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 excellent find [of cases where the Secty of State in the 1800s ruled that children born of illegal aliens were not citizens].
Does anyone know of any cases where the Secretary of State (or Congress or any other such relevant authority) ruled that a baby born in the U.S. to two illegal-alien parents, WAS a citizen of the United States?
Actually, I can think of about a zillion cases offhand, where the baby of illegal aliens was ASSUMED to be an American citizen. Happens all the time.
People in this forum have talked about "birth tourism" where Aisians and Europeans come here just to have their baby and then go home with the baby, but the baby is considered an American citizen. But in all those cases, the parents were legally granted permission to come into the United States before having their baby, and still had that permission when the baby was born.
What about someone who walks across the U.S. border illegally from Mexico or Canada, or overstays a temporary visa, and has their baby then? As the baby is being born, the parents do NOT have permission from the U.S. govt to be here. We seem to assume that their baby is a U.S. citizen anyway. But has a relevant U.S. authority (Secty of State or Congress or etc.) ever formally declared that one of those babies IS "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US, and DUE TO THAT the baby IS legally a U.S. citizen?
Inquiring minds want to know.
The phrase "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is mentioned in the Constitution (14th amendment), but not defined anywhere in that document.
Which means it is up to Congress to define it.
Have they ever done that? Has anybody seen any examples?
So if they aren’t subject to our jurisdiction, if an illegal alien commits murder we can’t charge the illegal alien with a crime because they aren’t subject to our jurisdiction? That doesn’t make sense.
Once again, the jurisdiction clause applies to the persons born, not the parents. Btw, if illegal aliens are subject to our jurisdiction then why are they entitled to consular access?
Depends on the interpretation now doesn't it? Yeah it does. It will go to SCOTUS and finally be resolved. It wasn't meant to be used as a citizenship generator for foreigners and everyone knows it but they cheat the system with it.
What happened to a strict interpretation of the US Constitution?
then why would the framers add that requirement?
if being "born" means "subject to jurisdiction" then it is redundant.
The framers were very careful about their wording and inclusion meant something.
It is clear that Trump intends for the SCOTUS to take another look at this. Its going to be an interesting process but this has not been looked at since 1890. A lot has changed. could be SCOTUS will simply reaffirm US vs Wonk Kim Ark. 1898
That would be interesting, as the WKA ruling directly stipulates that parents must have a permanent domicile in the US. Illegally aliens don't have such. They're not even supposed to be in the US at all.
Quote:
however its possible they could both reaffirm Wong and exclude illegal aliens at the same time. It simply has not been tested.
That's likely the way it would go. US-born children of US citizens and LPRs have birthright US citizenship. No others do.
Quote:
Kudos to Trump for testing this.
I agree. I would also present as much historical evidence as possible, particularly the late 1800s and early 1900s. And the current US Nationality Law which clearly makes an exception only for the US-born children of members of US aboriginal Tribes. There is no similar exception for the children of foreign nationals, those in the country on temporary visas (work, student, etc.), illegal aliens, etc.
Ha !
Wow.
Trump is a direct descendent of "a man without a country."
Grt. Grt. Grands had his citizenship revoked for fleeing his country rather than fighting in its war. When he returned after the war had ended, his found his citizenship had been revoked as a consequence.
He returns to America..does he bother becoming a citizen? Naw.
Gad!
What a mess America is in.
Trump the Terrible.
Because we have jurisdiction over our sovereign territory.
Do we have legal jurisdiction over diplomats? Can Mueller have Putin indicted and arrested on his next visit? No, we don't have legal jurisdiction over diplomats.
Can we expel diplomats? Yes, we can expel diplomats.
The lack of jurisdiction means our only recourse is to expel them.
No, diplomats have immunity from US law and are not subject to the jurisdiction of US law or the US judiciary. Diplomats are not technically expelled, but their so-called "expulsion" is governed by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, which requires a country to recall its diplomats (or specified diplomats) on demand of the receiving country. If the country fails to recall the diplomat, then immunity can be revoked (under International law) and the US can then exercise jurisdiction to forcibly remove them or prosecute them.
Pregnant women are travelling to Toronto from all over—China, Iran, India, Dubai, Jamaica—to have their babies on Canadian soil, and who can blame them? We’re a nation of suckers
--snip--
easier path to citizenship: birth tourism. Foreign companies are helping pregnant women take advantage of our breathtakingly generous birthright policy, which grants automatic citizenship—and all the rights and benefits it entails—to any baby born on Canadian soil. You don’t even have to touch the soil: in 2008, a girl born to a Ugandan mother aboard a Northwest Airlines flight from Amsterdam to Boston was deemed Canadian because the plane happened to be in our airspace at the moment of delivery. Currently, Canada and the U.S. are the only two developed countries bestowing birthright citizenship.
-snip-
What is Canadian citizenship worth in cold hard cash? Like a birth tourist trying to decide whether to hand over $36,200, I crunched the numbers. Canadian citizenship, I calculated, is worth about $840,000 in tangible benefits, excluding welfare payments should you end up on the dole. Assuming a current average life expectancy of 81 years, free health care alone is worth at least $485,000 ($5,988 annually, but much more if you require major surgery or a long hospital stay), according to 2013 health data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Free public education is worth $174,750, according to international tuition rates charged by the Toronto District School Board. As for university tuition, a Canadian at the University of Toronto would save $58,512 over four years, because international students pay substantially more. Finally, an average old-age pension (from age 65 to 81) totals $121,624.
The phrase "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is mentioned in the Constitution (14th amendment), but not defined anywhere in that document.
Which means it is up to Congress to define it.
Have they ever done that? Has anybody seen any examples?
I think you asked many good questions.
While the Constitution defines the basic conditions, the decision whether and how far to offer citizenship beyond that (i.e., who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States) is a policy judgment historically left to Congress. It could, for instance, extend birthright citizenship to legal permanent residents (consistent with Wong Kim Ark) but exclude, in the future, the children of illegal or temporary residents.
I don't think people (even Trump) is talking about repealing the 14th Amendment, or taking away anyone's citizenship. Nor must we amend the Constitution. But Court needs to clarify the extent of birthright citizenship. It should do so as part of a clear and meaningful policy concerning immigration, naturalization, and citizenship that is consistent with the core principles and highest ideals of the United States.
I think what works hundreds years ago may or may not work today. So The broader reading is a constitutional misreading. Not only does it grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, it also gives full due-process rights to the likes of Taliban fighter Yasir Hamdi (born in the United States of visiting Saudi parents and captured fighting U.S. soldiers 20 years later in Afghanistan).
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.
