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
No illegal alien should be granted automatic US citizenship ever. A illegal alien is like a thief who breaks into your house, steals your money, food, furniture and etc. They are not entitle to anything even though some are decent people. Neither should their children be given US citizenship unless one parent is a US citizen. period.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I feel like we leave to many things in the constitution up to a small group of people in Washington that is not even elected to office and serves for life this is something that we need to decide not the Supreme Court. put it on a state by state ballot. let the people decide not the powers that be in Washington!
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
My opinion on the matter is that our four fathers never had this kind of insight of problems with immigration they wrote the the constitution on what they knew at the time and some great men were writing for the the future based on what might or could happen in my opinion the problems stem from those interrupt the constitution as the will and others make a educated guess if you truly think about it when the colonies were first being founded how many family lines can truly say they were for all intense purposes say they were born Americans and not the offspring of immigrants. Just a humble persons oponion
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Citizenship for everyone should be achieved the way it was designed. No grandfathering in.
(3)
(0)
SSG Edward Tilton
In other words EVERY person in America should pass a test before becoming a citizen. Sounds OK to me as long as we do not grandfather anyone.
(0)
(0)
PO3 John Wagner
SSG Edward Tilton - The same test which all who legally seek citizenship...which a huge majority of high school seniors or college graduates for that matter could not pass. A reasonable proficiency in English and a studied understanding of our constitution and our history. Let those who have done the footwork, the paperwork, and made it past all the bars to become citizens. No longer insult them or their American sponsors who go through reams of paperwork, attorneys, and government fees in order to secure citizenship for valuable and dedicated individuals.... which are then selected by lottery (though I have my doubts that it isn't a thoroughly vetted lottery) Citizenship is a priveledge for immigrants, not a right Millions around the world spend their entire schooling hoping for the opportunity to emigrate to the United States. Once again we have the New World Order communists/socialists errrr democrats who hope for nothing less than the destruction of our independent nation cheerleading the path to untrammeled open borders. We are being financially ruined.. starting with Lyndon Johnsons RAPE of the social security system.. leading to benefits for the undocumented that American born citizens pay for their entire lives.. to those who haven't contributed for their entire lives to earn.
(1)
(0)
LCpl Donald Faucett
The sad fact is Johnson got away with it, among other things. That dude was hiding and running away from stuff. Hence, the big todo drama of announcing he would not seek reelection.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
3
3
0
Sir the 14th is vague in that sense of that, but in the same breath, Art One clearly states "Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
Just with that alone, any child born here to illegal immigrants is entitled to everything we have as natural born or legal immigrants. I've spoken with others on this and they are in favor of amending this, and no matter how much I tell them it's a disaster waiting to happen, they say taking away auto-citizenship would stop the flow of illegals. Many seem to forget this is a nation founded on immigrants, and since they are born here naturally, they can decide who and who is NOT a citizen. They could revise it enough that I possibly could be seen as an immigrant even though I clearly was born here. Were my ancestors slaves, yes. I know for a fact there were some, and my family is doing their genealogy now. That slope could wipe out everything my family is and was, and should lead to others. How far are we willing to take it? We're already separating families who are having kids here in the US illegally. What we are not doing is stemming the tide of Asians who come on vacation leave with a new born citizen. If what they're doing was to take hold in more countries, the US would wind up paying more to support these kids in their "home" countries than anywhere in the US. We could set up places in airports where pregnant women coming from Asian countries are screened to see how far along they really are, and if a doctor states that they lied to fly, then they can be denied the right of automatic citizenship. Maybe set up a part of the Airport where there is proper medical staff that can assist them in having the child, but the child never leaves the airport and is sent home with the mother never making it past customs, and not becoming citizens. This would be a case that does make the SCOTUS define what really can make someone a citizen, and address profiling which it would be called.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
Just with that alone, any child born here to illegal immigrants is entitled to everything we have as natural born or legal immigrants. I've spoken with others on this and they are in favor of amending this, and no matter how much I tell them it's a disaster waiting to happen, they say taking away auto-citizenship would stop the flow of illegals. Many seem to forget this is a nation founded on immigrants, and since they are born here naturally, they can decide who and who is NOT a citizen. They could revise it enough that I possibly could be seen as an immigrant even though I clearly was born here. Were my ancestors slaves, yes. I know for a fact there were some, and my family is doing their genealogy now. That slope could wipe out everything my family is and was, and should lead to others. How far are we willing to take it? We're already separating families who are having kids here in the US illegally. What we are not doing is stemming the tide of Asians who come on vacation leave with a new born citizen. If what they're doing was to take hold in more countries, the US would wind up paying more to support these kids in their "home" countries than anywhere in the US. We could set up places in airports where pregnant women coming from Asian countries are screened to see how far along they really are, and if a doctor states that they lied to fly, then they can be denied the right of automatic citizenship. Maybe set up a part of the Airport where there is proper medical staff that can assist them in having the child, but the child never leaves the airport and is sent home with the mother never making it past customs, and not becoming citizens. This would be a case that does make the SCOTUS define what really can make someone a citizen, and address profiling which it would be called.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
The Professor is 100% incorrect. So called "Anchor Babies" born in the USA (legal or illegal mothers) . While he mentions the Supreme Court has never held that the children of illegal immigrants are entitled to automatic citizenship, the Supreme Court HAS NEVER ruled on this type of case nor made nay decision regarding this subject. If you are born here, you are American by birth. Period. That is how it has been since day one and see no need to change that now. Now this will more than likely cause a crap storm, but that is the law. Semper Fi
(3)
(0)
SSG William Bowen
You would also have to consider if a family came here for a better life so they come illegally of their own merit and have a kid so currently the kid would be a US citizen. Apparently though, there is some sort of racket where people are paid or pay someone, I don't know how it works, where women are housed in birthing houses for the sole purposes of giving birth in the US, therefore having a citizen kid. This involves organized crime, so would you still stand by your opinion or does that make it different?
