Why Donald Trump is Right About Changing Anchor Baby Law Without Constitutional Amendment

[Rotagilla]

I see...disregard the facts and look for a diversion...

There is no point in arguing your facts since existing CASE LAW IGNORES IT. You might as we argue that West Virginia is not a legal state either and see how far that gets you.

We aren't talking about west virginia, though, are we? We're talking about how the gvt acted illlegally (before and) after the war between the states to force laws that they refused to let the people vote on.

Those amendments were not legally enacted. To use "it was a long time ago" as an excuse doesn't cut it.

Remember;

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Even the despicable pos lincoln said;

Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can may revolutionize and make their own of so many of the territory as they inhabit."


Abraham Lincoln
Jan 12, 1848

Not only are you kicking a totally dead horse, you are also trying to derail the thread.

Why don't you go and start your own thread on why the 14th is not a legal amendment?

We're talking about the constitution in this thread...what I said is relevant.

 

[mamooth]

The birthright clause of the 14th amendment was intended as a direct response to and correction of the Dred Scott decision.

Removing birthright citizenship is essentially reinstating Dred Scott, in that it says that certain people born in the USA are not citizens solely because someone has deemed their parentage to be inferior. That would be why the south was so opposed to the 14th amendment.

Good luck with trying to reinstitute Dred Scott. I don't think it's going to happen.

 

[Claudette]

The birthright clause of the 14th amendment was intended as a direct response to and correction of the Dred Scott decision.

Removing birthright citizenship is essentially reinstating Dred Scott, in that it says that certain people born in the USA are not citizens solely because someone has deemed their parentage to be inferior. That would be why the south was so opposed to the 14th amendment.

Good luck with trying to reinstitute Dred Scott. I don't think it's going to happen.

Don't be ridiculous. Dred Scott. My god your a moron.

All it would do would be remove anchor babies in America and the territories.

All that amendment does is make sure the children of ex slaves are recognized as citizens of the US. Its no longer needed. It was never meant to do any more than that.

 

[007]

The birthright clause of the 14th amendment was intended as a direct response to and correction of the Dred Scott decision.

Removing birthright citizenship is essentially reinstating Dred Scott, in that it says that certain people born in the USA are not citizens solely because someone has deemed their parentage to be inferior. That would be why the south was so opposed to the 14th amendment.

Good luck with trying to reinstitute Dred Scott. I don't think it's going to happen.

No, it is not saying their parentage are "inferior," it is saying their parentage are "ILLEGAL ALIENS."

A little less hyperbole please.

 

[Syriusly]

Citizenship by birth has two relevant sources in Constitutional Law.

1. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides 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."

2. In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, if that person:

• Is born in the United States
  
• Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power

• Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States

• Has parents that are in the United States for business

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[8] but it has generally been assumed that they are.[9]

As of 2015, the "United States" includes all inhabited territories except American Samoa and Swain Island. (See § Citizenship at birth on the U.S. territories and former U.S. territories.)

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/United_States_nationality_law#Birth_within_the_United_States

These conditions are all inclusive, that is each one must be met and failure to meet one of them disqualifies one for citizenship by birth, at least according to Constitutional case law.

The disqualifier that a persons parents cannot be a diplomat or official of a foreign government is not so well known, and our State Department under Obama is obscuring this restriction. http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship-diplomats

What the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means exactly is what was addressed in US vs Wong Kim Ark. The concluding section of that decision states:

"118 The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."

http://openjurist.org/169/us/649/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark

But what is the meaning of "have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States"?

"Domicile is but the established, fixed, permanent, or ordinary dwelling-place or place of residence of a person, as distinguished from his temporary and transient, though actual, place of residence. It is his legal residence, as distinguished from his temporary place of abode; or his home, as distinguished from a place to which business or pleasure may temporarily call him.

Law Dictionary: What is DOMICILE? definition of DOMICILE (Black's Law Dictionary)

And SCOTUS also recognised in Wong Kim Ark that not all persons born in the United States are citizens immmediately and it gives a list of some of those cases in Section 93.

"93....The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory..."

But does "domiciled within the United States" mean to simply live here, legally or illegally (ignoring the legal definition of domiciled for a moment)?

