11
11
0
From "The Washington Post"
Did Republicans just give away the 2016 election by raising birthright citizenship?
It may not seem like it, but this week has seen the most significant development yet in the immigration debate’s role in the 2016 election. I’d go even farther — it’s possible that the entire presidential election just got decided.
Is that an overstatement? Maybe. But hear me out.
For months, people like me have been pointing to the fundamental challenge Republican presidential candidates face on immigration: they need to talk tough to appeal to their base in the primaries, but doing so risks alienating the Hispanic voters they’ll need in the general election. This was always going to be a difficult line to walk, but a bunch of their candidates just leaped off to one side.
After Donald Trump released his immigration plan, which includes an end to birthright citizenship — stating that if you were born in the United States but your parents were undocumented, you don’t get to be a citizen — some of his competitors jumped up to say that they agreed. NBC News asked Scott Walker the question directly, and he seemed to reply that he does favor an end to birthright citizenship, though his campaign qualified the statement later. Bobby Jindal tweeted, “We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.” Then reporters began looking over others’ past statements to see where they stood on this issue, and found that this isn’t an uncommon position among the GOP field. Remember all the agonizing Republicans did about how they had to reach out to Hispanic voters? They never figured out how to do it, and now they’re running in the opposite direction.
EDITORIAL COMMENT:- I can see how it might just possibly be a bit difficult to run for office on a platform which includes "And, of course, I'm going to say that I'm going to ignore the Constitution of the United States of America - because doing that is going to get me a whole bunch of votes but I know that I can't both do that and take the oath of office at the same time."
Did Republicans just give away the 2016 election by raising birthright citizenship?
It may not seem like it, but this week has seen the most significant development yet in the immigration debate’s role in the 2016 election. I’d go even farther — it’s possible that the entire presidential election just got decided.
Is that an overstatement? Maybe. But hear me out.
For months, people like me have been pointing to the fundamental challenge Republican presidential candidates face on immigration: they need to talk tough to appeal to their base in the primaries, but doing so risks alienating the Hispanic voters they’ll need in the general election. This was always going to be a difficult line to walk, but a bunch of their candidates just leaped off to one side.
After Donald Trump released his immigration plan, which includes an end to birthright citizenship — stating that if you were born in the United States but your parents were undocumented, you don’t get to be a citizen — some of his competitors jumped up to say that they agreed. NBC News asked Scott Walker the question directly, and he seemed to reply that he does favor an end to birthright citizenship, though his campaign qualified the statement later. Bobby Jindal tweeted, “We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.” Then reporters began looking over others’ past statements to see where they stood on this issue, and found that this isn’t an uncommon position among the GOP field. Remember all the agonizing Republicans did about how they had to reach out to Hispanic voters? They never figured out how to do it, and now they’re running in the opposite direction.
EDITORIAL COMMENT:- I can see how it might just possibly be a bit difficult to run for office on a platform which includes "And, of course, I'm going to say that I'm going to ignore the Constitution of the United States of America - because doing that is going to get me a whole bunch of votes but I know that I can't both do that and take the oath of office at the same time."
Election 2016
Politics
Law
Republicans
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 36
14
14
0
Now I'm not a republican but I do agree with ending birthright citizenship. We already have a huge illegal immigrant problem. Those who came into this country illegally wouldn't have to worry if they came here legally. Bottom line they have broken the law and to allow them to stay because they had a kid here is ridiculous.
(14)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette - Major; Much as I find it morally repugnant, I do concede that DRED SCOTT MIGHT have been correctly decided according to the laws of the United States of America AT THAT TIME.
I cannot agree that the Fourteenth Amendment was "to grant citizenship to slaves" as the Fourteenth Amendment simply didn't do that - it only granted citizenship to anyone who had been born in the United States of America and many slaves had not been born in the United States of America. Had the actual intent of the Fourteenth Amendment been "to grant citizenship to slaves" then Section 1 would have read along the lines of "All former and/or current slaves within the United States of America are now citizens of the United States of America." and Section 1 (as enacted) would have been Section 2.
