Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Birthright Citizenship

While I have a few more fervent causes, I really do love America's birthright citizenship. It's a rare tactic to take, and I think it's been responsible for a lot of America's success through the years.

Trump, of course, wants to end it. By Trumpxecutive fiat, it seems. The reliably xenophobic Freepers get on board with their usual personal insights about the Constitution:

Savage Beast knows a genius when he agrees with him:
Sometimes genius is so simple.
SharpRightTurn is sure the folks in the 1860s wouldn't have approved, and has a plan to just ignore the Supreme Court precedent:
So the drafters of the 14th Amendment intended that if an illegal alien strayed across the border and dropped a baby that baby would be a citizen? And today, a foreign woman who is close to her delivery date can book a vacation to Disney world, have the baby at an American hospital, and the baby is automatically an American citizen? That was the intent of the 14th Amendment?

If it was the intent of the amendment, then yes it should be changed. But it wasn’t the intent. All we need is a president who will implement a policy of not recognizing “birth right” citizenship because it is not supported by either the constitution or American statutes. If Trump would be that president I am all in for him.
And what about Muslims, bestintxas asks:
so if Ali’s niece from Yemen just so happens to visit her Uncle here she should be allowed to birth a US citizen?

I think not.
Little Ray's definition of 'jurisdiction' would mean illegal is the wrong word to call them:
‘Bout time somebody properly understood and applied “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment. Children of illegal aliens are NOT citizens.
Jewbacca has not even bothered to read the Amendment:
14th amendment PERMITS citizenship be given to illegal children, but does not require it.
glorgau takes pride that people who make policy don't agree with him:
This is something so obvious that most academics can’t understand it.
Hotlanta Mike knows it was all downhill since the Civil War:
Only in the US do we allow birthright citizenship for people illegally in our country...death of a nation.
eartick is all fired up and ready to form an anti-Mexican posse!!!
Hell yeah and call it Operation Anchor Baby Wetback!!!!

Deport the Invaders!!!

Secure our Country once Again!!!

Offer a bounty for capture of all invaders!!!!
Mr Rogers has a plan that in no way horrifyingly runs afoul of the Equal Protection Clause:
One way to get around the courts would be to simply pass a law stating that no immediate relative of someone born in the USA to parents here illegally would be granted ANY rights or privileges for immigration, and in fact would be banned from entering or residing in the USA legally for a period of 25 years.

Then deport the parents. Since Mexico recognizes the offspring as mexican citizens, they can take their kid with them to Mexico. Once 18, the dual citizen child can decide if he/she wants to come to the USA...but the parents must stay behind.

There is NO Supreme Court decision that affects a law like that, although I would not put it past Kennedy to overturn it based on his feelings about dignity...
As long as we're ignoring the Constitution, Cowboy Bob wants some ex post facto action:
And do it retroactively! To at least 1986.
I suspect that skeeter is pro life. But are illegals truly alive?
Anchor spawn is more accurate.
GodAndCountryFirst seems to be putting an antebellum Country first:
Just another reason to repeal the 14th Amendment - something I have advocated for some time.


  1. “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” does indeed apply to illegal immigrants. The only individuals that it doesn't refer to are those foriegeners who are not subject to arrest, such as diplomats. America isn't the only country with birthright citizenship, almost all of North and South America have it, and quite a few european and African countries do


    2. Facts and reason have a clear liberal bias

    3. You could make a strong argument for a contrary interpretation, though, prior to 1898, when the issue was settled by SCOTUS

    4. You can make a strong argument that declaring someone to be not: "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." implicitly places such a person outwith the power of the state and thus renders any application law to such a person ultra vires.

      The wording of the 14th. is incompetent, regardless of ones position regarding the desired outcome.

      That makes it a huge potential land mine for wingnuts of course. If they DID find a way to undermine the 14th. by fiat instead of a proper amendment process then it would provide a solid precedent for undermining the 2nd. based on the "militia" language.