That is addressed in Section 96:

"96 Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) 118 U. S. 356, 6 Sup. Ct. 1064; Lau Ow Bew v. U. S. (1892) 144 U. S. 47, 61, 62, 12 Sup. Ct. 517; Fong Yue Ting v. U. S. (1893) 149 U. S. 698, 724, 13 Sup. Ct. 1016; Lem Moon Sing v. U. S. (1895) 158 U. S. 538, 547, 15 Sup. Ct. 967; Wong Wing v. U. S. (1896) 163 U. S. 228, 238, 16 Sup. Ct. 977."

An alien is not considered to have legal domicile in the United States if they are not here with the permission of the United States and illegal aliens are not here with said permission and therefore the children of illegal aliens born here are not subject to the birthright citizenship of the 14th Amendment.

Let us return to the language of the 14th Amendment.

1. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides 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 language is pretty clear and concise- there are two requirements:
a) being born in the United States and
b) subject to the jurisdiction thereof

So the only issue is what is 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. Wong Kim Ark spends most of the decision discussing that issue, analyzing English Common law on the issue- and pointed this out:

The same rule must be applied to both races, and unless the general rule, that, when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship, is accepted, the Fourteenth Amendment has failed to accomplish its purpose, and the colored people are not citizens.

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes.

The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides -- seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher's Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court:

......independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger [p694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.

Here the court refers to Webster- who is pointing out that aliens are fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while in the United States

The court recognized- appropriately that the 14th Amendment makes anyone a citizen who is born in the United States- and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- and the court also recognized- as above- that any alien in the United States- other than the exceptions noted earlier(diplomats, indians of sovereign nations)- is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

The Court noted that children born to parents domiciled in the United States are certainly citizens- but by their own analysis pointed out that anyone in the United States is subject to jurisdiction of the United States- and thus subject to the 14th Amendment.

 

[Syriusly]

The birthright clause of the 14th amendment was intended as a direct response to and correction of the Dred Scott decision.

Removing birthright citizenship is essentially reinstating Dred Scott, in that it says that certain people born in the USA are not citizens solely because someone has deemed their parentage to be inferior. That would be why the south was so opposed to the 14th amendment.

Good luck with trying to reinstitute Dred Scott. I don't think it's going to happen.

All that amendment does is make sure the children of ex slaves are recognized as citizens of the US. Its no longer needed. It was never meant to do any more than that.

Says who?

You haven't read Wong Kim Ark which discusses the 14th Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, as originally framed by the House of Representatives, lacked the opening sentence. When it came before the Senate in May, 1866, Mr. Howard, of Michigan, moved to amend by prefixing the sentence in its present form (less the words "or naturalized"), and reading,


All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State herein they reside.


Mr. Cowan objected upon the ground that the Mongolian race ought to be excluded, and said:


Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? . . . I do not know how my honorable friend from California looks upon Chinese, but I do know how some of his fellow citizens regard them. I have no doubt that now they are useful, and I have no doubt that, within proper restraints, allowing that State and the other Pacific States to manage them as they may see fit, they may be useful; but I would not tie their hands by the Constitution of the United States so as to prevent them hereafter from dealing with them as in their wisdom they see fit.


Mr. Conness, of California, replied:


The proposition before us relates simply, in that respect, to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the Nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. . . . We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this Constitutional Amendment that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of [p699] the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.

 

[Claudette]

Are you going to try and tell me that amendment wasn't put in there for ex slaves and their children??

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

It was put in there to make sure the children and ex slaves were recognized as American Citizens and its certainly not needed any more.

 

[Syriusly]

I got this off another site. a comment with Stump for Trump ladies. we need to Educate our citizens on our POLITICS. this is why they able to RUN all over us.

SNIP:
HE CAN END BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP AND ANCHOR BABIES TOO!

Here, read the ORIGINAL INTENT of the 14th Amendment...AND SHARE WITH ALL YOUR FRIENDS AND EVERY TIME THERE IS A CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS WHERE THE NAYSAYERS SAY IT CAN'T BE DONE...

