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
"Leviticus 19:34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God" Not that I am really into all the silly cleanliness rules in Leviticus, I'm sure as hell not giving up my Pork, Shellfish, Catfish or Clams.
(3)
(0)
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
Sorry to be a "Donny Downer" I guess we really all do have our own "Crosses to Bear".
(0)
(0)
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
You see I helped create the Hell Hole that South and Central America has become leaving the folks there no really good choice but try and escape here.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel - PO; Well, since the United States of America was founded as a "Christian Nation" that absolutely settles the matter, doesn't it.
I mean, if "The Bible" says that's the way it is supposed to be then that MUST be what the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers was - right?
I mean, if "The Bible" says that's the way it is supposed to be then that MUST be what the Original Intent of the Founding Fathers was - right?
(0)
(0)
SGT Robert George
You dont need to follow all those Leviticus cleanliness rules as much as you and Jesus stated gave us a new commandment love one another as you would love yourself .. That doesn't mean we are not loving when enforcing the law of the land .. This free for all is ensuing catastrophe ...
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
There used to be systems where non citizens good get a leg up on citizenship by joining the Military and I see nothing wrong with that concept.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
You know we could solve 90% of this illegal immigration problem by invading Mexico, annihilating the drug cartels, and adding another star on the U.S. flag. And for that matter, we could invade all the way to Panama and take back the Canal.
(3)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Cpl Mark McMiller - Corporal; "Dreaming" about invading, conquering, and pacifying a country with a population of around 121,700,000 (when its own government can't effectively control most of it already) is what is known in the trade as a "nightmare".
Using the "standard" ration (1 :: 40) for "occupation troops" then the US would have to station around 3,042,500 troops in Mexico for the foreseeable future.
Of course, if the US DID incorporate Mexico into the United States of America then those 121,700,000 "socialist" voters would ensure that the US had a "Left-wing" administration for the next hundred years or so.
Using the "standard" ration (1 :: 40) for "occupation troops" then the US would have to station around 3,042,500 troops in Mexico for the foreseeable future.
Of course, if the US DID incorporate Mexico into the United States of America then those 121,700,000 "socialist" voters would ensure that the US had a "Left-wing" administration for the next hundred years or so.
(2)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Cpl Mark McMiller - Corporal; You are welcome.
Just remember the old adage "Be careful what you wish for - you just might get it.".
Just remember the old adage "Be careful what you wish for - you just might get it.".
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I don't know - I'm no expert or SME on the subject. However, it's my feeling that anchor babies are not "legal" citizens and I think if it was challenged as such, common sense would prevail. I in no way think the intent of the 14th amendment exists to support illegal immigrants coming here to have a baby so it will be a US citizen. At any rate, I can't figure out how anyone could do this - if you do, and you are deported, are you not going to take your child with you? Come on? It's clear that the parents of anchor babies are subject to deportation - and I say boot them out - and hopefully they take their anchor baby with them.
(3)
(0)
COL Mikel J. Burroughs
CMSgt Mark Schubert I'm no where near an SME on this subject either, but it has drummed up some great responses and discussion!
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
This is one of the contested questions where not many Americans witness the impact first hand. Along the southern border people from these areas see first hand the impact that the influx of illegals have on an economy. This being said we've seen first hand pregnant women who come here just to have their children here in which they and their infant child qualifies for government subsidies. The travesty is Americans have a much more difficult time in receiving benefits.
So as to the question should children born of illegal parents be considered legal citizens just because they are born here? Well lets look at it for what it is. 1. A law was broken when the parents came here illegally. 2. If a person who came here illegally and is now receiving benefits, wouldn't that be considered theft? 3. Why is the financial impacts these towns face not being reported? So yes they (children of illegals) should not be given the status of American citizenship because normally when a child is born here of American parents laws are not being broken. So why make Americans financially responsible for those who continuously break our laws to gain benefits which do not belong to them?
So as to the question should children born of illegal parents be considered legal citizens just because they are born here? Well lets look at it for what it is. 1. A law was broken when the parents came here illegally. 2. If a person who came here illegally and is now receiving benefits, wouldn't that be considered theft? 3. Why is the financial impacts these towns face not being reported? So yes they (children of illegals) should not be given the status of American citizenship because normally when a child is born here of American parents laws are not being broken. So why make Americans financially responsible for those who continuously break our laws to gain benefits which do not belong to them?
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Well Col, Mikel Burroughs, with the exception of the (assumed) amendment referancing the Indians, I think that all that is actually needed is remidiale English and then forcing certain persons to read what you just posted. Considering the reason for the 14th, was to try to make some amends to the children of the slave, and give them stakeholders rights in this country. As such, and considering there is no (wholesale) slavery in this country for more than 100 years, then the premise no longer exsists then the 14th might well be abolished.
(2)
(0)
PO3 John Wagner
There is slavery. The illegals are enslaved by predatory employers..including pimps drug dealers and gang lords. I heartily agree with your point. Thanks for mentioning the original intent of the law.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
A touchy controversial topic indeed CPT Ferdinand Zoa. But it should not be. As a retired Senior Border Patrol Agent, all I can speak to, is what I was taught. All Trainees at the BP Academy have to pass 2 semesters of U.S. Immigration Law condensed into a 22 week course of study. The laws studied, apply to Illegal Entry, Apprehension, Admissibility of the legal classifications allowed to enter, Smuggling, Detention and Removal. The topic now called "Anchor Babies" is not covered. As I have learned, birthright citizenship came about at the beginning of the "progressive movement" before and continued under FDR. Supposedly it became acceptable to protect the children of Chinese workers brought in to the US to help build the railroads. The Constitution does not allow for citizenship to foreigners, but to children of US citizens born abroad. Politically, I believe the topic now can only be changed by a Constitutional Amendment to the 14Th Amendment. Sadly I believe that won't happen because our politicians are more worried about losing the Latino/Hispanic vote than defining the clause "jurisdiction there of." Since this can become a political conversation I'll stop right there. Anyone on the RP feel free to correct me if I misspoke. And No. Babies born to Illegal Aliens should not derive US citizenship.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I say it should be a case by case basis. Parental status is important. But if they are working and paying taxes and not a burden on society, why not.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Given that the issue of children was not brought up for a decision to be made, the only issue that can be proven is that a child being born in the USA is a US citizen by birth, which falls under common law because it has been done like that for years; kind of like a grandfathered law.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
In the words of Professor Lino Graglia.... "Birthright Citizenship is Unreasonable, Harmful, Irrational and It's Self-Contradictory." In a very recent commentary proffered by the good professor dated October 30 2018, he makes the case in-full to support the aforestated assessment. That commentary can be accessed at the following URL. I would suggest this is a 'must read' for all who may be interested in this topic. https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/lino-graglia/birthright-citizenship-unreasonable-harmful-irrational-and-self
Birthright Citizenship: Unreasonable, Harmful, Irrational and Self-Contradictory
It is often said that there are two sides to every argument, but the argument about birthright citizenship for children born here of illegal aliens shows that it isn’t true. There is nothing to be said for one side of the argument. A policy of granting birthright citizenship to children born here of illegal aliens is not merely unreasonable and harmful, but irrational and self-contradictory, a matter of both punishing and rewarding the same...
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google