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.
Despite all of the so-called "precedent" for eliminating birthright citizenship for the children of "unauthorized migrants," that "dog won't hunt" without another amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Period.
Incorrect. No Amendment needed. Just follow federal nationality law. NOT everyone born in the US is automatically a US citizen at birth.
How do we know? It's already been explained to you...
If 'everyone' born in the US were actually automatically US citizens, subsection (b) would be redundant and would be neither included nor necessary:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
Both cases refer to a person born in the US, but an exception had to be specifically legally made to grant US-born members of US Native American tribes US citizenship at birth.
Only 27 (or 0.23%) of them managed to get ratified.
I rest my case....Won't happen. School prayer, the abortion issue, term limits for congress amendments and other hot bed knee jerk items will never see the light of day.
Original intent is very much part of originalism. To get to this intent, originalists often look to the common understanding/meaning of a law/document/phrase/etc. when said law/document/phrase/etc. was drafted; this helps to show intent of framers of what law is supposed to mean/what law does mean. The rationale is that the framers knew that their words had a certain meaning/understanding among the general public when they drafted their documents, which helps to show what their intent was by using such language that would've been commonly understood. In the context of the civil war and question over the rights of freed slaves/other blacks post civil war, its a tough pill to swallow that the birthright citizenship clause was enacted to deal with anything but this issue (and the clause's drafter says as much).
That said, many disfavor a narrow attempt to determine what the original intent was because its often difficult to ascertain what the original intent was (and, indeed, there are often many different intents behind a piece of legislation). But when the original intent of a law/phrase/etc. is clear by way of the author of said law/phrase/etc., then it is especially helpful to understanding what the original meaning is.
Originalism has evolved, and "original intent" is a minor part of contemporary originalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident
Moving along, the original understanding of the birthright citizenship clause wouldn't even support birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants (as has been mentioned before, the original understanding was for the clause to guarantee freedom for blacks in this country). Just like the original understanding (as Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and others pointed out) of the equal protection clause did not intend a requirement that same sex marriage be made legal, despite an argument that can be made that, by the "text," such is required. The text is rarely in black and white. It often requires context, both historical context and context provided by intent.
This needs to happen to have a decision once and for all. Any anchors born to illegals will not be american citizens, but they will be citizens of their illegal parents' home country
Why isn't the current answer "an answer once and for all?"
Do we need to change the constitution every time the political winds temporarily change?
Considering that the "Citizenship Clause" of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution pretty much settled the issue, the Supreme Court will probably deny certiorari to any case that directly raises it. The reverent part of the 14th Amendment is as follows…
Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
That the law was instituted to make sure American born slaves children were granted citizenship hardly equates to illegal aliens crossing into our country, having a baby and them being granted citizenship.
I think once a few more liberal kooks leave the SCOTUS, we might actually get a sane ruling on this issue.
Stop wasting prayers. I can bet you were an anchor baby as well. Most Americans want sensible immigration reform with a path to legalization. Pair that with a robust enforcement of our immigration laws.
No they don't. Even a lot of liberals want illegals gone
It's never gone to the supreme court
Illegals having kids
It can't get any clearer than this...
"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."
What are you hoping for? That somehow "All Persons" means all persons except those of Hispanic ancestry - or of parents who are of Islamic religion?
How can anyone born in the US not be subject to it's jurisdiction from the first breath and instance? Surely they are subject to every US law the minute they arrive - as those on the right claim all illegal aliens are: "They broke the lay by entering the country."
The only people I know of who are not subject to US laws when in the US are diplomats. So, I guess we'd better go round up the thousands of children born to diplomats and kick them out of the country. Pronto!
This is surely a losing proposition and a waste of court time.
Last edited by blktoptrvl; 05-09-2017 at 04:54 PM..
"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."
What are you hoping for? That somehow "All Persons" means all persons except those of Hispanic ancestry - or of parents who are of Islamic religion?
How can anyone born in the US not be subject to it's jurisdiction from the first breath and instance? Surely they are subject to every US law the minute they arrive - as those on the right claim all illegal aliens are: "They broke the lay by entering the country."
The only people I know of who are not subject to US laws when in the US are diplomats. So, I guess we'd better go round up the thousands of children born to diplomats and kick them out of the country. Pronto!
This is surely a losing proposition and a waste of court time.
Yes, sure it is. It almost literally drips off of almost every sentence written by so many people on the right.
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.
