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
3
3
0
It is my opinion that no person or group of persons who have entered the jurisdiction of the United States of America in any manner other than through the proscribed channels established by law has violated the law and therefore have no entitlements. The host nation (USA) has no obligation toward those persons.
Persons born in the jurisdiction of the USA as a consequence of illegal entry by one or both parents should not have any special consideration
If a person or persons have entered the Jurisdiction of the USA illegally but is seeking asylum, they should immediately report themselves to proper authority to begin that process.
I have heard the arguments over and over that all the illegal immigrants want is a better life for themselves and their family but that does not entitle them to commit a crime to do so. Until the Congress changes or creates new Immigration laws, there is not a way for illegal immigrants to become citizens.
Persons born in the jurisdiction of the USA as a consequence of illegal entry by one or both parents should not have any special consideration
If a person or persons have entered the Jurisdiction of the USA illegally but is seeking asylum, they should immediately report themselves to proper authority to begin that process.
I have heard the arguments over and over that all the illegal immigrants want is a better life for themselves and their family but that does not entitle them to commit a crime to do so. Until the Congress changes or creates new Immigration laws, there is not a way for illegal immigrants to become citizens.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Not only no, but hell no. We have enough homegrown criminals, we don't need anyone elses criminals. And yes, as soon as someone crosses an international border without proper documentation, they ARE a CRIMINAL regardless of where they're from or what gender or age they are.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
We should always follow the rule of the law. We can't keep changing our immigration policy every time we elect a new President. We have processes to change the law if it needs to be changed.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I believe that you answered your own question with your citation. The answer is No.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
3
3
0
3
3
0
Automatic no!! I think they should be given the opportunity to apply to stay and be evaluated on a case by case basis, but it should not be automatic. Some of these illegals may be in danger if they return to their country, so if they haven't committed a crime (other than being here illegally) the humane thing to do would be to allow them to stay.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Illegal, no. There is a legal process by which immigrants can become legal citizens. It should be followed in all cases. In the case of a child born in the US, to me the big question is are the parents permanent residents here legally, i.e. green card residents? In that case it is cut and dry. In the case of those whose parents are here illegally, while I appreciate their plight, I have to say no. Perhaps they should be exempted from the full process, but they should at least be required to take the oath upon reaching some age, perhaps 18. As to their parents and others here illegally, it may not be feasible to ship them home, but they should at a minimum be required to wait a full five years (perhaps with a penalty time added on?) and pay some sort of fine.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
The term Illegal should speak for itself. No, I do not think there should be any automatic citizenship. If 2 illegal aliens have a baby, it is simple math, now there are 3 illegal aliens!!!
(3)
(0)
PO3 John Wagner
Good logical point. It is usually the small points like that which make the point in a handful of words that can make it through the general public density. A to B to C.
Doesn't allow for a lot of flowery rhetoric to interfere with the message. Thank you for that succinct summation.
Doesn't allow for a lot of flowery rhetoric to interfere with the message. Thank you for that succinct summation.
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
The law being " subject to jurisdiction " subject meaning the persons here ! Are they here legally or illlegally ? Jurisdiction meaning are the protected by the laws of the United States? If you aren't an established citizen then you don't meet the jurisdiction clause . Period ! So an illegal person who sneaks over the border and has a baby here isn't due any process nor is the child !
(3)
(0)
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
How do? Is there a law saying you have to check IDs when someone asks for help? Our county health office does not, nor do we with pro bono health offerings. Again, not saying if I agree or not, just stating facts.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google