by Jack
(Left- Marching to America, illegals demanding entry)
No presidents in recent history have dared to resolve the highly controversial issue anchor babies and illegal immigrants. However, for President Trump this is a clear cut issue. Other nations do not allow anchor babies and the 14th amendment has language that says we shouldn’t either. He’s betting the majority of American’s will back him up and moreover the USC will too.
According to the 14th Amendment, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” So, what does it mean, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 begins with language from which the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause is derived: ‘All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.’ (Emphasis added.) The explicit exclusion of Indians from birthright citizenship was not repeated in the 14th Amendment because it was considered unnecessary. Although Indians were at least partially subject to U.S. jurisdiction, they owed allegiance to their tribes, not the United States. This reasoning — divided allegiance — applies equally to exclude the children of resident aliens, legal as well as illegal, from birthright citizenship. Indeed, today’s regulations issued by the departments of Homeland Security and Justice stipulate.”
The Supreme Court later addressed the case of a Chinese man who was born here while his parents were here legally. They returned to China with their newborn, but when the child came back to the USA as an adult his citizenship was challenged. The USC said because his parents were authorized by the US government to be here and therefor subject to the jurisdiction thereof, he was a legitimate citizen.
Based on the above, it appears if the anchor baby rule were to be tested by the USC, Trump would likely prevail.
In 2011 a study by the Applied Research Center of New York concluded that over 5000 anchor children were abandoned by their parents who were deported. Rather than to take their children back to their home country, they deliberately left them behind – to be cared for by the US taxpayers. Correctly interpreting the 14th amendment would end this.
- Writers of 14th amendment did not want birthright citizenship for illegals “George F. Will: Citizenship a birthright?” Washington Post. March 28th, 2010: “If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration — and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration — is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not.”
- Birthright citizenship outdated; came from period of less migration Eric Zorn. “Amendment dreamin’ and the issue of birthright citizenship.” Chicago Tribune. August 12th, 2010: “The guarantee of birthright citizenship (to all but the children of foreign diplomats) in the 14th Amendment came about in an era when our borders were wide open and international travel was considerably more difficult. When a
family came here, it was a reasonable assumption that they intended to throw down roots and stay.”
- Birthright citizenship lacks critical government consent “George F. Will: Citizenship a birthright?” The Commercial Appeal. March 28th, 2010: “in 1884 the Supreme Court held that children born to Indian parents were not born “subject to” U.S. jurisdiction because, among other reasons, the person so born could not change his status by his “own will without the action or assent of the United States.” And “no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent.” Graglia says this decision “seemed to establish” that U.S. citizenship is “a consensual relation, requiring the consent of the United States.” So: “This would clearly settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. There cannot be a more total or forceful denial of consent to a person’s citizenship than to make the source of that person’s presence in the nation illegal.”
- Native American kids not citizens, why should kids of illegals be? Native American babies do not receive American citizenship when they are born. The same rule should apply to illegal aliens, as they are equally without a claim to US citizenship.
- Birthright citizenship for illegals is bad loophole Ira Mehlman of the Federation of American Immigration Reform, which backs Deal’s proposal: “Most Americans feel it doesn’t make any sense for people to come into the country illegally, give birth and have a new U.S. citizen.”[2]
- Such a loophole is contrary to the great importance of the US rule of law and to the sense of fairness Americans and other legal immigrants should feel surrounding US laws.
- Birthright citizenship is offensive to legitimate immigrants. When a person desperately wants to come to America, and must wait in line, or who was born in another country a week or a month before moving to America, it seems offensive that they are less deserving of citizenship than the child of someone who came illegally.
- Citizenship is something that should be earned. Citizenship is about much more than where you were born. It is about your willingness to contribute, engage in a society, perhaps learn the prominent language of that society, and more. The idea that citizenship can be acquired by the mere fact of being born in the United States seems to cheapen this social compact.
