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
6
6
0
While not an attorney, nor a Constitutional scholar, I do not believe that a child born in the US because his Mother managed to illegally cross the border into the States should automatically become a US citizen. I consider it in the same vein as evidence gained by police in an illegal search. I think the term is Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. A result of an illegal act should not become legally binding.
(6)
(0)
6
6
0
No, it must be earned so it can be respected. So many people take being an American for granted.
(6)
(0)
PVT Raymond Lopez
The Justinian Code says that ignorance of the law is not a defense. All of you here have raised your right arm and of your own free will swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic and yet you show your ignorance of it! The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. The amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws, and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by Southern states, which were forced to ratify it in order for them to regain representation in Congress The Southern states contended that former slaves were not citizens rather they were residents and not subject to the protections of citizenship. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ILLEGAL ALLIENS!!!! I have spent my entire adult in either one of the components of the United States Army or law enforcement so I have some slight experience in Constitutional law.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
6
6
0
No, COL Mikel J. Burroughs, illegal immigrants are not automatically entitled to automatic citizenship in the U.S.A.
Whether or not, children of illegal immigrants who (1) just happened to be born here or (2) those who were deliberately born here will be granted citizenship in the U.S.A. is a question that may be decided in the near term or after the next Presidential election.
Whether or not, children of illegal immigrants who (1) just happened to be born here or (2) those who were deliberately born here will be granted citizenship in the U.S.A. is a question that may be decided in the near term or after the next Presidential election.
(6)
(0)
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
LTC Stephen F. I'm for a change. Let's see if it truly is changed. You know how campaign promises are after the election is over "Fair to partly cloudy!"
(4)
(0)
5
5
0
Short answer NO. The operant word being ILLEGAL. If this offends anyone please refer to the following definition of ILLEGAL ALIEN (assuming that you can comprehend the meaning): "...a foreign national who is living without authorization in a country of which they are not a citizen..." No where in that definition does it imply that an ILLEGAL ALIEN has an alienable right to U.S. Citizenship.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
Illegals and their children should not be granted citizenship. We are not supposed to reward people for breaking our laws.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
In 1907, my great-grandfather, my pregnant great-grandmother and their two young daughters (9-months-old and 2-years-old) LEGALLY immigrated to the US. My great-grandfather's two brothers and one of their wives came with them. They were Catholic refugees from Chancellor Otto von Bismarck's Germany. He hated Catholicism, the Vatican and the Pope. He believed that the Vatican would set up a papal state in Germany. As a result, Bismarck instituted numerous anti-Catholic laws. Catholic associations and meetings were broken up. Monasteries and convents were closed. Bishops and priests were imprisoned or exiled.
My ancestors were sponsored by a priest in Rockford, IL. They traveled on Swiss papers and had a sponsorship letter naming the priest and their destination city. The Church helped the men find jobs. All five of the adults took classes and learned the language to become naturalized citizens. There was a process through which the German-born children became citizens, too. Of course, the baby my great-grandmother was carrying was a US citizen when he was born, as was my grandmother when she was born a few years later. These people are the maternal family of my mother. Her father's family immigrated around 1850, before Ellis Island became the huge immigration station that it was.
My point is that like most of us, I am a descendant of immigrants. Citizenship was not automatic for any of them, not even the German refugees. They all did what was necessary to become citizens. As we know, Ellis Island is a thing of the past, but that doesn't prevent new immigrants from meeting the same kind of requirements as my ancestors to become US citizens.
My ancestors were sponsored by a priest in Rockford, IL. They traveled on Swiss papers and had a sponsorship letter naming the priest and their destination city. The Church helped the men find jobs. All five of the adults took classes and learned the language to become naturalized citizens. There was a process through which the German-born children became citizens, too. Of course, the baby my great-grandmother was carrying was a US citizen when he was born, as was my grandmother when she was born a few years later. These people are the maternal family of my mother. Her father's family immigrated around 1850, before Ellis Island became the huge immigration station that it was.
My point is that like most of us, I am a descendant of immigrants. Citizenship was not automatic for any of them, not even the German refugees. They all did what was necessary to become citizens. As we know, Ellis Island is a thing of the past, but that doesn't prevent new immigrants from meeting the same kind of requirements as my ancestors to become US citizens.
(5)
(0)
Sgt William Straub Jr.
Your family did it the correct way. When I was active duty, I married a young lady from Ireland. We went through all the steps. Permission from my CO, paperwork signed and authorized by the US Consulate in Frankfurt so she could get admitted to the US and get a green card. The marriage only lasted 10 years but we had 2 great kids. The ex actually became an American Citizen after we got divorced.
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
There was a time when I believed that if a child is born in American soil, he/she should be granted American citizenship. Then I started noticing a trend of thousands of pregnant women coming here illegally, solely to have their child, and I started not supporting the idea. Illegal pregnant women come here, the American tax payer pays for their birth, and now expects the child's rights to get her a citizenship, plus her other children. Why, "because we can't tear families apart." Not to mention the free housing, welfare, and medicare. This is just crazy.
(5)
(0)
5
5
0
At the same time, I think immigrants that serve in the military should get a fast track (assuming the enlistment or commission wasn't voided because of fraud)
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google