Birthright Citizenship does not apply to illegals - 14th grossly misinterpreted by the left/Dems

Author: TWS1405_2
aliens
14th amendment
birthright citizenship
jurisdiction
allegiance

Posts

Total: 19
Topic's author
#1
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
"The Republican Party...and being a party of progress they determined to incorporate into the Constitution of the United States an amendment, that should define American citizenship - white and black, native and foreign born, in unmistakable terms, and for all time. That was the origin of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Let us look at the language of that amendment, "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."

Mark you then: "all person," no matter what their color, black or white, blonde or brunette - no matter where born, native or naturalized: The Constitution says, "all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens thereof, and of the States wherein they reside." That is the affirmative part of the amendment."

...

"Fellow-citizens, that amendment was passed in Congress by the Republican vote, with every Democratic vote opposed. It was passed in three-fourths of the State Legislatures, with every Republican vote in every Legislature in favor of it, and every Democratic vote in every Legislature opposed to it, and to this hour there has never been in any convention of the Democratic party, National, State, county, or district, a single declaration so far as I have seen agreeing to abide by and enforce that amendment." - pg. 141

"...in a Republic where suffrage is universal, we cannot permit a large immigration of people who are to be forbidden the elective franchise." - pg. 235

Political Discussions Legislative, Diplomatic and Popular, 1856-1886, James G. Blaine, printed 1887.

"This Amendment was proposed by Congress, June 16th, 1866, and was declared to be a part of the Constitution, July 21st, 1868, by a concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress. ... According to the opinion given by Mr. Justice Swayne, as already quoted, the emancipation of a slave removes the obstacle to his citizenship. Aliens become citizens by naturalization; slaves, by emancipation." - pg. 254

"The act passed Congress in April, 1866, known as the Civil Rights Bill, gave expression to this opinion. It declared all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, to be citizens of the United States." - pg. 255

"Citizens are either native-born or naturalized. Every person born in the country is, from time of birth, prima facie a citizen. An alien can become a citizen only by compliance with the rule of naturalization prescribed by Congress.

...

In 1790, Congress passed an act requiring two years' residence before a foreigner could become a citizen. In 1795, the time was extended to five years, and in 1798 it was extended to fourteen years. But in 1802, it was reduced to five years, which is the time now required.

...

"...a declaration, on oath, of his purpose to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce all allegiance to any foreign prince or state;..." - pg. 88

"The children of persons duly naturalized, who were under twenty-one at the date of such naturalization, shall be considered citizens, if residing in the United States." - pg. 89

Andrews Manual to the Constitution - Revised Edition, Isreal Ward Andrews, D.D., L.L.D, printed 1887


KEY TAKEAWAYS
  • Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally.
  • Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
  • Birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.
"The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.
Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country." (emphasis added)


"Most legal scholars say such a move would directly contradict the 14th Amendment, which states, “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.”

~ Those legal scholars would be wrong, as equally as wrong as previous lower court and SCOTUS decisions have been in the distant past (many before the 14th was even passed), as outlined in this article: Supreme Court set clear precedent on birthright citizenship | The Hill

The fact remains that the US Government (via democrats/liberals) have been purposely misinterpreting the 14th in created an illegitimate "birthright citizenship" whereas illegal aliens are concerned. The legislative intent, discussions, and final agreements between the states in passing and ratification of said amendment make it crystal clear. 

Whoever becomes the next POTUS, I do hope they end this corruption where illegal aliens and their popping out anchor babies are concerned. They have no right to citizenship without going through the naturalization process.