- Illegal behavior of parents should not be rewarded. While it is true that denying the child of an illegal immigrant birthright citizenship is harmful to the child, it is also true that giving them birthright citizenship rewards a mother for having willfully broken US law. Such a reward is unjust and unfair, and undermines the US rule of law. So, this is not about punishing children, it is about not rewarding illegal behavior.
- Illegal immigrant parents are to blame for having children abroad. Illegal immigrant parents, not the United States government, are to blame for bringing immigrating illegally and deciding to give birth to a child in the United States. The consequences to their children are a result of their folly, not of the government for deciding to end birthright citizenship.
- Ending birthright citizenship withdraws something child never deserved. While withdrawing birthright citizenship may harm children, it is important to understand that the children of illegals never had a legitimate claim to citizenship and, thus, to avoiding these harms.
- The state is not responsible for foreign children. The state is not responsible for the children of foreign citizens living abroad. Why should it be responsible for the children of illegal aliens (also foreign citizens) residing in the United States? The state has no moral obligation to these individuals, and particularly not to provide them with citizenship.
Since the Clowngressional Cowards refuse to address the immigration and “anchor babies” issue, TheDonald has the courage to do so. And it’s about damn time!
The phrase “were authorized by the US government to be here and therefor subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” is gonna be the hook to hang the Executive Order on since Illegals are NOT authorized!
LOL…just spent the morning writing an article on the same subject. Since you covered most of the points I did, I will not post my article but simply add here that the Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue. Whether or not Congress acts, a case will surely be brought to the high court and that’s a good thing.
I find it interesting that some on the left will use an amendment designed to give slaves full civil rights will now use that same amendment to try grant legal status to a person brought here illegally in the womb.
Also, in less contentious times former Democrat leader Harry Reid said, “No sane country would reward illegal entry” with U.S. Citizenship for their children.
I spent an hour and a half listening to a legal immigration talk at CSUC. There the speaker elaborated on how many refugees and asylum seekers we let in along with the normal immigrants. Since Trump has taken office we have seen no significant change in the numbers, although special status immigration from the People Republic of the Congo has greatly increased. About 1/3 of the total immigration numbers were Asian. The smallest numbers were from western European. More Muslims were admitted than Christians, but the way the left squawks you would think these numbers were completely reversed. Chain migration and special skills immigration also figured prominently in those numbers. The United States remains the number one country in the world for legal immigration. However, we have serious illegal immigration problem that threatens to harm the way we process and vet legal immigrants. So, let me say that again clearly…President Donald Trump now has more immigration and more minority immigration and more special circumstance immigration than any other country in the world. He also wants to enforce the laws pertaining to illegal immigration. So where’s the problem? The problem is only in the creative imaginations of the far liberal left who can’t think beyond name calling.
You didn’t have to go to a CSUC lecture to learn of the creative imaginations of the far left.
More Muslims were admitted than Christians, but the way the left squawks you would think these numbers were completely reversed.
Since Muslim immigrants are more likely to be fleeing repressive countries and searching for a freer country than Christian immigrants, this makes perfect sense. As a person on the left who hears (and engages in) plenty of our “squawking,” I’ve never gotten the impression that we take in more Christian immigrants than anything else.
So, let me say that again clearly…President Donald Trump now has more immigration and more minority immigration and more special circumstance immigration than any other country in the world.
Are you saying that this is a new development under Trump, or has this always been the case in the U.S? If the former, I need evidence–and no, “I heard it from an unnamed speaker” isn’t evidence.
America has always been a land of immigrants. Trump’s signature issue has been further restricting immigration–no, not just illegal immigration, but *legal* immigration, such as his travel ban. He is, therefore, betraying American values. (Not to mention Christian values, if you’re the kind of person who professes to care about such things.)
So where’s the problem?
I mean, you can start with putting kids in cages because their parents committed misdemeanor offenses, and work backwards from there.
Oh…I was also prepared to challenge all of us to discuss this issue, “…without name calling, ad hoc accusations, swearing, blaming, or in any other way degrading opponents.”
Good article, Jack.
