Posted on Aug 31, 2015
Are illegal immigrants entitled to automatic citizenship in the U.S.A.—Citizenship and the Constitution?
53K
696
280
50
50
0
Are illegal immigrants entitled to automatic citizenship in the U.S.A.—Citizenship and the Constitution? This was a Hot topic in this 2016 Election Year as well! Will it change now after the election?
Someone's Perspective - do you agree or disagree?
Born in the U.S.A.—Citizenship and the Constitution
The Supreme Court has never held that the children of illegal immigrants are entitled to automatic citizenship.
August 29, 2015
In your editorial http://www.wsj.com/articles/born-in-the-u-s-a [login to see]
(Aug. 21) you assert that the language of the Fourteenth Amendment is “straightforward.” It is indeed, but it doesn’t mean what you claim. The amendment sets out two requirements for automatic citizenship, not just one.
A person must be born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction, according to the text. Those who drafted the language were quite explicit; the latter phrase meant subject to the “complete” jurisdiction, “[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else.”
As Sen. Jacob Howard explained at the time, the Citizenship Clause excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the U.S. who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
In other words, the phrase didn’t mean what they called “partial” or “territorial” jurisdiction such as applies to “sojourners” who are mere temporary visitors, and it certainly didn’t apply to those who were unlawfully present in the county.
This isn’t “circular restrictionist logic,” as you claim, but simply a reflection that “jurisdiction” has two different meanings. Visitors to the U.S., including illegal immigrants, are subject to our laws—our territorial jurisdiction—while present within our borders, but they are not thereby subject to the more complete political jurisdiction intended by the Fourteenth Amendment.
This was the understanding of the Supreme Court in 1873 and again in 1884. And it was not undermined by the Supreme Court’s 1898 holding in Wong Kim Ark, which recognized that a child born on U.S. soil to lawful, permanent residents was a citizen.
The Supreme Court has never held that the children of illegal immigrants are entitled to automatic citizenship, nor should it, as that would mean citizenship could be obtained not by mutual consent but by illegal conduct.
Prof. John C. Eastman
Fowler School of Law, Chapman University
Orange, Calif.
Someone's Perspective - do you agree or disagree?
Born in the U.S.A.—Citizenship and the Constitution
The Supreme Court has never held that the children of illegal immigrants are entitled to automatic citizenship.
August 29, 2015
In your editorial http://www.wsj.com/articles/born-in-the-u-s-a [login to see]
(Aug. 21) you assert that the language of the Fourteenth Amendment is “straightforward.” It is indeed, but it doesn’t mean what you claim. The amendment sets out two requirements for automatic citizenship, not just one.
A person must be born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction, according to the text. Those who drafted the language were quite explicit; the latter phrase meant subject to the “complete” jurisdiction, “[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else.”
As Sen. Jacob Howard explained at the time, the Citizenship Clause excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the U.S. who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
In other words, the phrase didn’t mean what they called “partial” or “territorial” jurisdiction such as applies to “sojourners” who are mere temporary visitors, and it certainly didn’t apply to those who were unlawfully present in the county.
This isn’t “circular restrictionist logic,” as you claim, but simply a reflection that “jurisdiction” has two different meanings. Visitors to the U.S., including illegal immigrants, are subject to our laws—our territorial jurisdiction—while present within our borders, but they are not thereby subject to the more complete political jurisdiction intended by the Fourteenth Amendment.
This was the understanding of the Supreme Court in 1873 and again in 1884. And it was not undermined by the Supreme Court’s 1898 holding in Wong Kim Ark, which recognized that a child born on U.S. soil to lawful, permanent residents was a citizen.
The Supreme Court has never held that the children of illegal immigrants are entitled to automatic citizenship, nor should it, as that would mean citizenship could be obtained not by mutual consent but by illegal conduct.
Prof. John C. Eastman
Fowler School of Law, Chapman University
Orange, Calif.
Immigration
Supreme Court
Citizenship
Election 2016
Issues
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 105
Suspended Profile
Off course not - what does that even mean?? It doesn't make sense. Also, what does this tell the rest of the world and people trying to come here, and our institutions...? That we can't enforce our own laws, and on top of it, supplant them with workarounds?
4
4
0
Oh hell no! Screw them and the horse they rode in on! I'm sick and tired of priorities being shifted from those who serve and have served this nation. Seriously F them all!
