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
4
4
0
I believe the current process and path to Citizenship is OK. Additionally, at least one of your Parents is an American Citizen or your born on the soil you should be an American Citizen.....which is the current practice is OK as well. Honest opinion here, we can't have a $1 Trillion Dollar infrastructure program (which will probably end up being $2-3 Trillion before we are done) without allowing the immigrants within the United States to work on it. We are going to find ourselves very short handed if we attempt that. I think your going to need once again to have some kind of amnesty for those illegal immigrants that are already here and have been positively contributing to the country for X number of years. As politically unpalatible as that is, I can't see any other way for us to avoid a large labor shortage with our planned spending over the next 4-8 years. It would be shortsighted to deport all the illegals and then beg for them to come back later.
(4)
(0)
PO3 John Wagner
I don't think it will cause a labor shortage. All government funded projects have a wage base set by federal guidelines. Those girls holding the flags in the construction zones are very well paid and really don't need to have a single marketable job skill beyond fogging a mirror. Which is why most of them are friends and family of the contractors.
Why else do you think it now cost anywhere from 4-6million dollars to pave a mile of friggin freeway and to do the job so poorly...because the inspectors are either bribed or inexperienced enough to pull the wool over the eyes of.. that the work can fall apart in a few years and no accountability is to be had. After all the inspector signed off on it.
With what little experience I have had with the road building process I am already aware of some of the tricks that the contractors use to bullshit the inspectors. Not rocket science at all. Just smoke and mirrors. "Squirrel! Squirrel'" Did they use enough asphalt cement in the last five miles? Lie about the tanks levels. The inspectors have no idea exactly how much asphalt has been delivered to the job.
Why else do you think it now cost anywhere from 4-6million dollars to pave a mile of friggin freeway and to do the job so poorly...because the inspectors are either bribed or inexperienced enough to pull the wool over the eyes of.. that the work can fall apart in a few years and no accountability is to be had. After all the inspector signed off on it.
With what little experience I have had with the road building process I am already aware of some of the tricks that the contractors use to bullshit the inspectors. Not rocket science at all. Just smoke and mirrors. "Squirrel! Squirrel'" Did they use enough asphalt cement in the last five miles? Lie about the tanks levels. The inspectors have no idea exactly how much asphalt has been delivered to the job.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
I don't think that citizenship should be automatic for those whom come from a different country. Yes we all came from immigrants with the exception of American Indians but for the most part had to apply or become American citizens. For they had to prove themselves to others that they were worthy of staying in the United States. They had to be able to get a job and learn to read and write English. For there was nothing automatic about the process back when America was being founded and created to what it is today. For immigrants need to be able to do the same now as they did before. For yes there are immigrants today that have proved themselves by taking a citizenship test and have proved themselves. However, there are other immigrants who are taking advantage of our country by just taking what others have worked so hard for granted. All they do is take and not provide anything back to the country. They take our jobs which takes our money, don't pay any taxes for what they get is usually cash under the table. Then they expect to collect unemployment, social security, free housing, free food, free clothing at the expense of the American people/government.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
Under current immigration law, illegal / undocumented immigrants do not have a path to citizenship. Generally, only permanent residents legally living here in the US for a period of five years can apply for citizenship. Only congressional action or court precedent can modify the conditions governing a path to citizenship other than what is specifically enumerated in the US Constitution.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
No to amnesty and/or blanket citizenship. Most of us were fortunate enough to have been born here so it's easy to be complacent about it. I have no problems with immigration but only if it's legal. I'm sure it's a hassle but is a small price to pay to become an AMCIT. I'm for citizenship earned through military service because that demonstrates commitment and service. Besides all the financial and legal impacts it's unfair to all the immigrants that have gone through the lengthy process to allow others to skip it. If you've ever waited your turn in a barber shop then imagine the feeling of someone walking in and taking a seat in the first chair available. I welcome others to enjoy the benefits of citizenship but think they should do it legally. Offspring should also apply and not be allowed to until their family does also. It's a start and will not happen overnight, but is at least a first step toward legalizing those already here. Preventing others from entering is another issue and is not as simple as a wall. How about tunnels, ships, trains, planes, buses, cars etc.? They are finding tunnels all the time that are far from crude. Some are large enough to drive through and are primarily used to smuggle drugs vice people. I read somewhere that the only thing a 25 foot wall would do is promote sales of 21 foot ladders.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
COL Mikel J. Burroughs - In my opinion, illegal immigrants are not entitled to any benefits accorded to United States citizens (assuming that there is still any meaning to being a citizen of the United States). Period.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
This question answers itself. There are a couple key words "illegal" and "immigrants" that I would point to. If the person in question is both illegal and an immigrant they are not entitled to anything. The United States of America owes nothing to someone who openly disregards its law before being granted citizenship (which is basically like committing a foul before the game even starts). The fact that anyone who is not a legal citizen of this great nation thinks they are entitled to anything we have to offer is ridiculous and wrong.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
4
4
0
No when an illegal, crosses the borders, or even someone who is here legally on a tourist visa e just to have a baby in the USA ( this is being done and their are groups actively recruiting and Promoting this) to gain citizenship it should not be automatic. I would allow for the children, who's parents are that are here legally and are alien residents and have a green card to be granted citizenship.
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
It seems everybody has taken a drink of Flint water !!! Why are the people in 1898 so much smarter than what we have now ?
(4)
(0)
4
4
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google