The problem when considering the "Indian Cases" is that (notionally) the Native Americans were citizens of independent and sovereign nations (other than the United States of America) which just happened to be co-located with the United States of America. Native Americans "off the reservation" fell under the jurisdiction of the US government but Native Americans "on the reservation" (technically) did not.
What we might do were we to be enacting the Fourteenth Amendment today is almost totally irrelevant until the existing Fourteenth Amendment and US v. WONG have been bulldozed out of the road.
However, if the US government wants to establish a new policy whereby a system of "Anchor Homes" wherein the US born children of illegal aliens can be sheltered and raised as good American citizens after their scofflaw parents have been deported, the US government clearly has the authority to do so. [If it doesn't then the financial responsibilities would devolve onto the several states wherein those children are found when their felonious parents are apprehended and granted their full due-process rights before being deported and banned from ever entering the United States of America again. And, since that is the case, then I doubt that you would find a single "states' right" advocate who would argue that this was something that the Federal government didn't have the authority to do {and the responsibility to pay for}.]
I cannot agree that the Fourteenth Amendment was "to grant citizenship to slaves" as the Fourteenth Amendment simply didn't do that - it only granted citizenship to anyone who had been born in the United States of America and many slaves had not been born in the United States of America. Had the actual intent of the Fourteenth Amendment been "to grant citizenship to slaves" then Section 1 would have read along the lines of "All former and/or current slaves within the United States of America are now citizens of the United States of America." and Section 1 (as enacted) would have been Section 2.
The problem when considering the "Indian Cases" is that (notionally) the Native Americans were citizens of independent and sovereign nations (other than the United States of America) which just happened to be co-located with the United States of America. Native Americans "off the reservation" fell under the jurisdiction of the US government but Native Americans "on the reservation" (technically) did not.
What we might do were we to be enacting the Fourteenth Amendment today is almost totally irrelevant until the existing Fourteenth Amendment and US v. WONG have been bulldozed out of the road.
However, if the US government wants to establish a new policy whereby a system of "Anchor Homes" wherein the US born children of illegal aliens can be sheltered and raised as good American citizens after their scofflaw parents have been deported, the US government clearly has the authority to do so. [If it doesn't then the financial responsibilities would devolve onto the several states wherein those children are found when their felonious parents are apprehended and granted their full due-process rights before being deported and banned from ever entering the United States of America again. And, since that is the case, then I doubt that you would find a single "states' right" advocate who would argue that this was something that the Federal government didn't have the authority to do {and the responsibility to pay for}.]
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette - Major; If it was meant "primarily for slaves" then it would have specified so. It didn't.
It was "meant primarily" for those who had supported the concept of slavery and or "second class" citizenship for Negros.
A little more attention to drafting to avoid the "Everybody Knows" syndrome would have been helpful.
Regardless of what the legislators/voters INTENDED to do, the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment is what they DID do.
It was "meant primarily" for those who had supported the concept of slavery and or "second class" citizenship for Negros.
A little more attention to drafting to avoid the "Everybody Knows" syndrome would have been helpful.
Regardless of what the legislators/voters INTENDED to do, the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment is what they DID do.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette - Major; If it weren't for United States v. Wong Kim Ark (No. 18) - 169 U.S. 649, I'd be more than happy to agree that the legislators wanted to ensure that the citizenship of slaves was enshrined in law.
The problem is simply that the legislators didn't do that (and, in fact, didn't even extend citizenship to ALL slaves - only the ones born in the United States of America).
It is the fact of what the legislators DID DO that the politicians will have to deal with.
PS - The "misinterpretation" has been around since 1898
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
The problem is simply that the legislators didn't do that (and, in fact, didn't even extend citizenship to ALL slaves - only the ones born in the United States of America).
It is the fact of what the legislators DID DO that the politicians will have to deal with.
PS - The "misinterpretation" has been around since 1898
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment...
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette - Major; Indeed Mr. Wong's parents were legally in the United States of America (but they were [more likely than not] NOT "legal immigrants" since the Chinese were not (unless I've got my dates wrong) allowed to "immigrate" to the United States of America.
Regardless, the crux of the decision was not on HOW either Mr. Wong (or his parents) got to the United States of America but what the law was.
I agree that ALL judicial decisions are based on "interpretation" of the law - that is what the court is paid to do. Sometimes it's easy and sometimes it's hard, but the mandated task of the courts is NOT to decide what the law "says" but what the law "means".
I am well aware of what Mr. Howard says. I am also well aware of what a "parenthetical expression/phrase" is. I am also well aware that the Supreme Court of the United States of America has previously considered EXACTLY that argument and ruled against it.
Be that as it may, the proper course of action, since you cannot appeal a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America to any temporal court, is to stop nattering about it and get to work to amend the Constitution of the United States of America. (The easiest way would be to simply strike the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. [Of course that would mean that Congress would have to get its act together and pass the 762 page "American Citizenship Act" {with one page of Preamble, one page defining "citizen", 150 pages defining how to become a citizen, and 612 pages of "tied spending" so that everyone could go home and show the voters what a good job they are doing}.]
Besides why would anyone want to wait ten or twenty years for a "constitutional reference case" to work its way up to the Supreme Court - only to lose it and then have to spend another ten or twenty years getting the Constitution amended? Twenty years doesn't really sound like a "quick fix" (ten years doesn't either but it IS less than twenty years).
Regardless, the crux of the decision was not on HOW either Mr. Wong (or his parents) got to the United States of America but what the law was.
I agree that ALL judicial decisions are based on "interpretation" of the law - that is what the court is paid to do. Sometimes it's easy and sometimes it's hard, but the mandated task of the courts is NOT to decide what the law "says" but what the law "means".
I am well aware of what Mr. Howard says. I am also well aware of what a "parenthetical expression/phrase" is. I am also well aware that the Supreme Court of the United States of America has previously considered EXACTLY that argument and ruled against it.
Be that as it may, the proper course of action, since you cannot appeal a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America to any temporal court, is to stop nattering about it and get to work to amend the Constitution of the United States of America. (The easiest way would be to simply strike the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. [Of course that would mean that Congress would have to get its act together and pass the 762 page "American Citizenship Act" {with one page of Preamble, one page defining "citizen", 150 pages defining how to become a citizen, and 612 pages of "tied spending" so that everyone could go home and show the voters what a good job they are doing}.]
Besides why would anyone want to wait ten or twenty years for a "constitutional reference case" to work its way up to the Supreme Court - only to lose it and then have to spend another ten or twenty years getting the Constitution amended? Twenty years doesn't really sound like a "quick fix" (ten years doesn't either but it IS less than twenty years).
(0)
(0)
10
10
0
On this issue, as on abortion, Hispanics are not a monolithic voting block. My wife's father was born in Mexico and became a naturalized citizen. My wife, 3 of 6 siblings, and her father would support an end to birthright citizenship for illegals. The GOP has to have the right message on it, of course, but I'm not sure it's an election ending issue.
(10)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
It's rare that the Republicans get more than 15-20% of the Hispanic vote under any circumstances, with the notable anomaly of Bush 41 who once received approximately 40% of the (voting) Hispanic votes. This isn't to suggest Hispanics should be ignored, and in fact many Hispanics, who came here legally are NOT in favor of illegals coming to the US. That being said, I hate to even use that word "Hispanic" It is a meaningless word, assigned to a group together a diverse host of people of Latino origin, by the Nixon Administration in an attempt to quantify, offset, and pit the "Hispanics" against the black population neither of who largely didn't and still don't vote Republican. Clearly, Nixon was as clueless about such things as he was about economics.
(1)
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
2012 Pew research poll had 22% of Hispanics registered as republicans...down from 25% in 1999. So yeah, not much to lose there.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Steve Miller
It would take very little research to find that nearly every Republican candidate has far more that one lobbyist to keep happy. Trump is the only one on stage that does not have someone pulling his or her strings. GOP (personal opinion) is about big business and there are far too many lobbyists assuring that wall is never built. Labor is the most expensive cost to running a business, and keeping that boarder open assures lower labor cost. The rich get richer and everyone else sucks wind. We will never see that wall finished and properly manned under a GOP President.