" In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every 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."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship."
http://www.14thamendment.us/

FROM:
Stump for Trump Girls Donald Trump Says He Will Deport Illegals Amen Video - The Gateway Pundit

That is the distinction I am trying to focus attention on with this thread. Illegal aliens by definition cannot have domicile status in the USA and therefore their children born here do not qualify for US citizenship as a matter of existing law. The US federal government is simply letting it go I suppose to enrich corporations and let more Democrats vote.

Since illegal aliens cannot legally vote- no it has nothing to do with 'letting more Democrats' vote- though many illegal aliens have family that are American citizens who of course would tend to be more sympathetic to their cause.

However, the current interpretation of the law has been the interpretation of the law for at least 20 years- under every administration.

And the reason for that goes to another Supreme Court decision- Plyer v. Doe- which addresses the term 'jurisdiction'

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/03/05/plyler-v-doe-1982-and-jurisdiction/
In appellants’ view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not “within the jurisdiction” of a State even if they are present within a State’s boundaries and subject to its laws.


Writing for the majority, J. Brennan rejected that argument saying it was not supported by the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment.


Writing for the four dissenting Justices, J. Burger concurs on this point:


I have no quarrel with the conclusion that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically “within the jurisdiction” of a state.


Opponents of birthright citizenship for children of undocumented aliens often claim that these children are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and hence, should not be granted citizenship.


In footnote 10 (dicta?) of Plyler the Court addresses the “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase of the Citizenship Clause by citing Justice Gray in United States v. Wong Kim Ark who noted it was:


impossible to construe the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words “within its jurisdiction,” in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons “within the jurisdiction” of one of the States of the Union are not “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”


Justice Gray concluded that:


[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

And finally- the Supreme Court has already confirmed that the child born in the United States to an illegal alien is by birth- a U.S. Citizen.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/471/444/case.html

By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country. A deportation hearing was held in December, 1978. Respondents conceded illegal entry, conceded deportability,

In my opinion- if you want to change Birth Right citizenship- you need a Constitutional Amendment- however, an attempt to change the 14th Amendment by legislation would drive a case to the courts, and would confirm the courts interpretation.

Under the clear language of the 14th Amendment, I can't see how the court could come to any conclusion other than its current one.

 

[Syriusly]

Are you going to try and tell me that amendment wasn't put in there for ex slaves and their children??

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

It was put in there to make sure the children and ex slaves were recognized as American Citizens and its certainly not needed any more.

I am saying that even when the 14th Amendment was being written it was recognized that the 14th Amendment didn't apply just to slaves- but to everyone- as anyone who has read of the Congressional discussions of the 14th Amendment would understand.

But lets imagine for a moment- you do revoke the 14th Amendment.

Who is therefore an American citizen- under the Constitution- if there is no 14th Amendment?

 

[Claudette]

I see what you're saying. Since the Constitution was written without the amendment that's an interesting question.

But doesn't it also require a legal residence?? If you're in the country illegally then you won't have a legal residence. Something else to consider.

A question that leads me to say they need to revise the amendment to state that in order to be a citizen of this country at least ONE of your parents must already be a citizen of the US.

That would get rid of the anchor baby bullshit.

Thanks for you're post. Good one.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The same rule must be applied to both races, and unless the general rule, that, when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship, is accepted...
The Court noted that children born to parents domiciled in the United States are certainly citizens- but by their own analysis pointed out that anyone in the United States is subject to jurisdiction of the United States- and thus subject to the 14th Amendment.

And part of the definition of "domiciled' is that it is the LEGAL residence, and in Section 93 of the US vrs Wong Kim Ark decision they further stipulate that the aliens must here with "the permission of the United States" and Illegal Aliens FAIL on both counts.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Justice Gray concluded that:
[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

The key point is the question of whether they have domicile in the US and they do not since that requires legal entry with the permission of the US.

The case law in the two cases you cite simply assumes that domicile is based on where they live while Wong Kim Ark states specifically that it must be LEGAL residence and leg domicile status.

Bad case law has been corrected by statute in the past and can be this time as well.

And why not pass a Constitutional Amendment in a States Constitutional Article V Convention anyway? There are plenty more corrections we can make while we have the hood up.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I see what you're saying. Since the Constitution was written without the amendment that's an interesting question.

But doesn't it also require a legal residence?? If you're in the country illegally then you won't have a legal residence. Something else to consider.

