Trump says he is seriously looking at ending birthright citizeneship (nativist, education system)
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.
I will ask again: Given that the drafters and the Supreme Court have all opined that "jurisdiction" in the 14th Amendment refers to the application of US civil and criminal laws by a United States court, explain how an illegal immigrant is less "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US than a legal immigrant or citizen.
Actually, they didn't.
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."
Children born in the U.S. to foreign citizen parents 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.
Like I said, Please stop spreading misinformation. It's why no one believes anything you post.
While United States v. Kim Wong Ark did not expressly address the offspring of illegal immigrants, that case did confirm a number of things:
First, it eliminates the ridiculous "'jurisdiction' means 'allegiance to the United States'" argument, because the Plaintiff's parents were not US citizens and they had no allegiance to the United States. Indeed, they were "Chinese descent and subjects of the Emperor of China" and moved back to China shortly after the Plaintiff's birth. So, if Ark was a citizen despite his parents' lack of citizenship, then obviously the citizenship of one's parents is not a factor when analyzing the application of the 14th Amendment.
Second, it undermines the corollary claim that "only citizens can give birth to citizens."
Third, it requires that anyone arguing that illegal immigrants cannot sire a baby with 14th Amendment citizenship rights demonstrate than illegal immigrants somehow are less under US jurisdiction that legal non-citizens who are merely "sojourners" as the Plaintiff's parents were - something that I have yet to see anyone plausibly do. Put differently, that case confirmed green card holders and legal visitors can give birth to children with 14th Amendment citizenship. I do not see how either of those categories of people are more "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US than illegal immigrants and the Supreme Court in Plyer appears to agree on that point.
Fourth, it eliminates any claim that the 14th Amendment is only supposed to apply to slaves.
Fifth, in discussing what "subject to the jurisdiction" means, the Court opines that "[i]t is impossible . . . to hold that persons 'within the jurisdiction' of one of the States of the Union are not 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'" The Court further confirmed that "jurisdiction" is a measure of the application of the State's laws. Moreover, the Court flatly held that "Jurisdiction . . as applied to the State, it refers simply to its power over persons and things within its particular limits."
So no, ultimately, US v. Wong Kim Ark did not expressly resolve this question expressly. However, it does definitively cut off a number of arguments being advanced by you here.
Justice Gray specifically limited the effect of the WKA ruling. I already quoted and cited it.
"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 determinationthe 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."
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."
Children born in the U.S. to foreign citizen parents 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.
Like I said, Please stop spreading misinformation. It's why no one believes anything you post.
So when the drafters of the 14th Amendment said it was intended "to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States" and that "[w]e are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this amendment that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to the same rights and equal protection before the law" they meant what, exactly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Trump's mother naturalized as a US citizen before Trump was born. Please stop spreading misinformation. It's why no one believes anything you post.
Fredrech "Fred" Christ Trump's mother was a German citizen who emigrated to the US with her husband, Friedrich Trump (a naturalized US citizen). While Donald Trump's mother may have naturalized and become a citizen before he was born, his father's mother had not done so. If we were to accept that one cannot become a natural-born citizen if one's parents are foreign citizens themselves (and, to be clear, I don't), then you can follow the butterfly effect from Fred Trump's lack of legitimate citizenship and its effect on his childrens' citizenship status.
So when the drafters of the 14th Amendment said it was intended "to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States" and that "[w]e are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this amendment that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to the same rights and equal protection before the law" they meant what, exactly?
The drafters of the 14th Amendment didn't say that. I posted an image of the Congressional Record. Read it.
Quote:
Fredrech "Fred" Christ Trump's mother was a German citizen who emigrated to the US with her husband, Friedrich Trump (a naturalized US citizen). While Donald Trump's mother may have naturalized and become a citizen before he was born, his father's mother had not done so.
Whether true or not, that makes no difference. Trump's mother was a naturalized US citizen at the time of his birth.
