• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

HR 147: End Birthright Citizenship

BillRM said:
By DNA studies there was waves of 'native Americans' immigration over a thousands years or so therefore most so call native Americans was secondary settlers in any case.
Click to expand...

I think any ethnic group you would find wandered a bit way back when. Depending on who you ask, we all came out of Africa (though that's not certain).
 
phattonez said:
We're being transformed into a low trust, 3rd world society. Have you read the book Bowling Alone? This is a trend that even liberal sociologists have noted.
Click to expand...

Is Sen. Rubio an anchor baby ?
 
It is amusing to see some claim "allegiance" to be part of the meaning of the 14th. Just what kind of allegiance can an infant have and how permanent and enforceable can that be?
 
prometeus said:
Have they? So the Indian Citizenship Act not withstanding just what citizenship would you give Native Americans today?
Click to expand...

If you had read Elk v. Wilkins, you would know it was not about the act you mention, and what I or anyone else thinks about the citizenship of Indians today is irrelevant. It was about whether an Omaha registrar of voters violated the Constitution by refusing to register Elk to vote in an 1880 election of local officials.

The specific question before the Court was whether Elk was, simply because he had been born within the U.S. and had voluntarily separated himself from his tribe and taken up residence among white citizens, "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States within the meaning of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore eligible to vote as a citizen of the U.S. The Court held that he was not, because he had never been either naturalized or taxed and retained some vestige of allegiance to his tribe. It said Indian tribes were not, "strictly speaking, foreign states, but they were alien nations, distinct political communities . . . ."

The Court explained that:

The persons declared [by the Citizenship Clause] to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. . . .

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations. (emphasis added)


I think the Elk Court's reasoning, as applied to children born within the U.S. to alien nationals, means that accident of birth alone does not make them completely subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., and therefore does not make them citizens. The parents retain their allegiance to their own nation, and to some extent, so do their children. I hope to see Congress make a law expressing its will that this view of the Citizenship Clause should be followed, and the view the Court took in Wong Kim Ark, which is inconsistent with it, abandoned.
 
Last edited:
late to the party, but it sure seems like this whole interpretation thing would have been easier if they had simply said, "and NOT born to person(s) subject to the jurisdiction of another country", or something along those lines.
 
Gaius46 said:
On your first point - the power of enforcement does not, cannot, imply the power to change the amendment. By defining the terms used in the amendment after the fact Congress would have the power to change the amendment.
Click to expand...
No. Not at all, especially as there is an Official Record (as already provided) of what the language used means.


Gaius46 said:
Lots of problems with that idea. First it implies that the next Congress could define the terms differently. The one after that differently again. That might be be okay for Federal law but it does work for Constitutional amendments because

a) it raises separation of powers issues - the courts interpret the Constitution, as per Marbury, not the legislature and,
b) it violates state sovereignty because if changes the amendment that the states voted on.
Click to expand...
Again no.
1. Congress should not be able to define it outside of what was already on the Official Record.
2. The Amendment specifically gave Congress said power to enforce it, and that would be by the language the author's of the 14th intended, so there is no separation of Power argument to actually be made.
3. What the States voted on was defined in the Official record.


Gaius46 said:
To your second point that's essentially John Eastman's position. Two glaring problems with it

1. the language of the amendment doesn't support it. The amendment says "jurisdiction thereof" it does not say "complete jurisdiction thereof." If the drafters wanted to say "complete jurisdiction" they could have but they didn't.

2. Eastman's argument about complete jurisdiction rests on the fact that immigrants - legal or otherwise - are not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the US because they cannot vote, cannot serve on juries, cannot serve in the military (at the time the amendment was drafted). If that argument is valid the whole point of the Citizenship clause - reversal of Dredd Scott - is tossed aside because that is exactly the justification Taney used in Dredd Scott. If Eastman's argument is correct then States could have nullified the Citizenship clause by simply saying "well blacks don't vote so they're not subject to our complete jurisdiction so they can't be citizens."
Click to expand...
And again, no.

1. You are incorrect. The language does support it. The authors of the language and of the Amendment are on the Official Record, after being specifically asked, telling us exactly what the language used meant. You do not get to say it doesn't mean what they themselves have said it meant.
That you think they could have worded differently is irrelevant. This wording was chosen and defined on the Official Record.

2. No. Simply no, as the amendment was specifically formulated to solidify the previous Civil Rights Act ensuring citizenship of blacks that the same Congress had passed.



Continued below.
(and please read before replying as it is relevant to any response you may make in regards to the above)
 
Continued from above.


The only valid argument that can be made here is that if the Issue comes before the Court (which someone would obviously attempt), the Court may find differently. Such a decision, though legal, would not be correct as we have the Official Record of what the language means.


As for an argument that it means something different? Not under what is known.


1. Federal Judges have already recognized that the word "jurisdiction" as having many a different meaning, so the Court would have to establish what was meant by it's usage at that time. And as already pointed out, we have an Official Record doing just that.

Here is Justice Souter in a dissenting opinion recognizing that "jurisdiction" has many a meaning.

