Citizenship vs. Constitution

[DrunkenAsparagus]

To parents had previously established and were still enjoying a permanent domicile and residence in San Francisco, and so they were under the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of his birth.

Notice the parents were here legally, not illegally.

I know that. The ruling never made that distinction though. It only stated that three classes weren't subject to birthright citizenship:

1. The children of diplomats or other parents on official business from foreign governments

2. The children of members of an invading or occupying army

3. The children in Indian reservations as they were considered to have their own governments not under Us jurisdiction.

No mention of parents being here illegally. Everyone else born here is a citizen.

 

[Crunch]

I know that. The ruling never made that distinction though. It only stated that three classes weren't subject to birthright citizenship:

1. The children of diplomats or other parents on official business from foreign governments

2. The children of members of an invading or occupying army

3. The children in Indian reservations as they were considered to have their own governments not under Us jurisdiction.

No mention of parents being here illegally. Everyone else born here is a citizen.

So you think that Mexican citizens here illegally would be any different than Indians that have their own "governments not under US jurisdiction"?

Oh, that's right..... the Indians were here legally. :lamo

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

So you think that Mexican citizens here illegally would be any different than Indians that have their own "governments not under US jurisdiction"?

Oh, that's right..... the Indians were here legally. :lamo

No, it excluded people born on Indian Reservations.

 

[Crunch]

No, it excluded people born on Indian Reservations.

And why did it exclude those born on reservations?..... because they were citizens of a sovereign Nation. Is Mexico a sovereign Nation? If it is, it's citizens are not under the jurisdiction of the US, but under the jurisdiction of Mexico.

Read this part of the 14th amendment.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History

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.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, a member of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction that drafted the amendment, made absolutely clear the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, stating:

“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 306

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 5 S.Ct. 41, 28 L.Ed. 643 (1884)

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

US vs Wong Kim Ark made no distinction between one who's parents are aliens and one who's parents are legal residents. It explicitly stated that those born in the US and not in the classes mentioned above are US citizens. Indian Reservations technically weren't US territory, so those born on them weren't US citizens.

As for "allegiance to an alien power," that talks about the prospective citizen himself, not his parents.

 

[Crunch]

US vs Wong Kim Ark made no distinction between one who's parents are aliens and one who's parents are legal residents.

Wrong.........Wong Kim Ark's parents were here legally and were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco;

R. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco;

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

It explicitly stated that those born in the US and not in the classes mentioned above are US citizens. Indian Reservations technically weren't US territory, so those born on them weren't US citizens.

As for "allegiance to an alien power," that talks about the prospective citizen himself, not his parents.

Again wrong.....

The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the constitution, by which 'no person, except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president;' and 'the congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.' Const. art. 2, § 1; art. 1, § 8. By the thirteenth amendment of the constitution slavery was prohibited. The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, (Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393; ) and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside. Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303, 306.
This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared *102 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. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts; or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. 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.

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 5 S.Ct. 41, 28 L.Ed. 643 (1884)

 

[ricksfolly]

Do you hate all minorities, or just Mexicans?

Take things as they are, not as they could or should be.

ricksfolly

 

[Crunch]

Do you hate all minorities, or just Mexicans?

Take things as they are, not as they could or should be.

ricksfolly

Do you still beat your wife or just your kids? :roll:

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Wrong.........Wong Kim Ark's parents were here legally and were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco;



United States v. Wong Kim Ark

I know that his parents were here legally. The case makes no mention of illegal immigrants. It only says that people born in the US and who don't fit the above criteria are US citizens.

I know that his parents were here legally. Illegal Immigrants weren't mentioned in the ruling. Only the above classes of people were excluded from birthright citizenship. Anyone else, including the children of illegals were given citizenship.

Again wrong.....



Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 5 S.Ct. 41, 28 L.Ed. 643 (1884)

At the time, Indian Tribes were considered "alien nations, distinct political communities" separate from the US government. The government dealt with them with treaties. Also, I wouldn't hold up the government's 19th century treatment of Indians as a paradigm of legality.

 

[LizardofOz]

This issue was debated in the first place when the amendment was created in regards to Chinese and Irish immigrants and their children. I find it interesting that Republicans that claim to strictly follow the constitution only do it when it best suits their needs, and then when they are losing on an issue will use the Constitution like a prostitute to be wedged in between voters.

If you were born in United States then congratulations, God has smiled upon you as you were born in the greatest nation in the world. Let's not take this away from these children. The issue of immigration is a tricky one, but this is NOT a solution.

 

[American]

Leave it alone. Who are we that we would intentionally create a class of people with no country of origin?

Technically their country of origin would their parents' country.

 

[Objective Voice]

Your Amendment to the 14th would only solve the "anchor baby" problem..... it would not change the definition of "Natural Born Citizen".

Actually, I think it does.

What yourself and others want is to firmly establish that two-parent U.S. citizenship is a prerequisite to conferring U.S. citizenship onto children born within the U.S. I'd grant you (once again) that stating such by law would eliminate any doubt as to who are "natural-born" citizens and who are not. However, as "born to the soil" has been a leading factor in determining U.S. citizenship moreso than "born onto bloodlines", I believe that that most effective means to merge the two means of acquiring U.S. citizenship at birth would be to make it absolutely clear that at least ONE parent must be a U.S. citizenship before said citizenship can be conferred unto the child.

I fully understand your argument, however, as we have had this discussion at length not long ago. Nonetheless, I believe that in this day and age, insisting on a two-parent U.S. citizenship requirement for "natural-born" status would eliminate far too many of this nation's citizens from seeking public office including that of the Presidency by no fault of their own merely because one of their parents was a "resident alien". Just as Won Kim Ark's parents, he and they were fully ingrained in American society long before his citizenship status was brough into question. It is and has been shown that many children born to immigrant parents themselves become just as ingrained in American culture over time and, thus, are just as American as anyone born to two citizen parents or the one. But surely establishing that at least one parent IS a citizen would eliminate doubt; two would surely irradicate it, but one is enough. Even children born overseas to one U.S. citizen is enough to confer U.S. citizenship onto the child, thereby giving the child "natural-born" status. Why should the prerequisite for children born abroad be less stringent than those born to the soil? I'd think the argument for such would be reserved since the issue of subversion is what the Founding Fathers feared most...children born abroad to a foreigner (female or foreign diplomat) who would use their children (sons) to subvert the government later in life.

Think about it...

 

[Crunch]

Actually, I think it does.

What yourself and others want is to firmly establish that two-parent U.S. citizenship is a prerequisite to conferring U.S. citizenship onto children born within the U.S. I'd grant you (once again) that stating such by law would eliminate any doubt as to who are "natural-born" citizens and who are not. However, as "born to the soil" has been a leading factor in determining U.S. citizenship moreso than "born onto bloodlines", I believe that that most effective means to merge the two means of acquiring U.S. citizenship at birth would be to make it absolutely clear that at least ONE parent must be a U.S. citizenship before said citizenship can be conferred unto the child.

I fully understand your argument, however, as we have had this discussion at length not long ago. Nonetheless, I believe that in this day and age, insisting on a two-parent U.S. citizenship requirement for "natural-born" status would eliminate far too many of this nation's citizens from seeking public office including that of the Presidency by no fault of their own merely because one of their parents was a "resident alien". Just as Won Kim Ark's parents, he and they were fully ingrained in American society long before his citizenship status was brough into question. It is and has been shown that many children born to immigrant parents themselves become just as ingrained in American culture over time and, thus, are just as American as anyone born to two citizen parents or the one. But surely establishing that at least one parent IS a citizen would eliminate doubt; two would surely irradicate it, but one is enough. Even children born overseas to one U.S. citizen is enough to confer U.S. citizenship onto the child, thereby giving the child "natural-born" status.

You know this isn't true..... do I have to again direct you to the 6 Supreme Court cases that directly contradict you?

Why should the prerequisite for children born abroad be less stringent than those born to the soil? I'd think the argument for such would be reserved since the issue of subversion is what the Founding Fathers feared most...children born abroad to a foreigner (female or foreign diplomat) who would use their children (sons) to subvert the government later in life.

This is, in it's self, the total argument the Founding Fathers used to require that the President of the United States be a "Natural Born Citizen" unless he was a citizen at the time the Constitution was signed. Natural Born Citizen isn't defined in the Constitution for the same reason "Constitution" isn't defined...... everyone knew what it meant (a "term of art"), and the meaning has since been defined and afirmed by the Supreme Court, 6 times (two citizen parents born on US soil).... and never been defined another way.

Think about it...

I have no problem of children, born out of country to at least one citizen parent being a citizen with all the rights of every other citizen.

What I have a problem with is the term "Natural Born Citizen", which only comes into play with the person given the keys to our nuclear weapons, being changed to mean other than it's original Constitutional Meaning.... and before you start, being President of the United States is not a right..... it's a privilege with certain Constitutional requirements.

Other than the above…… Great post.

 

[LizardofOz]

Why isn't anyone saying the obvious that this is just something a bunch of conservative think-tanks hatched to get their way on Arizona immigration law? It's funny that these Constitutional Republicans all of a sudden want to pervert the Constitution when it best fits their own objectives.

 

[Crunch]

Why isn't anyone saying the obvious that this is just something a bunch of conservative think-tanks hatched to get their way on Arizona immigration law? It's funny that these Constitutional Republicans all of a sudden want to pervert the Constitution when it best fits their own objectives.

LOL........ the conservative think tank you are talking about were the founding fathers between the years 1754 and 1787 when the Constitution was signed.

Of course that probably doesn’t mean anything to you.

 

[LizardofOz]

To bad the 14th amendment was added in 1868 after the Civil War huh? This is why they are called "amendments" as to "amend the constitution".

 

[Objective Voice]

You know this isn't true..... do I have to again direct you to the 6 Supreme Court cases that directly contradict you?

