Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenPineTree
He said he's "looking into it" not that's he's gonna end it. He's probably having his lawyers do some brainstorming.
He could try to pass some legislation or some EO that will be challenged in courts and hopefully the USSC will reverse itself. Not likely though. Justice Roberts will vote on precedence no matter if that precedence is wrong.
The only viable option is amending the constitution. I honestly don't know why ANY American would be against it. Why are you against limiting the scope of birthright citizenship to just "legal residents." Does it make sense for tourists who give birth or worse, illegal aliens, to pop out American citizens? It cheapens our citizenship. What does it mean to be an American, the latitude and longitude of your mother's womb as she's giving birth? Please, f*ck that. No wonder why all the kids from our FOB immigrants don't consider themselves "Americans" (and quite frankly I don't consider them to be either). If something is so easy to get, you don't value it.
|
I disagree. There's just too much historic and legal precedent that establishes that the 14th Amendment was never meant to apply to illegal aliens or even temporary foreign (legal) visitors.
Given the following (which is actually only a short list), there is no cause whatsoever to grant the children of alien parents US citizenship, unless they are US citizens or LPRs.
1) The 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868) and it's original intent:
Senator Trumbull: "The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Congressional Record:
http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/073/0000/00152893.tif
Trumbull's role in drafting and introducing the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100304...about/history/
Children born in the U.S. to a foreign citizen parent whose country has jus sanguinis (right of blood) citizenship law were never supposed to be born U.S. citizens. They may choose to naturalize as a U.S. citizen at some point, but they were never intended to be U.S. citizens at birth. Only those ignorant of historical fact and the Congressional Record misinterpret the 14th Amendment to mean anything else.
2) Article XXV Section 1992 of the 1877 Revised Statutes, enacted 9 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, which clarified exactly who are U.S. citizens at birth per the Constitution:
"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States".
https://books.google.com/books?id=kr...tizens&f=false
3) U.S. Secretaries of State determinations as to exactly who has birthright citizenship, after ratification of the 14th Amendment:
Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen (1881-1885) determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien father.
Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard (1885-1889) determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Both cases cited in this digest:
https://books.google.com/books?id=47...page&q&f=false
4) In regards to illegal aliens' anchor babies... Their parents were NOT in the U.S. legally and therefore did NOT have a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S. as did Wong Kim Ark's, a fact on which SCOTUS based their determination that WKA was born a U.S. citizen:
Wong Kim Ark ruling:
"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 parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil 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."
The parents must have a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S. WKA's parents were living in the U.S. legally. Illegal immigrants don't have a permanent domicile in the U.S. because they are in the country illegally. They aren't even supposed to be here at all. Furthermore, it is a federal offense to harbor an illegal alien in the U.S., or aid or abet in their harboring in the U.S. Illegal aliens' permanent domicile is in their home country; the country which would issue their passports were they to have one.
5) The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 which had to be enacted because even when Native Americans were born in the U.S., they were not U.S. citizens. Why? Because they were subject to a foreign power (their respective sovereign US Indian Nations). Note that the 1924 date of this Act is significantly later than both the 14th Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark ruling.
And, finally...
6) Read current US Nationality Law, specifically subsections (a) and (b). If everyone born in the US were actually automatically US citizens, subsection (b) would be redundant and would be neither included nor necessary:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
I realize that's a lot of historical and current legal information to digest. But sadly, our public education system is such a joke that very few people are aware of the history surrounding the 14th Amendment and how subsequent births to parents of various nationalities were treated in the U.S. up until "political policy" (neither the Constitution nor federal nationality law) very recently changed.
And Roberts does in fact sometimes rule to overturn prior SCOTUS decisions. He just did so in Knick v. Township of Scott, a 5th Amendment property rights case.
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.
) and so forth.
