then, to Trump. An executive order could specify to federal agencies that the children of noncitizens are not citizens.

...

Birthright citizenship was a mistake whose time has gone.

I tend to agree.

Go here if you run into the WaPo's greedy capitalist paywall: Ace of Spades HQ

Opinion | Citizenship shouldn’t be a birthright

A Supreme Court confirmation fight always raises constitutional hopes and stokes constitutional fears. With one more justice, they'll repeal Obamacare! If they get one more justice, they'll overturn Roe v. Wade ! To arms!

These periodic, now-inevitable freak-outs are a sad by-product of our country's drift away from political rule and over-investiture of power in the judiciary. But happily, the most urgent constitutional challenge of our time needn't wait on a court ruling. Each political branch of government has the constitutional authority needed to fix it.

I refer, here, to ending birthright citizenship.

The notion that simply being born within the geographical limits of the United States automatically confers U.S. citizenship is an absurdity -- historically, constitutionally, philosophically and practically.

Constitutional scholar Edward Erler has shown that the entire case for birthright citizenship is based on a deliberate misreading of the 14th Amendment. The purpose of that amendment was to resolve the question of citizenship for newly freed slaves. Following the Civil War, some in the South insisted that states had the right to deny citizenship to freedmen. In support, they cited 1857's disgraceful Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which held that no black American could ever be a citizen of the United States.

A constitutional amendment was thus necessary to overturn Dred Scott and to define the precise meaning of American citizenship.

...

Some will argue that the Supreme Court has already settled this issue, establishing birthright citizenship in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. But this is wrong. The court has only ruled that children of legal residents are citizens. That doesn't change the status of children born to people living here illegally.

...

The problem can be fixed easily. Congress could clarify legislatively that the children of noncitizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and thus not citizens under the 14th Amendment. But given the open-borders enthusiasm of congressional leaders of both parties, that's unlikely.

It falls, then, to Trump. An executive order could specify to federal agencies that the children of noncitizens are not citizens.

...

Birthright citizenship was a mistake whose time has gone.

Disagree.

Citizenship at birth is consistent with the fundamental principle of inalienable rights; that our rights can be neither taken nor bestowed by any constitution, government, or man – our inalienable rights manifest as a consequence of our humanity, as acknowledged and codified by the 14th Amendment, safeguarded from the capricious turmoil of the politics of fear, ignorance, bigotry, racism, and hate.

Indeed, the last thing we should allow is to have our citizenship determined by partisan politicians and bureaucrats subjectively determining citizenship contrary to the principle of inalienable rights.

Those born in the United States are citizens of the United States because we recognize and value our fundamental rights and protected liberties; to attempt to change that will change who we are as a people and as a Nation for the worst.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If Democrats get their way and control of the levers of governance citizenship will continue to erode until it means nothing.

And here is an example of the ignorance, stupidity, and hate that the Citizenship Clause protects citizens from.

 

[OODA_Loop]

If Democrats get their way and control of the levers of governance citizenship will continue to erode until it means nothing.

And here is an example of the ignorance, stupidity, and hate that the Citizenship Clause protects citizens from.

How so specifically ?

 

[Harry Dresden]

If Democrats get their way and control of the levers of governance citizenship will continue to erode until it means nothing.

And here is an example of the ignorance, stupidity, and hate that the Citizenship Clause protects citizens from.

How so specifically ?

you had the gall and audacity to disagree with him.....

 

[Fang]

Birth right citizenship is the best way to determine if someone is a citizen. Don't let a bunch of partisan bureaucrats decide for us. Trying to change the 14th amendment is no different than trying to change the 2nd amendment. The law is the law. It's not perfect (nothing is), but it's a pretty damn good system.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

If Trump wins a second term and retains both houses of Congress, one might hope for a legislative solution...

No "legislative solution" is at all possible to nullify birthright citizenship. The only solution would rest in an Article V process where the Citizens of this Nation also get involved in the amendment process. The Constitution blocks a "legislative solution" as well as the precedent set in
U.S. v. Wong Kim ArK (1896) which applies to both the National and State governments given the penumbra of Amendment XIV.

 

[BlackFlag]

I tend to agree.

Go here if you run into the WaPo's greedy capitalist paywall: Ace of Spades HQ

Opinion | Citizenship shouldn’t be a birthright

A Supreme Court confirmation fight always raises constitutional hopes and stokes constitutional fears. With one more justice, they'll repeal Obamacare! If they get one more justice, they'll overturn Roe v. Wade ! To arms!

These periodic, now-inevitable freak-outs are a sad by-product of our country's drift away from political rule and over-investiture of power in the judiciary. But happily, the most urgent constitutional challenge of our time needn't wait on a court ruling. Each political branch of government has the constitutional authority needed to fix it.

I refer, here, to ending birthright citizenship.

The notion that simply being born within the geographical limits of the United States automatically confers U.S. citizenship is an absurdity -- historically, constitutionally, philosophically and practically.

Constitutional scholar Edward Erler has shown that the entire case for birthright citizenship is based on a deliberate misreading of the 14th Amendment. The purpose of that amendment was to resolve the question of citizenship for newly freed slaves. Following the Civil War, some in the South insisted that states had the right to deny citizenship to freedmen. In support, they cited 1857's disgraceful Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which held that no black American could ever be a citizen of the United States.

