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
1
1
0
If you ask me, I feel that you must SUCCESSFULLY serve an enlistment in the armed services to be considered for US citizenship. Meaning, if you get discharged for any reason other than honorable conditions or general under honorable conditions then your eligibility should be voided
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I am first generation American my family all came to the United States from Spain legally through Ellis Island and I still have my mother’s Spanish passport and my father’s American citizenship certificate. When I moved to the Commonwealth of Virginia in 2002 the Virginia Department of Transportation made me get a copy of my birth certificate I had not seen the original since I enlisted in the United States Army at seventeen. They accepted my Pennsylvania operator’s license. Guess what they would not accept as proof my United States citizenship? FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT CREDENTIALS!!!!!!!!! I was born in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania!!!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I would have to say no the 14th Amendment does not include children born to illegal immigrants. To understand the the goal and function of the aforementioned amendment, to include, the wording; one must look at the basic premise for the amendment. The 14th Amendment addressed the legal validity of the civil rights bill ratified in 1866 and also clearly defines citizenship, which ended criminal black codes established under the former rebel states. To include the fundamental rights (under Article IV, Section II of the Constitution) of former slaves, which became legal citizens after Lincoln's emancipation. This created an equal footing under law for both white and black citizens. In 1868, when ratified, the Federal Government did not limit immigration. The result, there were no illegal immigrants within the USA. It should be noted the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American born persons from automatically gaining citizenship whose allegiance to the USA was not complete. In 1873, during the Slaughter-House cases, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed the interpretation of the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" excluded "children of ministers, consuls and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." Another case reaffirmed the first interpretation; in 1898, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case, the ruling was strictly based on the 14th Amendment concluded the status of the parents was "crucial" to determining the citizenship of the child. With today's misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part on the presumption that Wong Kim Ark encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of both legal and illegal immigrants, but rather determine allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the word "domicile." Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have legal domicile within our borders, the ruling did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. In reality the ruling further solidified the original intent of the 14th Amendment. Simply put, the status of the parent determines the citizenship of the child. All this information is public knowledge, so why is there an issue with immigration. Furthermore, I don't have an issue with immigrants coming here; just do it the right way.
(1)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
None of that matters, even though true. It is settled law at this point in time. And I doubt anyone will bring it before the SCOTUS for review any time soon.
(0)
(0)
SSG Steven Mangus
No need to, the rulings have been made..We need to enforce the law plain and simple..
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Controversial topic, I'd say that we really need to work on securing our borders, and stemming the flow of illegals into the country first, then tackle what to do about citizenship for those here currently illegally and for those born here under illegal circumstances. You can't solve every problem at the same time. So I advocate taking it one step at a time.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Hot topic sir, i would not want to deny anyone the right to freedom, that's what we fight for here in the USA, but as long as you put in parameters for ppl entering the country and we follow them as they are written rather than shoot from the hip when the mood hits us, then give them the opportunity to become legal citizens.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google