A question that leads me to say they need to revise the amendment to state that in order to be a citizen of this country at least ONE of your parents must already be a citizen of the US.

That would get rid of the anchor baby bullshit.

Thanks for you're post. Good one.

Prior to the Civil War the states handled oaths of allegiance and citizenship. When the Feds took it over they put in place a clear law whose context and specific language has been largely ignored.

You cannot have domicile in a nation if you are not in a nation legally and the courts have simply ignored that definition of the legal term "domicile".

But regardless, this is insane. We cannot long exist as a nation if we cannot control our borders, control who and is not a citizen or may become one and ENFORCE OUR OWN LAWS.

A huge mess has been created and is getting worse. It will take a lot of sacrifice and effort to correct it the longer it takes, and if we fail to correct it the United states will cease to exist in any meaningful way as a nation.

 

[Claudette]

I see what you're saying. Since the Constitution was written without the amendment that's an interesting question.

But doesn't it also require a legal residence?? If you're in the country illegally then you won't have a legal residence. Something else to consider.

A question that leads me to say they need to revise the amendment to state that in order to be a citizen of this country at least ONE of your parents must already be a citizen of the US.

That would get rid of the anchor baby bullshit.

Thanks for you're post. Good one.

Prior to the Civil War the states handled oaths of allegiance and citizenship. When the Feds took it over they put in place a clear law whose context and specific language has been largely ignored.

You cannot have domicile in a nation if you are not in a nation legally and the courts have simply ignored that definition of the legal term "domicile".

But regardless, this is insane. We cannot long exist as a nation if we cannot control our borders, control who and is not a citizen or may become one and ENFORCE OUR OWN LAWS.

A huge mess has been created and is getting worse. It will take a lot of sacrifice and effort to correct it the longer it takes, and if we fail to correct it the United states will cease to exist in any meaningful way as a nation.

You bet you're ass its a huge mess and one has to wonder why the clowns and DC don't do something about it.

They have the legal means via that amendment.

 

[Skylar]

Citizenship by birth has two relevant sources in Constitutional Law.

1. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides 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."

2. In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, if that person:

• Is born in the United States
  
• Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power

• Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States

• Has parents that are in the United States for business

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[8] but it has generally been assumed that they are.[9]

The common law cited by the court granted birthright citizenship to any child, even born to two aliens, based merely on the location of birth.

The only time circumstances come into play is in the case of diplomats, invading armies, etc, where the parents weren't subject to US law. Illegals clearly are subject to US law (lest we couldn't deport them). Making this an uphill battle.

The overwhelming legal consensus on this issue is that Trump's argument is fucked.

 

[Skylar]

I see what you're saying. Since the Constitution was written without the amendment that's an interesting question.

But doesn't it also require a legal residence?? If you're in the country illegally then you won't have a legal residence. Something else to consider.

A question that leads me to say they need to revise the amendment to state that in order to be a citizen of this country at least ONE of your parents must already be a citizen of the US.

That would get rid of the anchor baby bullshit.

Thanks for you're post. Good one.

Prior to the Civil War the states handled oaths of allegiance and citizenship. When the Feds took it over they put in place a clear law whose context and specific language has been largely ignored.

You cannot have domicile in a nation if you are not in a nation legally and the courts have simply ignored that definition of the legal term "domicile".

But regardless, this is insane. We cannot long exist as a nation if we cannot control our borders, control who and is not a citizen or may become one and ENFORCE OUR OWN LAWS.

A huge mess has been created and is getting worse. It will take a lot of sacrifice and effort to correct it the longer it takes, and if we fail to correct it the United states will cease to exist in any meaningful way as a nation.

You bet you're ass its a huge mess and one has to wonder why the clowns and DC don't do something about it.

They have the legal means via that amendment.

The States don't need DC. They can call a constitutional convention on their own and pass an amendment on their own. Its in their court.

 

[JimBowie1958]

More opinions that agree the 14th Amendment does not COMPELL giving citizenship


http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...tution-doesnt-mandate-birthright-citizenship/

"The Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment does not confer citizenship on the children of foreigners, whether legal or illegal.

