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
5
5
0
I really do not understand why this is controversial. If someone is here illegally that means they have broken the law to be here and they are not entitled to diddly or squat!! The only reason people want to make them automatic citizens is in the hopes that will vote Democrat
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
COL Mikel J. Burroughs - Mikel; Now here's a twist on the story.
Obviously the children's parents were NOT "accredited diplomats", but the Canadian government is taking the position that "children born in Canada to representatives of foreign governments were not eligible for citizenship". The children's parents "active agents of a foreign government" (read as "spies") even though they were "subject to the jurisdiction" of the Canadian government and were definitely NOT "accredited diplomats".
I haven't heard of any parallel story coming from the US, but I thought that you'd be interested in this one and might want to follow it to get an idea of how the US courts might consider ruling.
From "The National Post"
These brothers were born in Toronto, but their parents were Russian spies, so they cannot be Canadian
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/their-parents-were-russian-spies-so-they-cannot-be-canadian
Obviously the children's parents were NOT "accredited diplomats", but the Canadian government is taking the position that "children born in Canada to representatives of foreign governments were not eligible for citizenship". The children's parents "active agents of a foreign government" (read as "spies") even though they were "subject to the jurisdiction" of the Canadian government and were definitely NOT "accredited diplomats".
I haven't heard of any parallel story coming from the US, but I thought that you'd be interested in this one and might want to follow it to get an idea of how the US courts might consider ruling.
From "The National Post"
These brothers were born in Toronto, but their parents were Russian spies, so they cannot be Canadian
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/their-parents-were-russian-spies-so-they-cannot-be-canadian
These brothers were born in Toronto, but their parents were Russian spies, so they cannot be...
The sons of two Russian 'deep cover' spies are fighting to keep the Canadian citizenship they acquired while their parents were living in Toronto under assumed identities
(5)
(0)
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
COL Ted Mc Awesome article - I'm really behind on RP - trying to catch up - Sorry!
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
COL Mikel J. Burroughs - Mikel; I do have to admit that it's a bizarre one - especially since one of the young men claiming Canadian citizenship appears to be an employee of the "Russian Intelligence System" and the other (despite his claims that he "has always thought of himself as a Canadian" hasn't been in Canada since he was one year old.
I suspect that the Canadian courts are going to tell both of them to get lost.
I wonder if a concept like "Presumptive Citizenship" (where jus solei applies but is rebuttable [and automatically rebutted if the child leaves the country within ten years of its birth]) and where "Permanent Citizenship" would be automatic upon an application by a person reaching the age of 18 and born in the US (regardless of parental status) provided that they met all the other legal requirements for an immigrant OR they would meet the criteria of an "American born abroad" as of the date of their birth (in which case application for "Permanent Citizenship" could be made at any time) would work.
Of course you'd have to make the requirement to apply for "Permanent Citizenship" universal or else you would be discriminating. Heck, you could even combine it with the application for a Social Security Number and Draft Registration.
I suspect that the Canadian courts are going to tell both of them to get lost.
I wonder if a concept like "Presumptive Citizenship" (where jus solei applies but is rebuttable [and automatically rebutted if the child leaves the country within ten years of its birth]) and where "Permanent Citizenship" would be automatic upon an application by a person reaching the age of 18 and born in the US (regardless of parental status) provided that they met all the other legal requirements for an immigrant OR they would meet the criteria of an "American born abroad" as of the date of their birth (in which case application for "Permanent Citizenship" could be made at any time) would work.
Of course you'd have to make the requirement to apply for "Permanent Citizenship" universal or else you would be discriminating. Heck, you could even combine it with the application for a Social Security Number and Draft Registration.
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
PO3 John Wagner
The above commenter, whom I often disagree with has a completely valid and proper point. I knew numerous Mexicans and Philippinos who joined our Navy just for that reason. My Chief in boot camp was only one of them and hard core. He helped make me who I am today and I applaud him. He, like those others paid his dues in the military and learned first hand how to be a part of our nation. It is probably one of the MOST honorable ways that a person can become a citizen.
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
5
5
0
4
4
0
Citizenship should be a privilege, not a right for those born here and for those that immigrate legally to this nation. Frankly, I can think of some citizens we have who have not earned the right to be here and I consider to be a detriment to this nation. For those who think this nation is so horrible they need to see and experience other nations and not by a 10 nation in 10 day tour through a shiny bus window but as we have. You don't see grinding poverty and corruption as a tourist or celebrity but by living among the locals. We as Americans have it better than most nations in the world warts and all and it should not be something handed out like free samples at grocery store.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
When I was a green butterbar, I met two 2LTs who were getting their citizenship via active military service. One was British, the other from South Africa. Perhaps this could become the defacto pathway to citizenship?
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
I am a firm believer that to receive automatic citizenship at birth one of two conditions must be (or should be) meet 1) at least one of the parents are a U.S. citizen or 2) the parents are both legal immigrants (not on a student, business or visitors visa) in the process of becoming a citizen in this case the child reeves citizenship when the parent does. This stops anchor children of both illegals and those who come here of visitors or other types of visa for the sole purpose of giving birth to a anchor child (we have seen a lot of this in the last 10 years from Asia paying thousands to do so)
(4)
(0)
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
MAJ Milton P. I think that there needs to be more language and policy guidance added to the Constitution to firm up immigration and citizenship. It doesn't need to be harder to become a citizen, but there needs to be a thorough vetting process and citizenship requirements maintained. It should be just like RP, if you can't verify your service within a year you are dropped off the site until you do. If you can't legally become a citizen within a 1 year time frame you face deporatation and it needs to be enforced. If I don't pay my Federal or State Income Tax as a citizen both the Federal (IRS) and the individual State Department of Revenue will come after me! Just my 2 cents!
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
The designation of illegal defines that they are here illegally and this should not be citizens because of where they stand. Pretty cut and dried in the law as well- those for it look past the law. Me I want to be rich- with this thinking that illegals should be citizens I should in turn be able to rob banks until I am confident I can maintain that lifestyle I deem to be rich. Extreme example- think not. Can't change your way of thinking to frame your argument as it bleeds over into other areas. Good question COL Mikel J. Burroughs
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
Absolutely not. If you wanna be part of this great nation there are procedures and guidelines that must be followed. I served with many people who wanted to be Americans and loved our country enough to enlist. If you love this country enough to serve then I am proud to call you brother/ sister
Hoooah!!!!!!
Hoooah!!!!!!
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google