The anchor baby concept is another one of those political nightmares that somehow get sold as enlightened social engineering. If a burglar broke into my house and had a baby, I guess I’d be expected to remodel the guest room and start buying baby furniture.
Obviously you hate babies! Right-wing white supremacist bigot.
Libby, is that you, using an alias for Halloween?
I couldn’t find a witch costume that would fit.
I hope everyone can understand what Trump is really doing with this executive order. First off, no one expects this order to be implemented without a legal challenge. If fact, that is exactly what he wants to happen.
This is an issue for the Supreme Court. But getting it to the Supreme Court requires a court case. When this order takes affect it will be declared unconstitutional by some liberal Federal Court Judge . It will then go up the court ladder from liberal judge to liberal judge until a request is made for the Supreme Court to hear it. The Supreme Court will hear the arguments and make a ruling and then “Case Closed!”.
It is time for this to happen. The 14th Amendment has been a divisive issue ever since it was misinterpreted and allowed any baby born in the US to become a citizen. It was misinterpreted by the Executive branch which should not be making this decision. It is time to have a ruling and put this to rest.
The 14th Amendment was created to deal with slaves that were born in this country but did not have legal status. The Amendment made them citizens and prevented any state from declaring them non-citizens. It was not intended to give all people born in the United States citizenship.
The first line of Section 1 of the Amendment read;
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
People have argued that visitors to the US are under the “jurisdiction” of the US laws, therefore a child born to them is a citizen. Others correctly interpret the “jurisdiction” clause to refer to legal ties and allegiances to their county of citizenship. When you take into account what the 14th Amendment was intend to address, the correct interpretation is clearly the second one.
It can also be argue that an interpretation that accepts “jurisdiction” as “under the jurisdiction of the laws” would make the jurisdiction clause totally redundant with the first part of the sentence. If you are born in the US, there is no way that you are not under the jurisdiction of the US laws. If that is the correct interpretation why did they not just state
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
and just leave out the jurisdiction clause all together. These were intelligent men. If you read the constitution you will not find other examples of redundancy. The redundancy clause was put there for a reason and that reason was to limit the clause to a specific group of people, not all people. And that group of people are those people that are NOT bound by legal status in any other country.
I, for one, am very glad that this will be going to the Supreme Court and be ruled on once and for all. I am impressed with Trump’s courage to force this issue. This, however, is a dilemma for the Liberals. If they don’t challenge it in the courts it will stand and will be implemented as an executive order and the country will see the effects on illegal migration. If they do this and wait for a time when a Democrat President could revoke the order they may not have any public support. If they do challenge the order it will go to the Supreme Court and the ruling will surely end anchor babies for all time. No future President could revoke the order.
It will be interesting.
“…that group of people are those people that are NOT bound by legal status in any other country.”
Let’s make a list:
1. An infant lost at sea…alone…no ID.
2. An adult lost at sea…alone…severe memory loss…no ID.
According to Mark Levin it was during the 1960s that bureaucrats decided to establish the anchor babies policy. Since the 14th Amendment was written in 1868, that means there’s approximately 100 years of a precedent establishing the original intent of the law. And since the change took place in the executive branch of which Trump is the leader he does have the authority to make the correction with an executive order and NOT a SC ruling.
———–
Levin and Horowitz: Yes, Trump can end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants with an executive order:
“Tuesday on his radio program, LevinTV host Mark Levin spoke with Conservative Review senior editor Daniel Horowitz about birthright citizenship — and that President Donald Trump is entirely within his rights to interpret and enforce the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
Horowitz told Levin that President Trump has the authority to issue an executive order clarifying how the executive branch will interpret the 14th Amendment concerning the citizenship status of children born in the United States to illegal aliens. He said that those who say otherwise, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., are “constitutionally illiterate.”
“Let’s put this in plain English here,” Horowitz said. “Basically they’re saying, Mark, I could break into your home, kick down the door, drop a kid there, and he has the right to live there for the remainder of his life and there’s not a darn thing you can do about it.”
