The 14th Amendment

[Peter]

In the thread, "Harry Binswanger on Open Immigration," Neil Parille Posted in June 2014: I read a story recently that said 30% of Mexicans would come to the US if they could. With children that is around 40 million of people. I assume the same is true with many other countries in the world. Binswanger believes they should all be let in, without any background checks. Even the legitimate functions of government would be overwhelmed. But Binswanger won't even talk about this. I have asked him if Israel should have open immigration and he didn't respond . . . . I have it on good authority that Binswanger was shocked when he learned that Moslem immigrants from Chechnya were behind the Boston Bombing. He thought it was much more likely that this crime was committed by members of the Daughters of the American Revolution or the Mayflower Society.
end quote

whYNot wrote, more recently on the same thread: A passing comment from Thomas Sowell's recent column: "The endlessly repeated argument that most Americans are the descendants of immigrants ignores the fact that most Americans are NOT the descendants of ILLEGAL immigrants. Millions of immigrants from Europe had to stop at Ellis Island, and had to meet medical and other criteria before being allowed to go further".
end quote

The 14th Amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and that is a good thing but it was bitterly contested by Southern States that needed to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. Those States had been in rebellion but the South was not a monolith with one mind. There were plenty of people who never wanted to rebel against their country, and many did not own slaves and thought slavery was medieval and inhumane.

I have heard several legal scholars including Judge Napolitano on Fox News say the 14th Amendment is unequivocal, and that ALL children born in the United States are automatically citizens. But the Amendment reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which immediately makes the first exception: the children born to diplomats are not automatically citizens of the United States.

In a different section of the 14th Amendment it states, “But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States . . . .”

Without borders you don’t have a country. A person who enters the country illegally is NOT under the jurisdiction of the United States because they are invisible to the law. And by breaking a law as they entered our country they are in rebellion against the laws of the United States. Therefor the government should NOT pay for their birth, medical benefits, education, nor should Americans be required to make them a citizen. They should be deported. However, if a non citizen is here working legally and they have a baby then that baby would be a citizen of the United States.

Look at litigation that has sprung from the 14th Amendment and it is obvious that the wording is EQUIVACAL. It formed the basis for several landmark decisions such as Roe v. Wade in 1973 regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore in 2000, regarding presidential elections, and Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, regarding same-sex marriage.

From Wikipedia: The second, third, and fourth sections of the amendment are seldom litigated. However, the second section's reference to "rebellion and other crimes" has been invoked as a constitutional ground for felony disenfranchisement . . . .
end quote

So a case can also be made against the concept and actuality of anchor babies who are born to illegal immigrants and are considered the citizens of other countries, by those countries. Also, these babies are not refugees or seeking asylum.

From Wikipedia: The fifth section gives Congress the power to enforce the amendment's provisions by "appropriate legislation". However, under City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), Congress's enforcement power may not be used to contradict a Supreme Court interpretation of the amendment.
end quote

So, changing the Amendment through a Constitutional convention is not necessary. Congress can enact appropriate legislation to not grant illegals citizenship and at the same time ensure that citizens’ rights are protected and that they have true and equal protection under the law.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I find Mark Levin's reasoning compelling enough to want the courts to weigh in on this.

 

 

Michael

[Neil Parille]

Our girl Ann Coulter has a good piece on this:

http://www.vdare.com/articles/ann-coulter-fox-news-anchored-in-stupidity-on-14th-amendment

There was a Appellate Court decision saying recently that people born in America Samoa aren't citizens.

Was everyone born in the Philippines after 1898 and prior to 1948 a US citizen? Are their children US citizens?

NP

[Peter]

Well said Mark Levin. And Trump's interview on anchor babies didn't reveal much of his argument but I think the reason is, the argument is technical and should be discussed by a legal scholar. It depends on what is, is. History. Intent. Interpretation.

[Selene]

The Fourteenth Amendment has been "interpreted" and been used as a smuggler would to evade capture of it's original LEGISLATIVE INTENT.

Additionally, it has been abused in the fact that the "interpretations" just avoid the concept behind Federalism.

A...