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
No they should not be. But the children born here to illegals, that needs to be settled. Congress needs to take the time to answering this question. They are not doing anything else constructive for this country.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
So, an idea that I would have is similar to something that used to exist (maybe still does?). How many military kids were born overseas? Depending on the country, some of them would have "dual citizenship", American and xxxxx. At the legal age of 16 or 18 (depending on the country), the young adult/child would have to determine which country to be a citizen of. Now, while they may have been dual, they still had to reside with their parents. Fast forward to the above situation: Why not provide a child born in the USA a "dual citizenship"...both American and what ever country their illegal parents came from? Send the parents back home with their child....at the legal age of 18, child can decide if they want to be fully vested in the USA or in the country of their parents. They receive NO BENEFITS as a child and only qualify for full American benefits after declaring American citizenship and renouncing the other country's citizenship (unless their parents go through the legal process to become Americans also).
(4)
(0)
(1)
(0)
SSG William Bowen
They may very well be dual citizens, which would be dependent on the home country's laws. The US does not recognize dual citizenship for the most part. You either are a US citizen, or you are not. If you happen to maintain or have citizenship from another country, then great but the US doesn't really care.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
No, they are not. If one reads the exact wording of the 14th amendment, the authors intent and how they limited it, and the fact that most cases used for precedence are not applicable, for example the Chinese laborers, they were here legally and they DO fit under the provisions. Even the original intent of the modification to the 14th amendment was specifically for the children of format slaves and American Indians.
(4)
(0)
MSgt Manuel Diaz
MCPO Roger Collins - actually they were called wops, government for " with out papers" and undocumented immigrants is a political correctness BS word
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
MSgt Manuel Diaz - Actually that particular pejorative was used for Italians. But when they try to consider illegal in the same manner as those who worked and followed the rules it should be contested. Most all our ancestors had insulting names applied to them. Heck if someone wants to call me one of them. Have a ball.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Manuel Diaz
MCPO Roger Collin "WOP" as previosly stated, had nothing to do with Italians; however at a particular time in past history there were so many undocumented italians that the term became synonimous with italians. All immigrants with out papers were stamped with WOP on it.
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
You are wrong. Look up the etymology of the term WOP and its origin. I take your thumbs down vote as a vote of confidence.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
This is a hard question to answer, because I don't think there is a simple solution. For us more than any other country, I think this topic requires a great deal of thought because all of use come form a lineage of immigrants. I think if this issue continues to be pressed, the supreme court will have to get involved and make a decision. Either way, each side of the argument has merit. On one hand, turning people away or not helping children is not conducive to the beliefs and nature of our culture. On the opposite side of the argument, if our current practice was never meant to be conducted and children of illegal immigrants were not meant to be granted automatic citizenship it will be interpreted as such by the courts.
(4)
(0)
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
CW3 (Join to see) As mentioned in some of the other responses it seems that legal precedence has already been set in a number of cases throughout history. Even though the Professor is interrupting the constitution based on his research it really doesn't matter at this point. I personally think something needs to change with the way it reads (an amendment with new language), but that is just my opinion. I see good and bad with the way it is currently being handled.
(3)
(0)
CW3 (Join to see)
I agree with you fully COL Mikel J. Burroughs, there needs to be some clarification or interpretation of the message presented to the public. This type of clarification should provide unity and understanding in this turbulent time. Currently, it is too easy to take either side based on personal bias or the emotion attached to the issue.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
3
3
0
We seem to have focused on the illegal immigration from Mexico. Our semi legal immigration and tolerance of customs from other parts of the world has far more lethal consequences than simple economic disruption.
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlicter/2017/05/25/fewer-tears-fewer-lies-and-more-righteous-anger-n2331247?
utm source=thdaily&utm medium=email&nutmeg campaign=nl&newsletterad=
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlicter/2017/05/25/fewer-tears-fewer-lies-and-more-righteous-anger-n2331247?
utm source=thdaily&utm medium=email&nutmeg campaign=nl&newsletterad=
Kurt Schlichter - Fewer Tears, Fewer Lies, And More Righteous Anger
Enough of changing your Facebook photo to the flag of the abattoir du jour, enough of the candlelight vigils, and enough of the #_____Strong hashtags. No more pleas for unity and pretending not to understand.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
To the question, 'Are illegal immigrants entitled to automatic citizenship in the U.S.A.?' To me the word 'illegal' gives you the final answer in my opinion. Additionally, the addition 'entitled' needs to be deleted because citizenship is not an entitlement it is or it is not.
To the question, 'Are illegal immigrants entitled to automatic citizenship in the U.S.A.?' To me the word 'illegal' gives you the final answer in my opinion. Additionally, the addition 'entitled' needs to be deleted because citizenship is not an entitlement it is or it is not.
(3)
(0)
PO3 John Wagner
Capt Gregory Prickett - They are a citizen...(I do not agree with the premise) however calling the child an IT is going a bit beyond even the Progressive lefts assertion that a fetus is an IT not a human being.
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google