NOTE: the two cited books at the beginning of this post cannot be linked to online (at least I did not look), because I own the books. 
#2
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@TWS1405_2
Birthright Citizenship does not apply to illegals 
  • What just law in any time or nation would make a newborn child a criminal?  Good humans don't require lawful obedience from those who can't control their circumstance, actions, who can't comprehend law itself.
Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally.
  • "Critics" is quite the reduction of multiple Congresses and Supreme Courts, a century and a half of US Federal law as well as six centuries of English Common Law.  It would be far more accurate to say "The mainstream of American jurisprudence has long claimed..."  rather than dismissing  a core American value and tradition as merely"critics."
Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
  • One of the revolutionary aspects of the American Revolution was the assertion that governments are empowered by poltical allegience rather than the other way around- that people claim thier nation and no sovereign can claim an unwilling citizen as subject.
Birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.
  • The current law regarding birthrights citizenship was implemented by the 14th Ammendment and affirmed more or less continuously ever since but most especially by United States v. Wong Kim Ark which was decided 6-2 by Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals (although the two most conservative members of that court dissented, both Democrats) and upheld and affirmed by generations of Supreme Courts, Republican and Democrat, Conservative and Liberal.  Yes, there is also a long-standing minority tradition of dissent to this tradition that has failed to appeal to the center of American politics for generations.
  • Spakovsky's dismissal of goverment's obedience to the Consistitution and SCOTUS interpretations as "executive fiat" is absurd and clearly looking to falsely, dangerously empower the least lawful executive in American history (Trump).  Let's be sure to note that for legal backing Spakovsky is relying heavily on John C Eastman's reading, the same Eastman who has now lost all jurisprudential credibilty by writing the false, dangerous legal framework for the Republican's attempt to overthrow American Democracy in 2020. (Spakovsky first published this essay in 2011).
  • Spakovsky (and also you by emphatic extension) misrepresents Trumball's authorial, originalist intent.  When asked by fellow Senator Cowan whether his Amendment would not also have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies, Trumball answered "Undoubtedly."  The context being that both Chinese and Roma immigrants were were thought to be especially inseperable from the sovereign will of their overseas masters.  
  • This is not a Conservative v. Liberal debate.  This is a Conservative, Liberal, Republican, and Democrat v. MAGA and other racist extremists debate.

#3
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,831
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
What just law in any time or nation would make a newborn child a criminal? 

See California reparations laws.
#4
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,663
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
White supremacists don't like the 14th ammendment, big surprise.

Lincoln was a Republican, MAGA is RINO.
#5
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,831
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
At this point, all whites are terrorists. Implicitly they are complicit.

#6
Savant
Savant's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 1,999
3
7
6
Savant's avatar
Savant
3
7
6
Birthright Citizenship does not apply to illegals
Well, this is just definitionally true. If someone is a citizen, they're not an illegal immigrant.
#7
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,663
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
At this point, all whites are terrorists. Implicitly they are complicit.

If we elect DeSantis,  it will be illegal to publish articles about racism,  anything with the word "denial", or anything involving someone named Ibram.
#8
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,831
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
Who is talking about elections? There is only one cure for terrorism.
Topic's author
#9
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@oromagi
Birthright Citizenship does not apply to illegals 
  • What just law in any time or nation would make a newborn child a criminal?  Good humans don't require lawful obedience from those who can't control their circumstance, actions, who can't comprehend law itself.
Nice appeal to emotion with that informal fallacy (e.g., Ignoratio Elenchi). 

Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally.
  • "Critics" is quite the reduction of multiple Congresses and Supreme Courts, a century and a half of US Federal law as well as six centuries of English Common Law.  It would be far more accurate to say "The mainstream of American jurisprudence has long claimed..."  rather than dismissing  a (sic) core American value and tradition as merely"critics." (sic) 
This is nothing short of a Tu quoque and Ignoratio Elenchi fallacy.

Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
  • One of the revolutionary aspects of the American Revolution was the assertion that governments are empowered by poltical (sic) allegience (sic) rather than the other way around- that people claim thier (sic) nation and no sovereign can claim an unwilling citizen as subject.

It never ceases to amaze me how you ignore the factually accurate information that contradicts your assertion(s), and spin off with these fallacies and semantics games that have nothing to do with the point being made (i.e., special pleading fallacy). The 13th and 14th Amendments came about after (and because of) the American Revolution, as well as the Civil Rights Bill of 1866 (e.g., reconstruction, citizenship for freed slaves and their future generations - but not Chinese Immigrants).

Birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.
  • The current law regarding birthrights citizenship was implemented by the 14th Ammendment (sic) and affirmed more or less continuously ever since but most especially by United States v. Wong Kim Ark which was decided 6-2 by Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals (although the two most conservative members of that court dissented, both Democrats) and upheld and affirmed by generations of Supreme Courts, Republican and Democrat, Conservative and Liberal.  Yes, there is also a long-standing minority tradition of dissent to this tradition that has failed to appeal to the center of American politics for generations.
I knew someone would bring up US v Womng Kim Ark. That case was decided specifically on Chinese immigration where the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 is concerned, and not immigration across the board (all nationalities). 

The ruling in that case was inherently flawed, as the Justices failed to review the legislative history behind the 14th citizenship cause...instead looking to Common Law, which had nothing to do with the 14th Amendment.

"In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution."

The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, there is no law greater than it, which means you do not look to ancient and archaic laws that came before it in order to apply the Constitution in present (and future) day. You look to the legislative history that gave rise to it.

From the case: "In Fong Yue Ting v. U. S., the right of the United States to expel such Chinese persons was placed upon the grounds that the right to exclude or to expel all aliens, or any class of aliens, absolutely or upon certain conditions, is an inherent and inalienable right of every sovereign and independent [169 U.S. 649, 700]   nation, essential to its safety, its independence, and its welfare; that the power to exclude or to expel aliens, being a power affecting international relations, is vested in the political departments of the government, and is to be regulated by treaty or by act of congress, and to be executed by the executive authority according to the regulations so established, except so far as the judicial department has been authorized by treaty or by statute, or is required by the paramount law of the constitution, to intervene; that the power to exclude and the power to expel aliens rests upon one foundation, are derived from one source, are supported by the same reasons, and are in truth but parts of one and the same power; and therefore that the power of congress to expel, like the power to exclude aliens, or any specified class of aliens, from the country, may be exercised entirely through executive officers; or congress may call in the aid of the judiciary to ascertain any contested facts on which an alien's right to be in the country has been made by congress to depend. 149 U.S. 711, 713 , 714 S., 13 Sup. Ct. 1016."

I am still reading the case, but this section stood out as part and parcel of what I have asserted. 

  • Spakovsky's dismissal of goverment's (sic) obedience to the Consistitution (sic) and SCOTUS interpretations as "executive fiat" is absurd and clearly looking to falsely, dangerously empower the least lawful executive in American history (Trump).  Let's be sure to note that for legal backing Spakovsky is relying heavily on John C Eastman's reading, the same Eastman who has now lost all jurisprudential credibilty (sic) by writing the false, dangerous legal framework for the Republican's attempt to overthrow American Democracy in 2020. (Spakovsky first published this essay in 2011).
I see your point, but he isn't wrong in that the government has in fact failed to remain obedient to their oath of office. Same goes for SCOTUS over the years. They are not supposed to legislate from the bench, and yet they have on many occasions (e.g., Obergefell v Hodges, Bostock v. Clayton County, GA).

  • Spakovsky (and also you by emphatic extension) misrepresents Trumball's authorial, originalist intent.  When asked by fellow Senator Cowan whether his Amendment would not also have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies, Trumball answered "Undoubtedly."  The context being that both Chinese and Roma immigrants were were (sic) thought to be especially inseperable (sic) from the sovereign will of their overseas masters.  
It wasn't a matter of mere thought, but rather by the laws and historical precedence establish that restricted such migration and allowance to denounce their allegiance/citizenship in order to become a naturalized citizen of the United States. 

  • This is not a Conservative v. Liberal debate.  This is a Conservative, Liberal, Republican, and Democrat v. MAGA and other racist extremists (sic) debate.
Wrong. This is a national security and sovereignty debate. 

