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
This is still an 'open question' as pertains to the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and any ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States with respect to illegal aliens residing within the U.S. and their entitlement to birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court as such has never issued a ruling on births by illegal aliens; however, it is also held by many scholars and jurists that the U.S. Congress has the power to clarify once and for all if the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to include illegals or not. It is widely held that the amendment did not automatically confer citizenship to children of aliens, because the child's parent had not made herself subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. [re: See history of the Slaughter House Cases].
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Take the dreamers (DACA)for instance. Their parents brought them illegally into the US. Two decades later they are educated and have assimilated to our way of life. They voluntarily enlist to serve our nation, as one of us. Some face the horrors of war, they shed their blood with ours, suffer through the same ordeals. They serve honorably. My personal belief is they have shown they are willing to fight and die like you and I, therefore they should be rewarded full citizenship without question. This doesn’t mean it applies to chain migration, only to the individual who served.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
No because people that worked hard to become citizens have paid their dues and by others being given citizenship it takes away from their hard work
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Working in the blue collar sector has definitely changed my perspective. None of the Latino's I've worked with fall under the "entitled" to anything and these jobs have a 70% vacancy rate.
I can't get any of the "entitled" young people to show up on time or ready to work in fact no one under the age of 30 seems to have any work ethic so far.
As a marine and a combat vet, this topic gets me hot because I personally know men that have served this country that have been lead to believe they had a home after a few tours just to be shown the door.
Call me old fashioned but I'm a Quid pro quo sort of guy. If our system isn't taking care of our own then fix it or get rid of it.
I can't get any of the "entitled" young people to show up on time or ready to work in fact no one under the age of 30 seems to have any work ethic so far.
As a marine and a combat vet, this topic gets me hot because I personally know men that have served this country that have been lead to believe they had a home after a few tours just to be shown the door.
Call me old fashioned but I'm a Quid pro quo sort of guy. If our system isn't taking care of our own then fix it or get rid of it.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
wow. Just knowing that a good percentage of our armed forces is made up of CITIZENS born of undocumented immigrants makes me wonder what your little comments are doing for moral. I see CSMs and field grade officers who most likely have several US born citizens of immigrant parents among their ranks spewing nothing but hate. Glad to see you have great faith in your troops..............
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Um, I am ok and right on target with Prof. Eastman EXCEPT when he uses the term illegal immigrant.There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. One is either here illegally and has not properly immigrated into our country or HAS immigrated and is now a legal citizen of the united States of America.
(1)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
Precisely! It's actually a contradiction in terms, but far more acceptable than undocumented which is just another term for illegal.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
COL Mikel J. Burroughs - Two things come immediately to mind here that I've never seen mentioned before.
1. Benefits from a crime. I don't know of any criminal acts that allow you to keep the benefits you gained from a crime, whether it be bank robbery, embezzlement, Identity Theft, etc.
2. The illegal entry isn't the only crime committed: If you want to work when you come here illegally, you'll need a SSN. Seems that results in using someone else's SSN, since as far as I know, you cannot be here illegally and obtain a SSN. Now you're addressing identity theft as well as the illegal entry.
I'm sure if you look father, you'd find other infractions as weel.
As has been noted by many others on here, it's certainly not an inducement to do things the correct legal way, and sooner or later the entire system is going to break down. Ethically, morally, and legally it's not fair to the people who want to come here legally, spend large sums of their own money and huge amounts of time to become a citizen, only to see others who snuck in, continue to commit crimes, being treated as equal to them.
1. Benefits from a crime. I don't know of any criminal acts that allow you to keep the benefits you gained from a crime, whether it be bank robbery, embezzlement, Identity Theft, etc.
2. The illegal entry isn't the only crime committed: If you want to work when you come here illegally, you'll need a SSN. Seems that results in using someone else's SSN, since as far as I know, you cannot be here illegally and obtain a SSN. Now you're addressing identity theft as well as the illegal entry.
I'm sure if you look father, you'd find other infractions as weel.
As has been noted by many others on here, it's certainly not an inducement to do things the correct legal way, and sooner or later the entire system is going to break down. Ethically, morally, and legally it's not fair to the people who want to come here legally, spend large sums of their own money and huge amounts of time to become a citizen, only to see others who snuck in, continue to commit crimes, being treated as equal to them.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Join the military, and earn the right, nothing is a handout here. Just my two cents. Wanna be a citizen do something worthy of getting established.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
to answer that question, my straight-forward answer is OH HELL NO!!!!!! if they want to become U.S. Citizens, then let them go about it the right & legal way!!!!!!!
NO AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP WHATSOEVER !!!!!!!
NO AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP WHATSOEVER !!!!!!!
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
NO, but I believe all f them should be given a chance to become US Citizens. There are some/many out there that are good people, lets keep them around, and kick the bad ones out.
(1)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
They have that chance, just do the same as all those we allow in constantly. No front of line privileges or cutting in line. The youngest of our citizens understand that
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google