Media commentators have gotten this issue dead wrong. Fox News’s Judge Andrew Napolitano says the Fourteenth Amendment is “very clear” that its Citizenship Clause commands that any child born in America is automatically an American citizen.

That’s not the law. It has never been the law.

Under current immigration law—found at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a)—a baby born on American soil to a (1) foreign ambassador, (2) head of state, or (3) foreign military prisoner is not an American citizen.

How is that possible? This is from the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (INA), as it has been amended over the years. Is this federal law unconstitutional?

No. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides: “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.” Today’s debate turns on the six words, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”


http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-co...right-not-the-law-never-has-been-3045192.html

"An interesting question from The Federalist:

"Moreover, if everyone owed allegiance by simply being on American soil, then what was the purpose of having aliens renounce their allegiance to other countries and pledge their allegiance to this one for purposes of becoming naturalized? Perhaps the true answer is because locality itself was never enough to confer complete allegiance."

 

[Claudette]

Citizenship by birth has two relevant sources in Constitutional Law.

1. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides 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."

2. In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, if that person:

• Is born in the United States
  
• Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power

• Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States

• Has parents that are in the United States for business

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[8] but it has generally been assumed that they are.[9]

The common law cited by the court granted birthright citizenship to any child, even born to two aliens, based merely on the location of birth.

The only time circumstances come into play is in the case of diplomats, invading armies, etc, where the parents weren't subject to US law. Illegals clearly are subject to US law (lest we couldn't deport them). Making this an uphill battle.

The overwhelming legal consensus on this issue is that Trump's argument is fucked.

Don't think so pal.

And part of the definition of "domiciled' is that it is the LEGAL residence, and in Section 93 of the US vrs Wong Kim Ark decision they further stipulate that the aliens must here with "the permission of the United States" and Illegal Aliens FAIL on both counts.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Citizenship by birth has two relevant sources in Constitutional Law.

1. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides 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."

2. In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment, if that person:

• Is born in the United States
  
• Has parents that are subjects of a foreign power, but not in any diplomatic or official capacity of that foreign power

• Has parents that have permanent domicile and residence in the United States

• Has parents that are in the United States for business

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[8] but it has generally been assumed that they are.[9]

The common law cited by the court granted birthright citizenship to any child, even born to two aliens, based merely on the location of birth.

The only time circumstances come into play is in the case of diplomats, invading armies, etc, where the parents weren't subject to US law. Illegals clearly are subject to US law (lest we couldn't deport them). Making this an uphill battle.

The overwhelming legal consensus on this issue is that Trump's argument is fucked.

Horse shit.

A BASIC and FUNDAMENTAL DEFINITION of jurisdiction is that the alien have DOMICILE to be subject to a states laws, and that required legal residence. A person can have several residences in different states but it is his legal domicile that determines where he is a subject of.

Even Wong says in Section 96 that it must be with the permission of the United States and illegals don't have that.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I see what you're saying. Since the Constitution was written without the amendment that's an interesting question.

But doesn't it also require a legal residence?? If you're in the country illegally then you won't have a legal residence. Something else to consider.

A question that leads me to say they need to revise the amendment to state that in order to be a citizen of this country at least ONE of your parents must already be a citizen of the US.

That would get rid of the anchor baby bullshit.

Thanks for you're post. Good one.

Prior to the Civil War the states handled oaths of allegiance and citizenship. When the Feds took it over they put in place a clear law whose context and specific language has been largely ignored.

You cannot have domicile in a nation if you are not in a nation legally and the courts have simply ignored that definition of the legal term "domicile".

But regardless, this is insane. We cannot long exist as a nation if we cannot control our borders, control who and is not a citizen or may become one and ENFORCE OUR OWN LAWS.

A huge mess has been created and is getting worse. It will take a lot of sacrifice and effort to correct it the longer it takes, and if we fail to correct it the United states will cease to exist in any meaningful way as a nation.

You bet you're ass its a huge mess and one has to wonder why the clowns and DC don't do something about it.

They have the legal means via that amendment.

The States don't need DC. They can call a constitutional convention on their own and pass an amendment on their own. Its in their court.

I and millions of other Americans are ready to throw the dice on an Article V convention.

I am sick to death with these lying professional political whores we call career politicians, like Jebba the Bush.