Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Has any recognized constitutional expert or scholar come out and given a supportive voice to the efforts to nullify the issue of birthrights in American law, both constitutional and citizenship birth rights from before the constitution and those from before the Revolution used by the Colonies? All I have found is stuff promoted by political commentators and politicians or Trumpercans.
Nullifying birthright citizenship. There is no such thing as birthright citizens that are illegal.Has any recognized constitutional expert or scholar come out and given a supportive voice to the efforts to nullify the issue of birthrights in American law, both constitutional and citizenship birth rights from before the constitution and those from before the Revolution used by the Colonies? All I have found is stuff promoted by political commentators and politicians or Trumpercans.
Are you talking about nullifying the issue or nullifying birthright for illegal aliens?
My complaint is that the libtards claiming that it is unconstitutional to give citizenship to illegal aliens born here in the US are simply pulling it out of a side note by Brenan that was not the ruling of the case, and also from a lack of reading comprehension of US v Wong Kim
Mexico’s former ambassador to the U.S. said that 30 million “undocumented immigrants” are living in the United States in the beginning of an interview before later stating a different number at the conclusion.
30 Million Illegal Immigrants in US, Says Mexico's Former Ambassador
Has any recognized constitutional expert or scholar come out and given a supportive voice to the efforts to nullify the issue of birthrights in American law, both constitutional and citizenship birth rights from before the constitution and those from before the Revolution used by the Colonies? All I have found is stuff promoted by political commentators and politicians or Trumpercans.
Are you talking about nullifying the issue or nullifying birthright for illegal aliens?
Has any recognized constitutional expert or scholar come out and given a supportive voice to the efforts to nullify the issue of birthrights in American law, both constitutional and citizenship birth rights from before the constitution and those from before the Revolution used by the Colonies? All I have found is stuff promoted by political commentators and politicians or Trumpercans.
Are you talking about nullifying the issue or nullifying birthright for illegal aliens?
Illegal aliens have no 'birthright' to citizenship.
However, Americans who are born in the United States have American citizenship at Birth.
This is doable and constitutional in the opinion of many. The specific point that Wong requires parents to have legal domicile clinches it."
Has any recognized constitutional expert or scholar come out and given a supportive voice to the efforts to nullify the issue of birthrights in American law, both constitutional and citizenship birth rights from before the constitution and those from before the Revolution used by the Colonies? All I have found is stuff promoted by political commentators and politicians or Trumpercans.
Are you talking about nullifying the issue or nullifying birthright for illegal aliens?
Illegal aliens have no 'birthright' to citizenship.
However, Americans who are born in the United States have American citizenship at Birth.
>>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."<<
You copied that in whole from some other source. You should identify the source.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
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]
- Has parents that are in the United States for business
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.
Has any recognized constitutional expert or scholar come out and given a supportive voice to the efforts to nullify the issue of birthrights in American law, both constitutional and citizenship birth rights from before the constitution and those from before the Revolution used by the Colonies? All I have found is stuff promoted by political commentators and politicians or Trumpercans.
Are you talking about nullifying the issue or nullifying birthright for illegal aliens?
Illegal aliens have no 'birthright' to citizenship.
However, Americans who are born in the United States have American citizenship at Birth.
>>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."<<
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.
And Plyler v. Doe and its conclusion about 'jurisdiction'
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that "[no] State shall . . . 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." Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument.
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
You are full of shit. Those are not facts; they are claims no one believes but nuts like you.The 14th and 15th amendments weren't legally ratified anyway.
The south was ruled by "provisional" governments that were put in place by the fed gvmt. for the purpose of continuing to "punish" the south for the "crime" of wanting to withdraw peacefully from the union.
The 14th Amendment WAS NEVER RATIFIED back in 1868! Due to the blatantly unconstitutional machinations of the 40th Congress, the 14th Amendment did not legitimately meet with the required Constitutional ratification process, and it was NEVER SIGNED by President Andrew Johnson.
Here is a look at the short text of the 14th Amendment:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am14
Here is a treatise of the FRAUD perpetrated by the 40th Congress back in 1868, which in 1967 was inserted into the Congressional Record of the 90th Congress at the request of former Congressman John Rarick (Dem-LA) (still alive). The treatise was written by Judge Lander H. Perez, of Louisiana.
http://www.constitutionalconcepts.org/rarick.pdf
Here is more of what Judge Leander Perez has to say:
http://www.sweetliberty.org/fourteenth.amend.htm
By Joseph E. Fallon
“The justification for the vast, intrusive, and coercive powers employed by the government of the United States against its citizens—from affirmative action to hate-crimes legislation, from multilingualism to multiculturalism, from Waco to Ruby Ridge—is the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution adopted in 1868, or, more specifically, the authority conferred upon Washington, explicitly or implicitly, by the “privileges and immunities” and “equal protection” clauses of that amendment.”
“Like the emperor’s new clothes, however, the 14th Amendment does not exist. It was never constitutionally ratified, and, thus, acts of the government of the United States that are based on the 14th Amendment are actually illegitimate.”
