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.
OK, here's the relevant text. What in it supports your argument?
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.
A birthright baby is one that's "born in the United States." ("Naturalized" is irrelevant here). Thus, a baby born in the US of two parents who were themselves ineligible to be naturalized is nonetheless a citizen of the United States. That's been the law since U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 688 (1898).
If the baby is present in the United States, he or she is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" by virtue of that presence, just like almost everyone else present in the country. ("Jurisdiction" is the government's general power to exercise authority over all persons and things within its territory. Black's Law Dictionary 960 (10th ed.). The exceptions are children born to diplomatic representatives of a foreign country, children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, or children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws. (Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 680-82).
The plain language of the amendment contradicts your argument.
Nope! "And" subject to the jurisdiction thereof is your clue. If anyone born on our soil were automatically birthright citizens there would have been no need for that clause. That is the qualifier. Their parents being in our country illegally disqualifies them as they and their newborn are not subject to our jurisdiction.
WHY is subsection (b) included in CURRENT US Nationality Law?
I'm specifically referring to subsections (a) and (b) in the following linked CURRENT Federal Law. If "everyone" born in the US were actually automatically US citizens via the 14th Amendment, 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
You need to understand WHY that specific legal exception had to be made for a child of at least one US-born Indian (Native American), Eskimo, Aleutian, and other US aboriginals to understand WHY not all those born in the US are automatically US Citizens.
(Hint: It's because they are born subject to a foreign sovereign entity. So are legal AND illegal aliens' children, but no legal exception has ever been made for them as was made for the US-born children of US-born aboriginals in the Indian Citizenship Act of1924 - LONG after the ratification of the 14th Amendment.)
The so-called "anchor babies" and babies born in the US to one US citizen parent and one foreign parent are political policy citizens only, not actual legal citizens.
The Wong Kim Ark ruling extended birth right citizenship to the US-born children of PERMANENT Legal Residents, but no such extensions have ever been legally granted to anyone else; not to the children of tourists, nor those here on temporary visas or other temporary basis, and not illegal aliens.
That's a twisted view of the subsection. Section (b) is required because being a member of the aboriginal tribe enables you to have MORE rights than normal US Citizenship. You're a US Citizen and a Citizen of your tribal nation, which enumerates specific benefits not open to other non-aboriginals. Remember your constitutional theory, everything is yes, unless specifically said no. Subsection (b) only applies to American aboriginal tribes, and is not extrapolated to non-US citizens.
That's a twisted view of the subsection. Section (b) is required because being a member of the aboriginal tribe enables you to have MORE rights than normal US Citizenship.
That's an incorrect interpretation. In fact, even though born in the US, they weren't legally added as recognized born US citizens until 1924, 56 years AFTER the 14th Amendment was ratified.
It is quite clear that...
1) The 14th Amendment did NOT automatically make everyone born in the US a US citizen.
and...
2) The children of illegal aliens and other non-LPR foreign national parents are NOT legally US citizens according to US Nationality Law. No exception has ever been made for them as was made for US-born members of Native American tribes, US-born Inuits, etc.
Prior to the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, the Dawes Act (1887) only gave American citizenship to Native Americans who accepted individual land grants under the provisions of statutes and treaties.
Essentially, and legally, you're completely incorrect.
My idea comes to life almost a year after the last post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by saibot
Seems reasonable to me. Non-citizen children go back with their parents. If the children are citizens, the parents make the choice to take them back (they can return if they want when they are no longer minors), or leave them with a guardian who is also a citizen.
These are parents who came with children or gave birth to children on US soil knowing they were doing something wrong (remaining in the country illegally) and chose to take their chances. Don't tell me a single one of them assumed they would get to stay forever with no possibility of repercussions. They knew what could happen.
I feel sorry for people who have bad things happen to them even though they made good choices, not for people who have bad things happen because they deliberately made bad choices.
I still for one say birthright citizenship clause of the 14th amendment preceded by over 5 decades the legal status of illegal alien, so to say it applies to the children of illegal alien isn't a given. All that should be required is an executive order or law that's passed saying they are not to be granted citizenship.
Otherwise, it would be akin to arguing you'd have to amend/repeal the 2nd amendment to pass one gun law restriction. But liberals never are consistent.
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.
Ahmed Mohamed, Irving's infamous 'Clock Boy,' returning to the United States