A constitutional amendment was thus necessary to overturn Dred Scott and to define the precise meaning of American citizenship.

...

Some will argue that the Supreme Court has already settled this issue, establishing birthright citizenship in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. But this is wrong. The court has only ruled that children of legal residents are citizens. That doesn't change the status of children born to people living here illegally.

...

The problem can be fixed easily. Congress could clarify legislatively that the children of noncitizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and thus not citizens under the 14th Amendment. But given the open-borders enthusiasm of congressional leaders of both parties, that's unlikely.

It falls, then, to Trump. An executive order could specify to federal agencies that the children of noncitizens are not citizens.

...

Birthright citizenship was a mistake whose time has gone.

Lol support of slavery comes back to bite social conservatives in the ass. Frankly, all these little mutants that think they have some divine right to this country because they popped out of an American vagina should also have to pass some kind of test. You think Trump could pass a citizenship exam? LOL

 

[my2¢]

The problem can be fixed easily. Congress could clarify legislatively that the children of noncitizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,

What does "not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" mean? From my understanding it is why children of those here with diplomatic immunity are not citizens although they may have been born here. Doesn't sound easily fixed if all these children of undocumented aliens are not subject to our laws.

 

[Issa]

I tend to agree.

Go here if you run into the WaPo's greedy capitalist paywall: Ace of Spades HQ

Opinion | Citizenship shouldn’t be a birthright

A Supreme Court confirmation fight always raises constitutional hopes and stokes constitutional fears. With one more justice, they'll repeal Obamacare! If they get one more justice, they'll overturn Roe v. Wade ! To arms!

These periodic, now-inevitable freak-outs are a sad by-product of our country's drift away from political rule and over-investiture of power in the judiciary. But happily, the most urgent constitutional challenge of our time needn't wait on a court ruling. Each political branch of government has the constitutional authority needed to fix it.

I refer, here, to ending birthright citizenship.

The notion that simply being born within the geographical limits of the United States automatically confers U.S. citizenship is an absurdity -- historically, constitutionally, philosophically and practically.

Constitutional scholar Edward Erler has shown that the entire case for birthright citizenship is based on a deliberate misreading of the 14th Amendment. The purpose of that amendment was to resolve the question of citizenship for newly freed slaves. Following the Civil War, some in the South insisted that states had the right to deny citizenship to freedmen. In support, they cited 1857's disgraceful Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, which held that no black American could ever be a citizen of the United States.

A constitutional amendment was thus necessary to overturn Dred Scott and to define the precise meaning of American citizenship.

...

Some will argue that the Supreme Court has already settled this issue, establishing birthright citizenship in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. But this is wrong. The court has only ruled that children of legal residents are citizens. That doesn't change the status of children born to people living here illegally.

...

The problem can be fixed easily. Congress could clarify legislatively that the children of noncitizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and thus not citizens under the 14th Amendment. But given the open-borders enthusiasm of congressional leaders of both parties, that's unlikely.

It falls, then, to Trump. An executive order could specify to federal agencies that the children of noncitizens are not citizens.

...

Birthright citizenship was a mistake whose time has gone.

I have been saying this all along the only Americans that should talk about true Americans are the natives.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Pretty straight forward and clear language.

Not one word about slaves.

Explain to us what the bolded part means

Glad to.

Can you be arrested in the United States if you are suspected of robbing a bank?

Then you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

If you cannot be arrested- then you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- so for example Diplomats with diplomatic immunity.

 

[Syriusly]

Birth right citizenship is the best way to determine if someone is a citizen. Don't let a bunch of partisan bureaucrats decide for us. Trying to change the 14th amendment is no different than trying to change the 2nd amendment. The law is the law. It's not perfect (nothing is), but it's a pretty damn good system.

I agree. I certainly understand the sentiment of the idea that we should not allow 'birth tourism' to take advantage of our Constitution- but this rule greatly simplifies determination of who is a citizen.

 

[Edgetho]

Glad to.

Can you be arrested in the United States if you are suspected of robbing a bank?

Then you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

If you cannot be arrested- then you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- so for example Diplomats with diplomatic immunity.

That is an idiotically simple-minded explanation.

Tourists can be arrested, as well.

Can they vote, too?

 

[Syriusly]

Glad to.

Can you be arrested in the United States if you are suspected of robbing a bank?

Then you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

If you cannot be arrested- then you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- so for example Diplomats with diplomatic immunity.

That is an idiotically simple-minded explanation.

Tourists can be arrested, as well.

Can they vote, too?

Tourists can be arrested- because they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

You confuse citizenship to being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Foreign Tourists are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- they are not citizens of the United States. They can be arrested- they can't vote.

Now if those Tourists have a child in the United States- they - and their child is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- for example of those Tourists are under arrest at the time when their child is born- the United States can take custody of the child and decide who should raise the child.

I know you folks want to make the words mean something that they don't mean- but the language of the 14th Amendment is very clear.

 

[g5000]

Opinion | Citizenship shouldn’t be a birthright

Fortunately for you, citizenship is a birthright. You'd never pass the test.