US citizenship thread

[injb]

The original meaning of the 14th Amendment didn't give somebody citizenship automatically upon being born here.

"The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

(emphasis added)

The writer of the article, having quoted that statement by the person who actually drafted the law, then goes on to make this bizzare statement:

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete

That is just wilful misinterpretation. The language could not be clearer: if you are born in the US and subject to it's jurisdiction, i.e. do you not enjoy diplomatic immunity, then you are a citizen. It doesn't say anything about whether you may also be subject to the jurisdiction of other countries.

 

[T.Lex]

The original meaning of the 14th Amendment didn't give somebody citizenship automatically upon being born here.

"The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

The author of that site, Fred Eibel, is incorrect. It also ignores significant countervailing authorities.

This assertion is laughable on its face:

The correct interpretation of the 14[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

A Mexican woman in America is not subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico; she is subject to the jurisdiction of America (unless she's here as a diplomat).

The Articles of Confederation (superseded, of course), an 1862 opinion of the attorney general, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and even earlier statutes relating to naturalization refer to citizenship by birth. Article 2, Section 1 even requires the POTUS to be a "natural born citizen."

People can wish the interpretation to be different, but the actual interpretation is far closer to the law at the time than such wishful thinking.

 

[Bill of Rights]

If you're a citizen, however it was legally determined that you're a citizen, there should be no mechanism to deport you. If you commit crimes, then you should be prosecuted and pay the penalty. If you renounce your citizenship, well, buh-bye.

I'm not sure I agree. Take the hypothetical of the American citizen (by our standard) who goes the "sovereign citizen" route and doesn't recognize any authority to which he would renounce something he never claimed, but also likes the benefits of us seeing him as a citizen. All the benefits, none of the responsibility. Now that guy starts committing acts of terrorism. Just for the sake of argument, let's say none of them involve killing. It's an extreme, of course, and unlikely, but I can't say that it's impossible, and yes, I could see stripping citizenship and/or deporting for that.

As an attorney, I'm all about finding solutions. I'm just here to help.

Sometimes its helpful to look at problems from different perspectives. When it comes to terrorism here, we arguably DON'T have an immigration problem, we have a citizen problem. More attackers - terrorism or otherwise - are citizens than non-citizens. The immigrant issue is easier to deal with than the citizenship one, in some ways.

Other countries have different approaches to citizenship, so it makes sense to examine whether elements of those approaches would be useful for us.

Consider the case of serial killer. If a US citizen is so fond of killing other US citizens, perhaps we should be open to the idea of stripping him of citizenship and sending him somewhere else.

Not advocating for this, just being open to other ideas.

I'll consider your hypothetical serial killer: He's fond of killing our citizens? Why would we send him somewhere, presuming anyone would take him, that someone might arm him and send him against more of us? Put two rounds of .45ACP in his brainpan at high velocity and indeed, we send him somewhere else: Straight to hell. Solves the problem and lots cheaper than air fare anywhere, too.

Heck, for that guy, I'd not only donate the two hollow-points, I'd volunteer to do the high-velocity brain implant.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jamil]

I'm not sure I agree. Take the hypothetical of the American citizen (by our standard) who goes the "sovereign citizen" route and doesn't recognize any authority to which he would renounce something he never claimed, but also likes the benefits of us seeing him as a citizen. All the benefits, none of the responsibility. Now that guy starts committing acts of terrorism. Just for the sake of argument, let's say none of them involve killing. It's an extreme, of course, and unlikely, but I can't say that it's impossible, and yes, I could see stripping citizenship and/or deporting for that.



I'll consider your hypothetical serial killer: He's fond of killing our citizens? Why would we send him somewhere, presuming anyone would take him, that someone might arm him and send him against more of us? Put two rounds of .45ACP in his brainpan at high velocity and indeed, we send him somewhere else: Straight to hell. Solves the problem and lots cheaper than air fare anywhere, too.

Heck, for that guy, I'd not only donate the two hollow-points, I'd volunteer to do the high-velocity brain implant.

Blessings,
Bill

You seem to be arguing against yourself.

 

[edporch]

(emphasis added)

The writer of the article, having quoted that statement by the person who actually drafted the law, then goes on to make this bizzare statement:



That is just wilful misinterpretation. The language could not be clearer: if you are born in the US and subject to it's jurisdiction, i.e. do you not enjoy diplomatic immunity, then you are a citizen. It doesn't say anything about whether you may also be subject to the jurisdiction of other countries.

The 14th Amendment was to in part prevent the states from denying that freed slaves were citizens.
And thus deny them full rights.
If simply being born here makes you a citizen, then the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is not needed and irrelevant.

 

[injb]

The 14th Amendment was to in part prevent the states from denying that freed slaves were citizens.
And thus deny them full rights.
If simply being born here makes you a citizen, then the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is not needed and irrelevant.

Lol "simply being born here" doesn't make you a citizen - no one has said that. Being born here and being subject to US jurisdiction at the same time *does* make you a citizen. It's needed language because you can be born here without being subject to US jurisdiction - and in fact the author helpfully explained exactly who would fall into that category:

persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers

 

[BugI02]

I agree with your interpretation, Ed. Unfortunately, when so many federal judges are guided by their feelings rather than the constitution and the law, when the SCOTUS is too often a weather vane for the political winds of change and representatives from 'our' party can't lift their noses out of the slop trough long enough to solve any problem; I despair of anyone seeking this legal interpretation to solve the birth right citizenship conundrum

 

[Bill of Rights]

You seem to be arguing against yourself.

I do, but not really. Yes I am. No, I'm not.

Shut up, both of you.

I was saying I could see it for someone who was not actually killing anyone. Maybe he doesn't have the stomach for that. Still probably needs to see justice served for what he did do, though.

For the killer, though, no. Just drop him like a rabid dog.

 

[NIGHTRIDER]

The Problem With Illegal Immigration | WannaLOL.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The Problem With Illegal Immigration | WannaLOL.

Do I even need to read that? I mean "illegal" in and of itself, kinda denotes a problem.

 

[actaeon277]

Do I even need to read that? I mean "illegal" in and of itself, kinda denotes a problem.

Some people would disagree with you.
Not me. But some.

 

[jamil]

Do I even need to read that? I mean "illegal" in and of itself, kinda denotes a problem.

I think the article is for those who don't think the "illegal" part is in itself a problem.