“Despite its subsequent “interpretation” by the federal judiciary to mandate federal intervention in state and local affairs, the original aim of the 14th Amendment was to ensure the political and economic hegemony of the Northern states over the South. This was why Lincoln and Northern business interests waged total war against the South for four years: to transform the United States from a constitutional republic into a continental empire.”
“Section Two of the 14th Amendment permitted the disenfranchisement of Southern white men “for participation in the rebellion.” Since the word “participation” could mean anything from serving in the Confederate Army, to using the Confederate postal service, to paying taxes to the Confederate government, or even failing to rebel against the Confederate authorities, it could be used by the North to deny the right to vote to virtually the entire adult, white-male population of the South.”
“Section Three sought to expel the South from every level and branch of government by denying Southern white men “who having taken an oath . . . to support the Constitution of the United States . . . engaged in insurrection or rebellion [against the United States] . . . or [had] given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof” (essentially the entire leadership of the South) the right to hold political or appointive offices, either civilian or military, in state or federal governments. Again, the North could define “engaged” and “given aid or comfort” to bar anyone and everyone.”
“Section Four protected Northern politicians, military leaders, and businessmen who perpetrated financial fraud in the course of the war from future prosecution and ensured that the North would never have to pay reparations for the theft and destruction it committed against the South.”
“The 14th Amendment made a mockery of the U.S. Constitution. Sections Two and Three blatantly violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment by denying nine million Southerners their political and civil rights on what President Andrew Johnson declared was “an accusation so vague as to be scarcely intelligible and found to be true upon no credible evidence.” In addition, Section Three was an ex post facto law specifically prohibited by Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. And Section Four violated both the Due Process and the Just Compensation Clauses of the Fifth Amendment.”
“Not surprisingly, when the 14th Amendment was introduced in Congress on June 13, 1866, as House Joint Resolution 127, it was opposed by members from the Southern states. Since Article V of the U.S. Constitution stipulated that an amendment proposed by Congress had to be approved by two-thirds majorities in both Houses, Southern votes ensured the proposed amendment would be defeated.”
“To prevent that, the Radical Republicans who controlled Congress unilaterally changed the composition of Congress in order to procure the needed majorities. In violation of the Constitution’s Article I, Sections 2, 3, and 5, and in particular Article V (“that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate”), they unlawfully excluded the 61 representatives and 22 senators from the Southern states. Moreover, they counted the votes of West Virginia and Nevada—both unconstitutional entities created by Lincoln as part of his war measures.”
“Even after taking these steps, however, the proposed amendment still faced defeat in the Senate by one vote if the vote of Sen. John P. Stockton of New Jersey, an outspoken critic of the 14th Amendment, was counted. So the Radical Republicans unlawfully expelled him from the Senate as well.”
“The votes in both the House and Senate approving the proposed 14th Amendment were, therefore, fraudulent. Since President Andrew Johnson opposed the amendment, the initial fraud was compounded by the subsequent refusal of Congress to present the 14th Amendment to the President for his approval as mandated by Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.”
“Once Congress has approved an amendment, Article V stipulates that ratification by three fourths of the states is required for adoption. On June 16, 1866, Congress submitted the unlawfully proposed 14th Amendment to the legislatures of all 36 states, including the Southern states excluded from Congress, for ratification. With the admission of Nebraska into the Union on March 1, 1867, as the 37th state, the number of states needed for ratification was 28.”
“By March 1, 1867, 12 States had rejected the 14th Amendment. This left only 25 states, three fewer than the U.S. Constitution required for adoption. Later, Maryland and California both voted to reject the amendment, while three states that had ratified it—New Jersey, Ohio, and Oregon—rescinded their respective ratifications, citing voter fraud. While Congress rejected these rescissions, the damage had been done. The 14th Amendment had been constitutionally defeated.”
“The Radical Republicans reacted by enacting three laws between March 2 and July 19, 1867, known as the Reconstruction Acts. These laws reflected the attitude of Northern “constitutionalists” like Sen. James Doolittle of Wisconsin, who declared that, since “the people of the South have rejected the constitutional amendment,” the North should “march upon them and force them to adopt it at the point of the bayonet”; “until they do adopt it,” the North should rule the South by military force.”
“With the Reconstruction Acts, Congress declared “no legal state governments” existed in ten Southern states, even though Congress had officially recognized these state governments as legitimate since 1865. The adoption of the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery depended upon ratification by seven of these states—Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia—for the required three-fourths majority. Branding them “rebel” states, Congress proceeded to abolish their governments. The South was divided into five military districts and, in blatant violation of both Article I, Section 9, of the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Ex parte Milligan three months earlier, was placed under martial law. This action, motivated by malice for the South and contempt for the U.S. Constitution, has bequeathed to the United States an interesting and ironic legacy.”
“If the South had “no legal state governments” after 1861 (as Congress maintained in 1867 following the defeat of the 14th Amendment), then the 13th Amendment was never constitutionally ratified in 1865. Slavery, therefore, is still a lawful institution in the United States. On the other hand, if the South had legal governments (as Congress affirmed in 1865 when the South ratified the 13th Amendment), then the 14th Amendment was constitutionally defeated in 1867. Therefore, all subsequent legislative and executive acts and judicial decisions based upon the 14th Amendment are null and void.”
