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
3
3
0
MCPO Roger Collins
Illegal aliens, no, kids born here under current law, yes. They are not illegal, but citizens by birth. Because we don't want to separate families, all benefits due to the kids are used by all. That's just the way it is for now.
(0)
(0)
PO3 John Wagner
Juan I am assuming you are Hispanic and would ask your opinion. I have met many undocumented and documented immigrants as well as those who are now citizens. Their opinion overall is that illegal immigration only brings down their own standard of living due to the new illegals being willing to work for nothing but a roof over their head, food to eat, and the relative safety of an employer willing to shelter them from the authorities.
Of course the employer will help them avoid detection. Keeps his pockets full and gives him a workforce terrified to raise a voice. It is those employers that maintain the flow and should be dealt with harshly. There is no slight intend here, obviously I am not just bringing up my question out of ignorant prejudice. Thanks in advance SGT Vega.
Of course the employer will help them avoid detection. Keeps his pockets full and gives him a workforce terrified to raise a voice. It is those employers that maintain the flow and should be dealt with harshly. There is no slight intend here, obviously I am not just bringing up my question out of ignorant prejudice. Thanks in advance SGT Vega.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
I really don't see how they would in any way bring my standard of living down. Of course, I have a degree and working on my master's so unless they have the same education and language skills, then yes Id' say they are. Those immigrants who have become citizens and stated that their standard of living is going down because of the illegals should be asked the question, " Now that you are a citizen, what have you done to improve your standard of living?". They have been blessed with something that millions want and if they choose not to advance themselves, the last person they should blame should be the illegals. No competition there, unless they are competing for the same job. Along with the employers that take advantage of the illegals, I think the coyotes that smuggle them here should also be dealt with harshly. Hope this answers your question.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
3
3
0
3
3
0
3
3
0
The key word in that is "Illegal". You do NOT deserve nor are you automatically granted citizenship in this great country! IMHO any immigrant coming into America MUST go through the proper channels or be deported. I know I sound cold hearted, but I believe in the law and will do what ever I can to uphold it. Too many illegals already in this country, tearing down the civilized society. But that is just MY opinion, and I don't expect anyone else to share nor agree with it. Another reason I served 20 years in the Navy, "freedom of speech" and opinions. :-)
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Excellent interpretation of the law. Unfortunately no matter how logical the reasoning, those who are in favor of unlimited illegal immigration will never accept the truth of the Constitution.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
COL Mikel J. Burroughs Sticky subject, but in my mind they need to do what it takes to be legal, or hit the road. I feel for them. They want a good life, but so does the millions of legal Americans.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
No. They are not and where they are born has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The entire idea is a fiction given weight by feel good crap in a lot of movies and Disney cartoons. I am not anti immigrant however, the notion that these people have any "rights" granted by birth to citizens of the United States is the koolaid that has been served up to the public forever. It is also fodder for those whose narrative includes the "breaking up families" theme. No need to break up the families at all. Send the whole bunch packing. Does it sound harsh? It is not. We are either a nation of laws or we are not. The left will exploit every possible feel good narrative to convince those who obey the rule of law to turn a blind eye to whatever particular crime they are endorsing to curry favor with or grow their base. The democrat base will probably never see that their champions would have them in cuffs if they showed up uninvited to a party at their homes and will use the police against them anytime it suits their purpose to do so. Seal the border first. Then address the situation from there. No one wants to eject people wholesale however, we must stop the flow. It is a complete insult and horribly unfair to those who have done the footwork to come here legally or to the American companies who have sponsored these people and paid a great deal of money to the government in order to get their citizenship status. Ask the illegals who have been here for years and managed to establish themselves in their own communities how they feel about the flood of new undocumented immigrants. They will side with me I assure you.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
No, go back for 10 years, be a good citizen while home then apply and come in the right way !!
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
If you are born in the United States you are a "Natural Born" Citizen. That is a Constitutional Requirement for President. If any of you, like me had children overseas you know the drill. I had to go to the embassy and claim citizenship for the child. At this point the child was issued a certificate and a passport. If you do not do this the child will have to go through the naturalization process to become a citizen. Ted Cruz has not produced any of these documents so far so I doubt if he his even a citizen. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone , which we operated on a Lease, it was never US property, nor is Gitmo. We were supposed to return Gitmo to Cuba in 1999. McCain had the certificated but he was not a Natural Born Citizen. When McCain ran for President the Senate passed a resolution declaring him a Natural Born Citizen. Mitt Romney's father George Romney was brought north from Mexico by his parents. He ran for President but withdrew. Mitt is a Natural Born Citizen, but his father was an illegal.
(3)
(0)
PVT Raymond Lopez
Actually as much as personally dislike John McCain his father was active duty military on official duty in the Panama Canal Zone thus he was a native born American.
(0)
(0)
SSG Edward Tilton
1. Panama was never US property, it was leased.
2. I didn't say he wasn't a citizen, he didn't meet the Natural Born criteria. So the Senate
passed a resolution conferring Natural Born US Citizen on him.
2. I didn't say he wasn't a citizen, he didn't meet the Natural Born criteria. So the Senate
passed a resolution conferring Natural Born US Citizen on him.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google