(3)
(0)
SSG David Fetty
We call people who didn't earn the honors they are wearing on a uniform "Stolen Valor" if they attempt to gain benefits due to the honors, yet when a person steals entry into the US in order to benefit financially, we call them "undocumented immigrants", give them instructions on how to apply to gain the most benefits, and tout their bravery and commitment for getting here and hiding from law enforcement. Something just doesn't seem right about that.....
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
We can shout "yes" and "no" all we want. The fact is that for a VERY long damn time, the answer has been yes and nothing the framer of that amendment said overturns that. Yeah, he said kids of foreign dignitaries are out, but I think you're going to have a hard time proving that some homeless couple from Oaxaca are representing the Mexican government in any sort of capacity.
Note: that "or" is ADDED. Howard didn't say it, and even if he had, he sure as hell didn't write it down. That's akin to people claiming that because old versions of the Constitution say "Sect" rather than "religion", the 1A only applies to Christians.
Besides, Citizen kids guarantee nothing. They and their parents can be deported with the child not being allowed to return until they are 21 unless they themselves have a citizen guardian. Even then, they can't sponsor anyone until they've established themselves enough to responsibly take legal guardianship of said sponsored immigrant, which could be quite some time. Everything else is just policy that can change from president to president.
Note: that "or" is ADDED. Howard didn't say it, and even if he had, he sure as hell didn't write it down. That's akin to people claiming that because old versions of the Constitution say "Sect" rather than "religion", the 1A only applies to Christians.
Besides, Citizen kids guarantee nothing. They and their parents can be deported with the child not being allowed to return until they are 21 unless they themselves have a citizen guardian. Even then, they can't sponsor anyone until they've established themselves enough to responsibly take legal guardianship of said sponsored immigrant, which could be quite some time. Everything else is just policy that can change from president to president.
(3)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
COL Ted Mc - Interesting read:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/the-myth-of-the-anchor-baby-deportation-defense/
I'm trying to find the Immigration page that outlines the whole thing but essentially it works like this - The kid CAN stay, but only if they have a legal guardian who is also a citizen. If not, they have to go and are permitted to return when they reach the age of majority (21 in the case of immigration law). They can then apply to sponsor their parents, BUT that's a 3 year+ process not including meeting the legal requirements to actually sponsor anyone.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/the-myth-of-the-anchor-baby-deportation-defense/
I'm trying to find the Immigration page that outlines the whole thing but essentially it works like this - The kid CAN stay, but only if they have a legal guardian who is also a citizen. If not, they have to go and are permitted to return when they reach the age of majority (21 in the case of immigration law). They can then apply to sponsor their parents, BUT that's a 3 year+ process not including meeting the legal requirements to actually sponsor anyone.
The myth of the ‘anchor baby’ deportation defense
Its a politically valuable but largely inaccurate idea.
(0)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
What that means is that kids who were born to illegals when REAGAN was president are maybe just now able to sponsor their parents. Not exactly a great strategy on getting your green card.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SGT Jeremiah B. - Sergeant; The odds on the Immigration people actually telling the parents that their child can stay in the US are ...?
The odds that the parents will be able to arrange for a "legal guardian" between the time they are arrested and the time they are deported are ...?
If a child is "abandoned" then its "legal guardian" becomes "the state" and a child born of parents who were in the country illegally would then become a "ward of the state" and thus qualify to remain in the US, but the odds on the Immigration people actually telling the parents of the child that are ...?
What people are arguing about is a policy and not a law.
The odds that the parents will be able to arrange for a "legal guardian" between the time they are arrested and the time they are deported are ...?
If a child is "abandoned" then its "legal guardian" becomes "the state" and a child born of parents who were in the country illegally would then become a "ward of the state" and thus qualify to remain in the US, but the odds on the Immigration people actually telling the parents of the child that are ...?
What people are arguing about is a policy and not a law.
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
No Sir. The 14Th amendment wasn't designed to allow any illegal aliens citizenship, even though it has been done for a long time. My thoughts are that even if the amendment is followed like it was written, illegals will continue crossing our borders. They do not know anything about our Constitution, and that is exactly why they need to go through proper channels to become a citizen so they do understand the constitution.
(3)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
This is really a dumb question. Can I go to Mexico, France, Germany, etc. and receive a citizenship overnight ? No! I would have to take a test like the immigrants who come here for citizenship.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Correct, and that's where I'm stuck with human emotion. I don't want any child to grow up without a parent. Maybe the immigrant parents don't care if they are deported, as long as their child will be an American citizen. Just guessing here.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google