(0)
(0)
10
10
0
It is time to stand up for principle - and rise or fall on the consequences, IMHO. We have too many mealy-mouthed politicians today that will say anything to get elected and then do whatever they want later. Enough.
(10)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
COL Ted Mc - How is it you can say no, when the man who wrote the amendment clearly stated that such persons do NOT fall under the full jurisdiction of the US government, as they are "foreigners, aliens," who owe their allegiance to a foreign nation, and therefore their children, even though born on American soil are NOT afforded any sort of American Citizenship? Here is the quote from Senator Howard of Michigan, who wrote the 4th amendment.
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Clearly a child born to a foreign diplomat working in the US is not considered to be under the full jurisdiction of the US government and therefore such a child is not granted US citizenship, dual or otherwise, regardless the laws of the diplomat's home country.
Furthermore... " Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.[2]
So, Sir, when Senator Trumbull says "not owing allegiance to anybody else", would YOU argue that people who cross our borders illegally, without declaring themselves, whether to traffic drugs across our border, or to seek employment, seasonal, or otherwise, have a singular allegiance to the United States of America? If you can make that argument, then your argument would hold, at least some water. It is clear that the meaning of that phrase "under the jurisdiction of", does NOT include people who came to this country without declaring themselves, (which by default means applying for, and being granted citizenship, as, up to that point a person has NOT declared singular allegiance to the United States.
Senator Howard then confirms Senator Trumbull's assertion...
"Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. "
And there's more Sir, in the article I've posted here a number of times. One has to wonder HOW these authors and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment could have made the intent of the Citizenship Clause any more clear, and unambiguous. Though, it is also clear that those who WANT the Citizenship clause to mean something else will add, remove, or move about, commas in the words themselves, while ignoring the original statements and arguments that support their present location. I have seen people make the same comma argument for the second amendment as well when they want to make it appear to mean something other than that which it was intended to mean, again, as made clear by the actual wording, AND the statements of the men who actually wrote, ratified, and inserted those amendments.
Again, respectful regards sir.
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Clearly a child born to a foreign diplomat working in the US is not considered to be under the full jurisdiction of the US government and therefore such a child is not granted US citizenship, dual or otherwise, regardless the laws of the diplomat's home country.
Furthermore... " Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.[2]
So, Sir, when Senator Trumbull says "not owing allegiance to anybody else", would YOU argue that people who cross our borders illegally, without declaring themselves, whether to traffic drugs across our border, or to seek employment, seasonal, or otherwise, have a singular allegiance to the United States of America? If you can make that argument, then your argument would hold, at least some water. It is clear that the meaning of that phrase "under the jurisdiction of", does NOT include people who came to this country without declaring themselves, (which by default means applying for, and being granted citizenship, as, up to that point a person has NOT declared singular allegiance to the United States.
Senator Howard then confirms Senator Trumbull's assertion...
"Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. "
And there's more Sir, in the article I've posted here a number of times. One has to wonder HOW these authors and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment could have made the intent of the Citizenship Clause any more clear, and unambiguous. Though, it is also clear that those who WANT the Citizenship clause to mean something else will add, remove, or move about, commas in the words themselves, while ignoring the original statements and arguments that support their present location. I have seen people make the same comma argument for the second amendment as well when they want to make it appear to mean something other than that which it was intended to mean, again, as made clear by the actual wording, AND the statements of the men who actually wrote, ratified, and inserted those amendments.
Again, respectful regards sir.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSG Gerhard S. - Staff; Because I am literate and can actually read and understand the English language. The fact that I also have a Law degree and degrees in both History and Political Science doesn't hurt either.
A newborn infant does NOT "owe their allegiance" to any country - since the very concept "country" is beyond them.
