Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A vast amount of English common law is codified in the Constitution. As Justice Matthews opined in the Supreme Court decision for the case Smith v. Alabama:
Quote:
The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.
The phrase "natural-born citizen" existed nowhere in the English language prior to its invention as a specific common law term of art more than 300 years before the Constitution was written. It has never had any other definition.
I'm not sure what you are claiming has been "debunked", that the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses are not also present in the 14th Amendment, or that the entire Amendment applies to more than just the descendents of slaves...
That's because there was no such thing as "illegals" during most of the 500 years of Anglo-American common law that defines birthright citizenship. The Founders and Framers never even considered the idea that we should keep out people who want to come here.
So this is one of those cases where "original intent" pretty much bites the conservative position on the ass.
Wrong. You speak here of the 14th Amendment. But birthright citizenship was already the law here since before Independence. The 14th extended citizenship to freed slaves, certainly. But not by being "only intended" for them. Congress (and later the States via ratification) declared for everybody. Note: it says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." not just "The children of slaves." And as the author of the citizenship clause pointed out, he was not changing the citizenship law one iota. He was merely being declarative of the law as it had always been.
Then you better get started on the Constitutional Amendment. They are hard and they take a long time.
Isn't that the point here, the Fourteenth Amendment? You speak of "original intent" in one context then claim it isn't applicable in another.
In regards to the 14th, the "intent" issue helps no one either side. It's the "subject to the jurisdiction of" part of the law that matters. When it comes to citizenship law in the U.S., if you are born outside of the country, the only way to gain "citizenship at time of birth" status, is if one of your parents is a U.S. Citizen.
This inference is old and established, standing law. There is another law of inference that involves children of diplomats not being eligible for citizenship if born on U.S. soil.
All decisions made on this issue to date, never really involved an illegal immigrant, only legal immigrants being racially hararassed.
Children of Slaves is very clearly the only clear intended beneficiary of the law. Everybody else
falls in the, subject to the jurisdiction of,category, a vagary at best.
Isn't that the point here, the Fourteenth Amendment?
No. The 14th Amendment did not change US citizenship law. You even quoted the part where I made that point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanQuest
You speak of "original intent" in one context then claim it isn't applicable in another.
Where have I ever declared it not applicable? You appear to be imagining things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanQuest
Children of Slaves is very clearly the only clear intended beneficiary of the law.
Nonsense. How did you miss what is already contained in the text of mine you quoted?
The 14th Amendment explicitly speaks to "All persons" not just "some persons" or just the children of slaves.
Second, the citizenship clause is only one small piece of the 14th Amendment. Certainly you would not suggest that the equal protection clause or the due process clause are only intended to benefit the children of slaves.
As the author of the citizenship clause, Senator Jacob Howard said when he introduced the addition, "This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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."
Quote:
Originally Posted by UrbanQuest
It would Everybody else
falls in the, subject to the jurisdiction of,category, a vagary at best.
Nothing vague about it. The Supreme court has told us exactly what it means:
Quote:
The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.
And this is codified in the US Constitution? Where, exactly except in your biased imagination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Article II.
I note that you didn't take the time to deny that you have a biased imagination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjwebbster
I agree, but, as long as that idiot Obama is in the WH nothing will change.
The same could be said about his predecessor, though I would call neither of them idiots.
You don't graduate from Yale or Columbia and be an idiot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
That's because there was no such thing as "illegals" during most of the 500 years of Anglo-American common law that defines birthright citizenship. The Founders and Framers never even considered the idea that we should keep out people who want to come here.
The United states did not have immigration laws in the late 18th and early 19th centuries?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
With the sole exception of the 18th Amendment, that carefully contrived gauntlet of Constitutional modification has not failed us.
You forgot about the 19th Amendment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude
Article II.
Article II deals with the executive branch, not birthright citizenship.
Last edited by Yac; 04-03-2013 at 03:12 AM..
Reason: 5 (!) posts in a row merged
The United states did not have immigration laws in the late 18th and early 19th centuries?
There were none in the 18th century.
The first act to restrict immigration in US history was the 1875 Page Act. It restricted the immigration of three classes of "undesirables." They were anybody from Asia who was coming to America to be a "forced laborer," any Asian woman who would engage in prostitution (apparently European hookers were okay), and prison escapees.
The last surviving Framer of the US Constitution, James Madison, had been dead for 39 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mensa130
Article II deals with the executive branch, not birthright citizenship.
To say "Article II deals with the executive branch" is a lot like saying "Homers Iliad is about a city."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mensa130
I note that you didn't take the time to deny that you have a biased imagination.
I come by my baises honestly. They are not the product of prejudice, but of wisdom.
Last edited by Yac; 04-03-2013 at 03:13 AM..
Reason: 3 posts in a row merged
The first act to restrict immigration in US history was the 1875 Page Act. It restricted the immigration of three classes of "undesirables." They were anybody from Asia who was coming to America to be a "forced laborer," any Asian woman who would engage in prostitution (apparently European hookers were okay), and prison escapees.
The last surviving Framer of the US Constitution, James Madison, had been dead for 39 years.
Weren't custom officers given wide latitude to deny people from entering the USA? So there were some restrictions.
Weren't custom officers given wide latitude to deny people from entering the USA?
No. The sole responsibility of customs officers was duty collection. All the way back to the 5th act of Congress that established what became the Customs Service, they have never held responsibility for immigration.
Last edited by HistorianDude; 03-31-2013 at 09:38 AM..
Only way this will happen is if the constitution is changed. This will not happen under the current political situation. I always been of the though that a person should not get citizenship in any country simply for being born in that country. Citizenship should only be granted if at least one parent is a legal resident or is acquired legally through other means.
I am quite ambivalent as to whether or not birthright citizenship should be changed. But like John Adams I consider ourselves a nation of laws and not of men. The Constitution was made difficult to change specifically to buffer it from political fashion or the emotions of the masses. With the sole exception of the 18th Amendment, that carefully contrived gauntlet of Constitutional modification has not failed us..
Thank God.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