"‘Jurisdiction,’", we have warned several times in the last decade, "‘is a word of many, too many, meanings.’" Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 90 (1998) (quoting United States v. Vanness, 85 F. 3d 661, 663, n. 2 (CADC 1996)); Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 454 (2004) (quoting Steel Co.); Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U. S. 500, 510 (2006) (quoting Steel Co.); Rockwell Inti'l Corp. v. United States, 549 U.S. ___, ___ (2007) (slip op., at 9) (quoting Steel Co.). This variety of meaning has insidiously tempted courts, this one included, to engage in "less than meticulous," Kontrick, supra, at 454, sometimes even "profligate . . . use of the term," Arbaugh, supra, at 510.
KEITH BOWLES, PETITIONER v. HARRY RUSSELL, WARDEN ​


2. Then we have a past Attorney General who issued a legal Opinion indicating that it was known that it meant exactly what the Author said it meant, and was used as an annotation for our Federal Statutes.

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

Federal Statutes Annotated: Containing All the Laws of the United ..., Volume 11 (Link)​


3. Then we have Harry Reid who once proposed holding to the original intent of the wording.
The legislation died in committee, and Reid has since flip-flopped on the issue, but it still serves as an example.

“TITLE X—CITIZENSHIP 4 SEC. 1001. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED. In the exercise of its powers under section of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth.”

S. 1351 (103rd): Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993   /   Text | S. 1351 (103rd): Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993 | Text​
 
Of course Congress can clarify this issue.
"Subject to the jurisdiction", is vague terminology.
There is nothing "absolute" about it other than it's
attempt to identify a certain "class" of people."

The Ark case clearly stipulated that the parents where both
legal residents. That in itself, excludes any defining attributes
of the decision in the case of rescinding birthright citizenship.

You can't take Roe vs. Wade and use it to defend a murderer
who kicked a pregnant woman in the stomach in her first trimester.
It gives the mother the choice, no one else. Meaning the Ark
case stipulates a "legal residents" choices to remedy a citizenship
case. Not illegal border crosser's and birth tourists.

The fact that any attempt to curtail this practice has been
virtually eviscerated from the start, shows the power behind
it's continued surety. They tried to do something in Arizona and
Texas and the Corporate/Globalist/Business power cabal literally
threatened the political elite with economic armageddon.

The voters need to urge a state, any state, to push this thing to
the courts. We cannot continue to nurture a country that requires
15% of it's workforce to be illegal indentured servants to survive
economically. Don't be fooled, workers who are deprived of rights,
are very often much more productive and profitable.

Might as well rescind child labor laws while we're at it...
Shame on us...
 
rocket88 said:
If there are no immigrants in your bloodline, you would be the one person. Or are you full blood Native American?
Click to expand...

How does previous immigration to this country prove that current immigration policy needs to let the US open to all peoples around the world?
 
NIMBY said:
Is Sen. Rubio an anchor baby ?
Click to expand...

I don't know and I don't care. He's been pretty worthless when it comes to immigration, though.
 
People complain we do not have government healthcare like other developed countries. Guess what those developed countries do not have birthright citizenship, so we should?
 
Critter7r said:
late to the party, but it sure seems like this whole interpretation thing would have been easier if they had simply said, "and NOT born to person(s) subject to the jurisdiction of another country", or something along those lines.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But as the Supreme Court has noted, the main purpose of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was to overturn the Supreme Court's holding in Dred Scott v. Sandford regarding the citizenship of blacks. The authors of that clause were not concerned with the issue of anchor babies. The Court got the meaning of the Citizenship Clause right in Elk v. Wilkins, the first case in which it interpreted that clause, and it should return to that meaning today.
 
matchlight said:
If you had read Elk v. Wilkins, you would know it was not about the act you mention, and what I or anyone else thinks about the citizenship of Indians today is irrelevant. It was about whether an Omaha registrar of voters violated the Constitution by refusing to register Elk to vote in an 1880 election of local officials.

The specific question before the Court was whether Elk was, simply because he had been born within the U.S. and had voluntarily separated himself from his tribe and taken up residence among white citizens, "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States within the meaning of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore eligible to vote as a citizen of the U.S. The Court held that he was not, because he had never been either naturalized or taxed and retained some vestige of allegiance to his tribe. It said Indian tribes were not, "strictly speaking, foreign states, but they were alien nations, distinct political communities . . . ."

The Court explained that:

The persons declared [by the Citizenship Clause] to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. . . .

Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations. (emphasis added)


I think the Elk Court's reasoning, as applied to children born within the U.S. to alien nationals, means that accident of birth alone does not make them completely subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., and therefore does not make them citizens. The parents retain their allegiance to their own nation, and to some extent, so do their children. I hope to see Congress make a law expressing its will that this view of the Citizenship Clause should be followed, and the view the Court took in Wong Kim Ark, which is inconsistent with it, abandoned.
Click to expand...

I admit to not having read Elk - and unfortunately don't have time right now - but doesn't the fact that Elk was born on tribal lands - which possess some level of sovereignty - make this a different scenario from from that of a child born to alien parents in Texas?
 
Gaius46 said:
I admit to not having read Elk - and unfortunately don't have time right now - but doesn't the fact that Elk was born on tribal lands - which possess some level of sovereignty - make this a different scenario from from that of a child born to alien parents in Texas?
Click to expand...

A principle may apply in the same way, even when the facts are different. The difference you mention cannot make the principle stated in Elk inapplicable, or it would not apply to "children born within the U.S. of ambassadors or public ministers of foreign nations." The Court noted that these persons also are not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., and therefore are not citizens of the U.S. simply by the fact of being born here. But that has always been true, even though these children are not born on tribal lands, or on any other lands within the U.S. which might possess some degree of sovereignty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom