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.
Your nativist wishful thinking aside, it wouldn't pass Constitutional muster and would be DOA.
On the contrary, there is a lot of historic and legal evidence, otherwise:
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
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."
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".
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.
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, buthave 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:
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.
Nope. That wasn't granted until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. As US-born children of foreign national parents (their respective tribes/nations), they were not 14th Amendment birthright citizens regardless of where in the US they were born.
Again, read CURRENT US Nationality Law that specifically cites the legal exception made for them which still exists to this day. Specifically, read 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:
On the contrary, there is a lot of historic and legal evidence, otherwise:
Bastardizing what Sen. Trumbull said by cherrypicking one line out of a lengthy statement distinguishing those required to abide by US law in US territory, and subject to being sued or prosecuted in a US court from those who live in a quasi-foreign land beyond the reach of US courts and governed by tribal law rather than US law (e.g., Native Americans on Native American tribal lands) and those enjoying consular immunity (e.g., diplomats and their families) doesn't change the point he was making (later recognized by the Supreme Court): If you are born in the US and required to abide by US civil and criminal law and can sue or be sued in a US Court, you are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States under the 14th Amendment.
But not before Trump's sisters and brother were born--so a family full of anchor babies?
What does that have to do with Trump? Anyway, when their mother naturalized as a US citizen, so did her minor children. In fact, that's still true to this day. You don't see minors naturalizing. Their parent's naturalization confers US citizenship to any and all minor children.
Bastardizing what Sen. Trumbull said by cherrypicking one line out of a lengthy statement distinguishing those required to abide by US law in US territory, and subject to being sued or prosecuted in a US court from those who live in a quasi-foreign land beyond the reach of US courts and governed by tribal law rather than US law (e.g., Native Americans on Native American tribal lands) and those enjoying consular immunity (e.g., diplomats and their families) doesn't change the point he was making (later recognized by the Supreme Court): If you are born in the US and required to abide by US civil and criminal law and can sue or be sued in a US Court, you are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States under the 14th Amendment.
Not true, at all. Let's recap:
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."
To repeat... 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."
All of the other evidence and historic facts I've posted confirms exactly that understanding of the 14th Amendment.
Now, if you can somehow come up with a US Legislative Act that granted the US-born children of illegal aliens birthright citizenship, as was done for Indians in 1924, I'd be willing to take a look at it.
Remember, even according to CURRENT US Nationality Law, if everyone born in the US were actually automatically US citizens, subsection (b) would be redundant and would be neither included nor necessary:
What does that have to do with Trump? Anyway, when their mother naturalized as a US citizen, so did her minor children. In fact, that's still true to this day. You don't see minors naturalizing. Their parent's naturalization confers US citizenship to any and all minor children.
Apparently, the one you are replying to doesn't know what an anchor baby is. An anchor baby is one born from illegal alien parents, duh.
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.
Two points: First, there is nothing in WKA indicating that a child with non-domiciled parents are not entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
Second, illegal aliens most certainly can have domicile in the US. See Plyer v. Doe, U.S. 202, 227 n.22 (1982)("And illegal entry into the country would not, under traditional criteria, bar a person from obtaining domicile within a State."); see also Garcia v. Angulo, 644 A.2d 498, 506–10 (Md. 1994) (Chasanow & Bell, J.J., concurring) (collecting cases); Caballero v. Martinez, 897 A.2d 1026, 1032–33 (N.J. 2006) (collecting cases); Das v. Das, 603 A.2d 139, 142 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1992) (collecting cases).
Apparently, the one you are replying to doesn't know what an anchor baby is. An anchor baby is one born from illegal alien parents, duh.
Nope. Wrong again.
An anchor baby is a baby born in a country that has birthright citizenship to a non-citizen mother - legal immigrant non-citizens, included. Duh.
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.
An anchor baby is one born from illegal alien parents, duh.