You can keep on repeating the same quotation as many times as you want, but until you show some understanding of what a "parenthetical clause" or "parenthetical expression" is and what its grammatical role is then you are simply repeating "Quadruple Hearsay" (the first person who reported the statement reported hearsay, the newspaper article that reported the words of first person who reported the statement reported double hearsay, the author of the article which reported the newspaper article that reported the words of first person who reported the statement reported triple hearsay, and when you report it again it becomes quadruple hearsay.
What you have to remember is that "Statute Law" consists of the ACTUAL words of the statute and there is no mention of "allegiance" in the Fourteenth Amendment.
I will grant you that ONE of the people who was supporting the Fourteenth Amendment MIGHT have INTENDED that the Fourteenth Amendment only apply to people who "owed allegiance" to the United States of America. HOWEVER, that is not what the law says. [Besides, that would mean that no one under the legal age of majority would be a citizen of the United States of America because they would be legally incapable of "owing allegiance" to anyone - and that's just plain stupid. (OK so legislators do dumb things all the time - but not that dumb.)
PS - I don't suppose that you noticed the "ought to be construed" bit. Just because something "ought to be" does not mean that it is or ever was.
A newborn infant does NOT "owe their allegiance" to any country - since the very concept "country" is beyond them.
You can keep on repeating the same quotation as many times as you want, but until you show some understanding of what a "parenthetical clause" or "parenthetical expression" is and what its grammatical role is then you are simply repeating "Quadruple Hearsay" (the first person who reported the statement reported hearsay, the newspaper article that reported the words of first person who reported the statement reported double hearsay, the author of the article which reported the newspaper article that reported the words of first person who reported the statement reported triple hearsay, and when you report it again it becomes quadruple hearsay.
What you have to remember is that "Statute Law" consists of the ACTUAL words of the statute and there is no mention of "allegiance" in the Fourteenth Amendment.
I will grant you that ONE of the people who was supporting the Fourteenth Amendment MIGHT have INTENDED that the Fourteenth Amendment only apply to people who "owed allegiance" to the United States of America. HOWEVER, that is not what the law says. [Besides, that would mean that no one under the legal age of majority would be a citizen of the United States of America because they would be legally incapable of "owing allegiance" to anyone - and that's just plain stupid. (OK so legislators do dumb things all the time - but not that dumb.)
PS - I don't suppose that you noticed the "ought to be construed" bit. Just because something "ought to be" does not mean that it is or ever was.
(2)
(0)
MCPO Katrina Hutcherson
SSG Gerhard Seidel, COL Ted Mc, I am not sure, but I thought a foreigner who was in this country legally and gave birth could choose dual citizenship for that infant.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
MCPO Katrina Hutcherson - Master Chief; That would actually depend on the laws of the two countries. The child might be a citizen of one country (the one that they were born in) due to Jus soli (Latin: right of the soil) and a citizen of another country or countries (the one[s] that their parent[s] was/were citizens of) due to 'Jus sanguinis' (Latin: right of blood).
Thus, the child of an expatriate (Jewish) Israeli woman who has become a citizen of Borneo and a Chinese national who has renounced their citizenship and become a citizen of Brazil that is born in the United States of America is quite likely to be a citizen (or at least be eligible for citizenship) of
[1] Israel,
[2] Borneo,
[3] China,
[4] Brazil, and
[5] The United States of America
due to the various "Nationality Laws" of the jurisdictions involved.
The United States of America has no legal provision (that I know of) for "revoking" citizenship which is NOT granted through a bureaucratic process - although it does have a legal provision for recognizing a person's "renunciation" of citizenship through either words or deeds.
Thus, the child of an expatriate (Jewish) Israeli woman who has become a citizen of Borneo and a Chinese national who has renounced their citizenship and become a citizen of Brazil that is born in the United States of America is quite likely to be a citizen (or at least be eligible for citizenship) of
[1] Israel,
[2] Borneo,
[3] China,
[4] Brazil, and
[5] The United States of America
due to the various "Nationality Laws" of the jurisdictions involved.
The United States of America has no legal provision (that I know of) for "revoking" citizenship which is NOT granted through a bureaucratic process - although it does have a legal provision for recognizing a person's "renunciation" of citizenship through either words or deeds.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google