The drafters of the 14th Amendment didn't say that. I posted an image of the Congressional Record. Read it.
You posted one page of the congressional record.
Indeed, Sen. Conness noted that the 14th Amendment sought "to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States." (emphasis mine). Senator Trumbull likewise confirmed it and pointed out that anyone who is birthed "if they are there and within the jurisdiction of Colorado and subject to the laws of Colorado, they ought to be citizens".
And when the drafting Senators raised questions as to whether the Amendment could be read to exclude foreigners and aliens, Senator Conness disagreed, pointing out that "[w]e are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this amendment that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to the same rights and equal protection before the law".
Now that you are once-again provided with the links to the Congressional record memorializing the drafters' statements, you will see that your claim that "the drafters of the 14th Amendment didn't say that" is flatly untrue.
Indeed, Sen. Conness noted that the 14th Amendment sought "to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States." (emphasis mine). Senator Trumbull likewise confirmed it and pointed out that anyone who is birthed "if they are there and within the jurisdiction of Colorado and subject to the laws of Colorado, they ought to be citizens".
Sen. Conness didn't draft the 14th Amendment.
Furthermore, you need to read Trumbull's entire quote, clarifying the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof":
Mr. TRUMBULL: The Senator from Ohio says they ought to be. If they are there and within the jurisdiction of Colorado, and subject to the laws of Colorado, they ought to be citizens; and that is all that is proposed. It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."
Furthermore, you need to read Trumbull's entire quote, clarifying the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof":
Mr. TRUMBULL: The Senator from Ohio says they ought to be. If they are there and within the jurisdiction of Colorado, and subject to the laws of Colorado, they ought to be citizens; and that is all that is proposed. It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."
And there you have it.
And yet while Kim Wong Ark Ark's parents were both of "Chinese descent and subjects of the Emperor of China" Kim Wong Ark himself? US citizen.
What does that tell us? That your parents' nationality has nothing to do with your ability to become a citizen by birthright if you are born on US soil and that your belief that "[c]hildren born in the U.S. to foreign citizen parents were never supposed to be born U.S. citizens" is ultimately misplaced.
Sen. Trumbull is quite clear that the "Wild Indians" that cannot be sued in US Courts and are governed by tribal rules, rather than US law, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States under the 14th Amendment while it is "those persons who come completely in our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws; that we think of making citizens."
If you read it, the legislative record is clear and sensible. The 14th Amendment intended that those born in the United States, and not born either (i) in a territory beyond the reach of US laws and courts (such as "Wild Indians" as they put it, who live in tribes deemed to be "quasi-foriegn nations" with whom the US has treaties); or (ii) with some diplomatic protection that brings them outside of the reach of US laws and courts (such as diplomats and their families), then you are a citizen. This makes sense, because those beyond the reach of the US courts and laws for any reason are not "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]".
Indeed, this is exactly what the Court in Kim Wong Ark found, when they opined as follows: "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. . . Thus, Congress, when dealing with the question of citizenship in that aspect, treated aliens residing in this country as 'under the jurisdiction of the United States,' and American parents residing abroad as 'out of the jurisdiction of the United States.'"
Indeed, I don't know if the Supreme Court could have been more clear in writing that "[t]he foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.
And yet while Wong Ark Ark's parents were both of "Chinese descent and subjects of the Emperor of China," Kim Wong Ark himself? US citizen.
Only because WKA's parents had a permanent domicile in the US. Illegal aliens don't have a permanent domicile in the US. They aren't supposed to be here. Their legal permanent domicile is in their home country, the country which would issue their passport were they to have one. Remember Gray's ruling? He limited it to "the single question." WKA's ruling applies only to what we now know as LPRs. LEGAL permanent residents.
Just issue the EO ending birthright citizenship and let's see if we officially stand as a fake country with fake citizens or not.
Your nativist wishful thinking aside, it wouldn't pass Constitutional muster and would be DOA.
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.