“The reality is that even if we agree to the notion of birthright citizenship … there is no way you could extrapolate that to people who came here without consent. The key words are ‘consent’ and ‘sovereignty.’ Nothing ever supersedes that. Nobody could unilaterally assert jurisdiction and make it that there’s nothing we can do to stop this,” he continued.
At Levin’s request, Horowitz explained how an executive order issued by Trump ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants would not be lawless because the order would be pursuant to law. It is not like Obama’s illegal DACA amnesty, which was an order contrary to law.
“For 130 years there’s an uninterrupted stream of case law, including cases written by the Wong Kim Ark justice, Horace Gray, saying that if you come here without consent and you do not have legal status, it is, in the most literal and physical sense, as if you are standing outside of our boundaries in terms of access to the courts, in terms of rights, in terms of everything,” Horowitz said. This means that the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.
Horowitz made the point that our modern concept of birthright citizenship came about not as the result of a court decision, not by an act of Congress, but by the executive branch’s lax enforcement of immigration law. Levin pointed out that if birthright citizenship is a bureaucratic creation, as the chief of the bureaucracy, President Trump has the right to correct years of extra-constitutional behavior by the executive branch.
“He’s not changing the Constitution by executive order. He’s not reinterpreting the Constitution by executive order. He’s getting the executive branch under control and saying, ‘This is what the 14th Amendment means,’” Levin said.”
https://www.conservativereview.com/news/levin-and-horowitz-yes-trump-can-end-birthright-citizenship-for-children-of-illegal-immigrants-with-an-executive-order/?fbclid=IwAR02qIUnRl96HE3G4PQjxmq6cr6SXVqC5zxhIs_Ard__03bg30Gbxf4Btqc
“According to Mark Levin…”
And that, right there, is where rational people stop reading.
It just so happened the non-rational people, who are convinced of such things, were spread out in just the right areas geographically, and were mobilized to vote in such numbers, to inflict a non-rational president upon the rest of us two Novembers ago.
Let’s hope this November is different.
“born … in the United States …”
… means what it means, Jack.
You wanna spearhead the movement to have the phase struck from the U. S. Constitution? … well, you just go to it.
But then, there would be NO citizens of the United States. Hmmmm. You would … maybe … propose qualifiers to the phrase? … you racist so-and-so.
You know, these people claiming to be “originalists” … they are just so full of it. The logical extension of said belief would eradicate all the amendments to said Constitution. Slaves would still be slaves. Women would still be somewhat higher on the scale of chattels.
Dream on, fat boy.
“…born …in the United States…” is qualified by “…person within it’s jurisdiction…”
Care to bet on what our reborn Supreme Court will rule on that qualification?
Been waiting for years for this opportunity.
The larger lesson? Never again leave the teaching of the Constitution t socialist bent on undermining the Constitution.
Re Lippy’s “Dream on, fat boy.”
Where is Chris when we so desperately need him??? Who will send Lippy down to the Principal’s office? I have been soooo triggered. Where is my safe space? Is there no escape from such cruel and heartless body shaming? Since when was physiognomy an accepted debate point?
Thank you Lippy! You have no idea how much this fat boy loves you. 😀
She shouldn’t have called you fat, Pie. There are so many better insults for you.
“‘born … in the United States …’
… means what it means…”
Probably would to someone who does not grant parents authority over their underage children but would prefer they be wards of the state.
As dependents of their parents, who are under the jurisdiction of the countries from which they came, they are not under the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore cannot be citizens.
“You wanna spearhead the movement to have the phase struck from the U. S. Constitution? ”
No.
We want the entire sentence considered. We want the amendment interpreted by it’s meaning in full.
It is you who supports the removal (by the executive branch) of a qualifying portion, “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” from the Amendment so you can arbitrarily choose what it means.
“Probably would to someone who does not grant parents authority over their underage children but would prefer they be wards of the state.”
What?
“As dependents of their parents, who are under the jurisdiction of the countries from which they came, they are not under the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore cannot be citizens.”
WHAT?