Why is it when other countries have laws and regulations that are far stricter than the US no one cares, but when we want to enforce our own nation's laws and protect its sovereignty, it is always a "racist extremist" issue!?! Double standards and hypocrisy, anyone, anyone... 


#10
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,831
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@TWS1405_2
Double standards and hypocrisy, anyone, anyone... 
it's amazing how blue states all of a sudden become "Maga country" when enough illegals get bussed into their backyards...
#11
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
I knew someone would bring up US v Womng Kim Ark. That case was decided specifically on Chinese immigration where the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 is concerned, and not immigration across the board (all nationalities). 
  • The fact that you don't know that Supreme Court Rulings are not applied according to nationality is all we need to establish here.
Why is it when other countries have laws and regulations that are far stricter than the US no one cares, but when we want to enforce our own nation's laws and protect its sovereignty, it is always a "racist extremist" issue!?! Double standards and hypocrisy, anyone, anyone... 
  • Because wise men understand that such restriction undermine growth.  At the heart of every empire has been massive cities that take in anybody from anywhere and use that constant stream of immigration for cheap labor and innovation- Alexandria, Rome, Constantinople, Paris, London, New York.  Let other nations freak out about controlling borders- the empires that win have never given a fuck about the origins of the people feuling their success and really powerful nations are always nations that are dramtically shifting demographically.  As Jefferson said, "Why would any man feel any obligation to die by disease or famine in one country, rather than go to another where he can live?” Every person has just as much “right to live on the outside of an artificial geographical line as he has to live within it.”
  • The hypocrisy is entirely in the Republican's court so long as they continue to resist outlawing the employment of the undocumented.  Trump proudly boasts that he employs more than 300 undocumented workers which is why the workers continue to come.  Criminalize the EMPLOYER of undocumented workers rather than the EMPLOYEE, slap Trump in jail for a couple of years for dodging every labor law on the books and the employment of the undocumented will stop immediately.  Look at all the major job groups that employ undocumented -meat producers, farming, fishing, mining, timber they are ALL industries that are famously dominated by Republican interests.   The very moment Republican voters look away from the border and realize that it is their political and industrial leaders that primarily  illegally profit from undocumented workers and are desperate to maintain the status quo to pad thier pockets in spite of their constant rhetoric to the contrary, that is the moment that undocumented workers will lose any reason to come to America.


Topic's author
#12
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@oromagi
I knew someone would bring up US v Womng Kim Ark. That case was decided specifically on Chinese immigration where the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 is concerned, and not immigration across the board (all nationalities). 
  • The fact that you don't know that Supreme Court Rulings are not applied according to nationality is all we need to establish here.
True. It establishes you have zero legal background, either academically or professionally. 

Why is it when other countries have laws and regulations that are far stricter than the US no one cares, but when we want to enforce our own nation's laws and protect its sovereignty, it is always a "racist extremist" issue!?! Double standards and hypocrisy, anyone, anyone... 
  • Because wise men understand that such restriction undermine growth.  At the heart of every empire has been massive cities that take in anybody from anywhere and use that constant stream of immigration for cheap labor and innovation- Alexandria, Rome, Constantinople, Paris, London, New York.  Let other nations freak out about controlling borders- the empires that win have never given a fuck about the origins of the people feuling their success and really powerful nations are always nations that are dramtically shifting demographically.  As Jefferson said, "Why would any man feel any obligation to die by disease or famine in one country, rather than go to another where he can live?” Every person has just as much “right to live on the outside of an artificial geographical line as he has to live within it.”
Where is Alexandria, Rome, Constantinople, etc. today? Gone. Why? Too much D.E.I. crap!!! When peoples from differing cultures, backgrounds, nationalities, ethnicities, and religions crowd one area without any one culture/group willing to assimilate to the dominate one...division arises just as we are witnessing present day in America. Elitists capitalize on that division and even add fuel to the flames of that division in order to stay in power with their lies, deceit and corruption.