“Without the 14th Amendment, the federal government is deprived of a principal source of its power. Most, if not all, of the laws, regulations, and rulings pertaining to affirmative action, desegregation, “hate crimes,” multilingualism, multiculturalism, U.S. citizenship, voting, reapportionment, religion, education, housing, welfare, states’ rights, and territorial powers are based almost exclusively on the 14th Amendment. Even the immigration policy pursued since 1965 is justified, to a significant extent, by the 14th Amendment.”
“Through violence, intimidation, coercion, and fraud, through martial law, through congressional threats to confiscate and redistribute all the property of Southern whites, through removal of Southern governors and judges, and through congressional repeal of state laws requiring a majority of registered voters for the adoption of a new state constitution, Congress successfully created “provisional governments.” By 1868, these provisional governments had duly ratified the 14th Amendment (Congress having made ratification a requirement for readmission into the Union). However, under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, only states in the Union can ratify an amendment. Since Congress declared that these provisional governments were not states in the Union and, thus, had denied them representation in Congress, the provisional governments could not ratify this amendment. Therefore, the 14th Amendment remains unratified.”
“Led by the states of Mississippi and Georgia, Southern whites attempted to have the constitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts—and, by implication, the ratification of the 14th Amendment—reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court agreed and, in 1868, heard legal arguments in Ex parte McCardle. When the justices indicated that they were favorably disposed toward the South’s constitutional argument, the Radical Republicans in Congress enacted legislation removing this subject from the Court’s jurisdiction. This was the only constitutional act undertaken by the Radical Republicans in their relentless attempt to impose the 14th Amendment. According to Article III, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, the appellate jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court is limited by “such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
“After 1868, the federal government has not permitted any serious legal challenge to the constitutionality of the 14th Amendment. To do so would risk dismantling the entire apparatus of the federal government in a single stroke, depriving federal officeholders—Democrats and Republicans, judges, politicians, and bureaucrats—of the powers and perks they enjoy and expect.”
“The government of the United States, as established by the U.S. Constitution in 1789, was effectively abolished by the 14th Amendment. In its place was substituted a regime that resembles the absolutist centralized state envisioned by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan. It is the type of political system Patrick Henry and other Founding Fathers had warned against—a consolidated government ruled by demagogues for the benefit of special interests.”
“It was natural for the post-14th Amendment government of the United States to expand from a continental empire, in which the states of the Union had been effectively reduced to mere administrative units of the federal government, to one whose reach would be, in the words of neoconservative ideologues William Kristol and Robert Kagan, nothing less than “benevolent global hegemony.” And it was a relatively simple matter, then, for the government of the United States to go from inflicting death and destruction at Waco to inflecting death and destruction on Iraq, Yugoslavia, and Afghanistan. Washington emulates Imperial Rome, of whom it was said, “They create a desert and call it peace.”
While I agree with the sentiments of your post, the fact is that these amendments are considered part of US case law and relevant to any changes in the law that Rump and Congress make.
Those aren't "sentiments", sir...those are facts.
"Prohibition" was the law of the land, too...for a little while. until it was abolished. The will of the people and all...
Fascists always seek people to scapegoat.
Yeah, so I wish you libtard fascists would stop calling everyone a racist.r.
international libtards. But in the rest of the world, they just ignore the libtards for being jack asses.A woman comes into the country illegally, has a baby, and wants to stay in the country to be with her child. I would give her two choices: leave the country with your child, or leave the country without your child.
You copied that in whole from some other source. You should identify the source.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
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]
- Has parents that are in the United States for business
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.
Has any recognized constitutional expert or scholar come out and given a supportive voice to the efforts to nullify the issue of birthrights in American law, both constitutional and citizenship birth rights from before the constitution and those from before the Revolution used by the Colonies? All I have found is stuff promoted by political commentators and politicians or Trumpercans.
Are you talking about nullifying the issue or nullifying birthright for illegal aliens?
Illegal aliens have no 'birthright' to citizenship.
However, Americans who are born in the United States have American citizenship at Birth.
>>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."<<
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.
And Plyler v. Doe and its conclusion about 'jurisdiction'
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that "[no] State shall . . . 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." Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument.
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
a footnote by Brennan
You copied that in whole from some other source. You should identify the source.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
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]
- Has parents that are in the United States for business
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.
14th amendment
...........and links are there
those are the facts...merely saying "nuh uh" and using vulgar language doesn't change anything...it says a lot about you, though...You are full of shit. Those are not facts; they are claims no one believes but nuts like you.
The child was a U.S. citizen because the child was born in the United States- which the Supreme Court considered so obvious that they just mentioned it in passing.
That is merely conjecture on your part. and there was no ruling on citizenship via Anchor Baby laws.
If it is discovered a 35 year old man or woman was born, raised, educated and working in America to two illegal immigrants 35 years ago, are we going to deport them? Is there a statute of limitations? What if they are honorably discharged from the military, do we deport them also? Has anyone thought out this Trump fantasy immigration fix?