[Peter]

Ann Coulter: Still, how could anyone—even a not-very-bright person—imagine that granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is actually in our Constitution? I know the country was exuberant after the war, but I really don’t think our plate was so clear that Americans were consumed with passing a constitutional amendment to make illegal aliens’ kids citizens . . . . On one hand, we have noted legal expert Bill O’Reilly haranguing Donald Trump: “YOU WANT ME TO QUOTE YOU THE AMENDMENT??? IF YOU’RE BORN HERE YOU’RE AN AMERICAN. PERIOD! PERIOD!” (No, Bill—there’s no period. More like: “comma,” to parents born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “and of the state wherein they reside.”) . . . As the Supreme Court said in Elk: “[N]o one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent.” Forget the intricate jurisprudential dispute between Fox News blowhards and the most-cited federal judge. How about basic common sense? Citizenship in our nation is not a game of Red Rover with the Border Patrol! The Constitution does not say otherwise.

end quote

As Peter Reidy once said, Ann Coulter is a hoot. I don't dislike Ann but since she wrote that book titled, "Godless" I am wary of her. A person who wants to be taken seriously and rationally shouldn't sound like the Taliban. Still she is smart and very funny.

Peter

[Peter]

Congress's legislative powers are enumerated in Article One, Section Eight: The Congress shall have power . . . To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
end quote

(I don’t see bankruptcies flowing from a uniform rule of naturalization but . . . ) anyone reading this can see that it is in the hands of Congress to say who is a citizen.

[Selene]

http://openjurist.org/169/us/649

II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance—also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'—of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,—as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'—and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king

Ah, the foundational concepts of our particular brilliant Republic:

allegiance

oath

sacred honor

I am just getting started lol.

A...

[Selene]

From Paragraph 42 of the decision:

By the constitution of the United States, congress was empowered 'to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.' In the exercise of this power, congress, by successive acts, beginning with the act entitled 'An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,' passed at the second session of the first congress under the constitution, has made provision for the admission to citizenship of three principal classes of persons: First. Aliens, having resided for a certain time 'within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States,' and naturalized individually by proceedings in a court of record. Second. Children of persons so naturalized, 'dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization.' Third. Foreign-born children of American citizens, coming within the definitions prescribd by congress. Acts March 26, 1790, c. 3 (1 Stat. 103); January 26, 1795, c. 20 (Id. 414); June 18, 1798, c. 54 (Id. 566); April 14, 1802, c. 28 (2 Stat. 153); March 26, 1804, c. 47 (Id. 292); February 10, 1855, c. 71 (10 Stat. 604); Rev. St. §§ 2165, 2172, 1993

[Peter]

What rhymes with Jupiter, Jenny?

Let me think Forrest. Stupider?

I think yur right, Jenny.

Back on the old thread I see Brant suggested I paste the whole 14th Amendment, but I just saw that letter. It probably would have been the wise thing to do but now it may be redundant. Obviously, I am no Constitutional scholar but I thought my attempt at analysis would snare a real scholar like George H. Smith to this topic.

[Brant Gaede]

Maybe, but George is busy.

Go to tothepointnews.com, pay 8.99/mo and read the two articles just put up by Jack Wheeler on this subject. Then just pull your credit card info and your membership will die after a month. In the meantime enjoy the archives. You can go for free for free articles and to read the first paragraph or two of any article.

--Brant

[Selene]

Maybe, but George is busy.

Go to tothepointnews.com, pay 8.99/mo and read the two articles just put up by Jack Wheeler on this subject. Then just pull your credit card info and your membership will die after a month. In the meantime enjoy the archives. You can go for free for free articles and to read the first paragraph or two of any article.

--Brant

Interesting take on Trump...

Donald Trump has now said that he would reverse President Obama's executive amnesty for "DREAMers" - illegal immigrants who've been here since they were children - and deport every last member of the Undocumented-American community.

The amnesty for the kids was supposed to prefigure an amnesty for their parents - for what mean old politician would advocate breaking up families? But, as he told NBC's Chuck Todd, Trump plans to keep the families together by deporting every single one of them: “They have to go. Chuck, we either have a country, or we don't have a country."

Now there's a campaign slogan. In other words, as every functioning society understood until two generations ago, immigration has to benefit the people who are already here. Government owes a duty to its own citizens before those of the rest of the planet - no matter how cuddly and loveable they might be.

The fact that it is necessary to state the obvious and that no "viable" "mainstream" candidate from either party is willing to state it is testament to how deformed contemporary western politics is.

http://www.tothepointnews.com/

Nice site Brant, thanks.