Jefferson was wrong, because when one country has eradicated most diseases and controlled famine, inviting others in from countries that are rife with those diseases eradicated for whom would reintroduce said diseases and affect the health and safety of the nation's citizens, would be a nihilist. A beggar of their own demise. 

  • The hypocrisy is entirely in the Republican's court so long as they continue to resist outlawing the employment of the undocumented.  Trump proudly boasts that he employs more than 300 undocumented workers which is why the workers continue to come.  Criminalize the EMPLOYER of undocumented workers rather than the EMPLOYEE, slap Trump in jail for a couple of years for dodging every labor law on the books and the employment of the undocumented will stop immediately.  Look at all the major job groups that employ undocumented -meat producers, farming, fishing, mining, timber they are ALL industries that are famously dominated by Republican interests.   The very moment Republican voters look away from the border and realize that it is their political and industrial leaders that primarily  illegally profit from undocumented workers and are desperate to maintain the status quo to pad thier pockets in spite of their constant rhetoric to the contrary, that is the moment that undocumented workers will lose any reason to come to America.
No, the hypocrisy is entirely upon the Democrats who hate American citizens wanting to work, so they make up lies like "illegals do the work American's refuse to." Total BS! Before illegals became a problem, American citizens were doing ALL the work, and when they became wealthier, they paid other Americans to do their work for them. 
#13
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@oromagi
True. It establishes you have zero legal background, either academically or professionally. 
You know TWS worked as a dispatcher for some county Sheriff’s office in Jerkwater, USA.

So he’s practically a lawyer except he has no training or education or credentials 
#14
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,831
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
grats on being a successful gay.
Topic's author
#15
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
The ―originalist‖ argument is that the legislative debates and (to a lesser extent) the overall history of American citizenship and political theory show a ―clear intent‖ that birthright citizenship should extend only to children of American citizens and perhaps of lawful permanent residents, but not reach the children of foreign nationals temporarily resident in the United States, whether legally or illegally.

The historical background cited by Dean Eastman is that sketched by Professors Schuck and Smith in their work on the theory of citizenship in Anglo-American legal theory. The thesis of this work, and of subsequent work relied upon by restrictionists, is that modern, as opposed to feudal, citizenship requires consent of the citizen and a willingness to subject herself to the complete dominance of the nation. Thus, children of temporary sojourners—and, for that matter, any persons retaining citizenship in more than one country at the same time—cannot be viewed as fulfilling the conditions for citizenship under a proper modern definition.

In particular, the authors suggest that children of illegal immigrants did not at the time of Framing, do not now, and should not fall within the meaning of ―subject to the jurisdiction.‖ This is because the children carry at birth the taint of their parents‘ criminality: ―The parents of such children are, by definition, individuals whose presence within the jurisdiction of the United States is prohibited by law. They [the parents] are manifestly individuals, therefore, to whom the society has explicitly and self-consciously decided to deny membership.





Topic's author
#16
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
IwantRooseveltagain,

True. It establishes you have zero legal background, either academically or professionally. 
You know TWS worked as a dispatcher for some county Sheriff’s office in Jerkwater, USA.

So he’s practically a lawyer except he has no training or education or credentials 

Never worked as a dispatcher, Mr Stolen Valor with anger management issues.
I do have the education, two degrees, and worked 3+ years for a DA's Office supporting 2 felony attorneys, 2 misdemeanor attorneys, the office manager, special projections for the DA, and the backup grand jury coordinator. I was the Jack of ALL TRADES in that office supporting many attorneys in a variety of capacities. 

Topic's author
#17
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
BUMP
#18
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
I do have the education, two degrees, and worked 3+ years for a DA's Office 
Ok, which correspondence course did you get your “degrees” from?

Mopping floors in an office building doesn’t really mean you worked in a law office. You are like Dwight Schrute, saying you are the assistant regional manager when in fact you were an assistant to the regional manager 

I was the Jack of ALL TRADES in that office
Lol, more like the Jack ass of all trades. So you could clean the bathrooms and do some light repairs too?


#19
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,831
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
lol, fanchick go brrr.