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Maybe, but George is busy.

Go to tothepointnews.com, pay 8.99/mo and read the two articles just put up by Jack Wheeler on this subject. Then just pull your credit card info and your membership will die after a month. In the meantime enjoy the archives. You can go for free for free articles and to read the first paragraph or two of any article.

--Brant

Interesting take on Trump...

Donald Trump has now said that he would reverse President Obama's executive amnesty for "DREAMers" - illegal immigrants who've been here since they were children - and deport every last member of the Undocumented-American community.

The amnesty for the kids was supposed to prefigure an amnesty for their parents - for what mean old politician would advocate breaking up families? But, as he told NBC's Chuck Todd, Trump plans to keep the families together by deporting every single one of them: “They have to go. Chuck, we either have a country, or we don't have a country."

Now there's a campaign slogan. In other words, as every functioning society understood until two generations ago, immigration has to benefit the people who are already here. Government owes a duty to its own citizens before those of the rest of the planet - no matter how cuddly and loveable they might be.

The fact that it is necessary to state the obvious and that no "viable" "mainstream" candidate from either party is willing to state it is testament to how deformed contemporary western politics is.

http://www.tothepointnews.com/

Nice site Brant, thanks.

A...

Jack Wheeler got his PhD through John Hospers at USC. He was a very good friend of Nathaniel Branden. He was greatly influenced by Objectivism. He is a conservative, but not a neo-con to the max, just 87%.

He is also a close friend of Durk Pearson and got Durk onto his friend Merv Griffin's show in the 1970s where Durk became one of the most popular of Merv's guests along with his wife Sandy Shaw.

Jack had a lot to do with the Russians being kicked out of Afghanistan through his Reagan Administration influence. He wrote The Adventurer's Guide 40 years ago and runs a world travel adventure business. He was the first to sky dive at the North Pole and his son did that too at the age of six. He recreated Hannibal crossing the Alps with elephants. Etc. I first saw him on an episode of This Is Your Life in the very early 1960s--he was the subject--he had just returned from living with a tribe of headhunters in the upper Amazon and they put the chief on the show with him. He climbed the Matterhorn at 15 and did it again almost 40 years later with his 14yo son. He was and likely still is the youngest eagle scout ever. That's why he met Eisenhower in the White House. His grandfather was head of Teddy Roosevelt's Secret Service detail and that of several other Presidents. Etc., etc., etc.

He's an incredible man's incredible man.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

anyone who can be arrested by a U.S. cop is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Which means illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They can be arrested and deported. Reading the plain language it means there children born in the United States are citizens.

If this upsets somebody they should write to their Congress Creature and suggest an amendment to the U.S Constitution.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

anyone who can be arrested by a U.S. cop is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Bob,

That's not the interpretation I have been seeing.

By your logic, anybody who can be killed by the US Military anywhere in the world is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Drone bombing targets are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

The correct interpretation of this phrase is actually a point that needs to be clarified by the Supreme Court or by a new law. There are several interpretations I have seen argued and each has a good deal of jurisprudence to back it up. In short, it is a mess.

If we get a Convention of States, I am sure this will be one of the issues clarified.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

anyone who can be arrested by a U.S. cop is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Bob,

That's not the interpretation I have been seeing.

By your logic, anybody who can be killed by the US Military anywhere in the world is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Drone bombing targets are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

The correct interpretation of this phrase is actually a point that needs to be clarified by the Supreme Court or by a new law. There are several interpretations I have seen argued and each has a good deal of jurisprudence to back it up. In short, it is a mess.

If we get a Convention of States, I am sure this will be one of the issues clarified.

Michael

Bob's statement is correct. Even fighting a foreign war is imposing jurisdiction, de facto if not de jure. That's what happened when the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan. The war ended and Japan got another emperor sent in by the United States.

But I'm not sure how Bob's statement is germane to this conversation.

--Brant

[Selene]

Gentlemen:

The clearest line of argument has nothing to do with the Fourteenth Amendment.

I also believe that both Brant and Bob are conflating two different uses of "jurisdiction."

One, as it appears in the Fourteenth Amendment, and, the Article I powers of Congress.

Only Congress has the power to establish "citizenship." '

That new standard is steeped in the concepts of "allegiance," "oaths," the Constitutional intent of the Founders and the original States and based on the meaning of "consent."

A...

more later