Please...not those old SC opinions that pre-date 1940 again. We've been over all that stuff before. Besides, I've already said then as I've said now that the matter would be settled firmly if the law AND the Constitution had firmly outlined the necessity to be born of two-U.S. citizen parents in order to automatic confer U.S. citizenship and, thus one's natural-born status, unto the child. But neither does that. Instead, INA law in support of the 14th Amendment defines who shall be citizens of this country, not the Supreme Court.

As to the natural-born citizen issue, that question to this day remains unanswered by settled law. However, there have been plenty of lower U.S. District court decisions that have upheld the natural-born status of children born unto one U.S. citizen parent and one foreign born parent. So, no matter how many times you bring up past SC cases, they remain opinions and/or interpretations of the law where the question of one's citizenship is concerned, natural-born or otherwise. The hope, of course, is that all such interpretations eventually translate into settled law. Some SC cases have settled matters fully; others, such as the natural-born issue have not. I'm afraid where this issue is concerned, society is still waiting. However, because the precedent has already been set in modern day on one-U.S. parent citizen conferrnece, it just makes sense to apply the law accordingly today.

I have no problem of children, born out of country to at least one citizen parent being a citizen with all the rights of every other citizen.

What I have a problem with is the term "Natural Born Citizen", which only comes into play with the person given the keys to our nuclear weapons, being changed to mean other than it's original Constitutional Meaning.... and before you start, being President of the United States is not a right..... it's a privilege with certain Constitutional requirements.

Other than the above…… Great post.

Thanks for giving me some credit. Still, again while I agree that two-U.S. citizen parents would settle the matter once and for all, I doubt we'll ever get to that mainly because of the one-parent requirement for children born abroad. Again, the Founding Fathers were very concerned with subversion coming from abroad. Hence, the reason they insisted that children born on U.S. soil where themselves U.S. citizens and, thus, natural-born. The logic, of course, in their day was that any American in this country at the time would themselves be Americans and not immigrants. Therefore, in their day it stood to reason that it would be extremely difficult for someone (usually men) to travel abroad, have a child with a foreignor (female) and that child would one day declare himself (or her) a U.S. citizen and go on to rule this nation. In this day and age, I seriously doubt such a thing could happen simply because the charters for both primary political parties expressly outline that their Presidential candidate must meet the prerequisite Constitutional (and state Electoral) requirements. So, as long as both parties are doing their jobs, we should never have a problem in that regard.

But I digress...

I hear you now as I've heard you before, but until INA law is changed (that or the 14th Amendment itself) to settle the "anchor baby" and "natural-born" citizen questions firmly, there will continue to be doubts, speculations and fear as to who comes across our boards and how citizenship is inherently acquired at birth on U.S. soil.

 

[Crunch]

Please...not those old SC opinions that pre-date 1940 again. We've been over all that stuff before.

Show me any other Supreme court opinion the over rules those old opinions and you might have a leg to stand on.... but you can't as those old opinions have never been over ruled.

Besides, I've already said then as I've said now that the matter would be settled firmly if the law AND the Constitution had firmly outlined the necessity to be born of two-U.S. citizen parents in order to automatic confer U.S. citizenship and, thus one's natural-born status, unto the child.

As usual, you keep confusing citizen with Natural Born Citizen.

But neither does that. Instead, INA law in support of the 14th Amendment defines who shall be citizens of this country, not the Supreme Court.

But the Supreme Court did define Natural Born Citizen as a child born on US soil and having two citizen parents.... 6 times.

As to the natural-born citizen issue, that question to this day remains unanswered by settled law. However, there have been plenty of lower U.S. District court decisions that have upheld the natural-born status of children born unto one U.S. citizen parent and one foreign born parent. So, no matter how many times you bring up past SC cases, they remain opinions and/or interpretations of the law where the question of one's citizenship is concerned, natural-born or otherwise. The hope, of course, is that all such interpretations eventually translate into settled law. Some SC cases have settled matters fully; others, such as the natural-born issue have not. I'm afraid where this issue is concerned, society is still waiting. However, because the precedent has already been set in modern day on one-U.S. parent citizen conferrnece, it just makes sense to apply the law accordingly today.

You wish.

Thanks for giving me some credit. Still, again while I agree that two-U.S. citizen parents would settle the matter once and for all, I doubt we'll ever get to that mainly because of the one-parent requirement for children born abroad. Again, the Founding Fathers were very concerned with subversion coming from abroad. Hence, the reason they insisted that children born on U.S. soil where themselves U.S. citizens and, thus, natural-born. The logic, of course, in their day was that any American in this country at the time would themselves be Americans and not immigrants. Therefore, in their day it stood to reason that it would be extremely difficult for someone (usually men) to travel abroad, have a child with a foreignor (female) and that child would one day declare himself (or her) a U.S. citizen and go on to rule this nation. In this day and age, I seriously doubt such a thing could happen simply because the charters for both primary political parties expressly outline that their Presidential candidate must meet the prerequisite Constitutional (and state Electoral) requirements. So, as long as both parties are doing their jobs, we should never have a problem in that regard.

It happened last election.. how is it working out for this country?

But I digress...

I hear you now as I've heard you before, but until INA law is changed (that or the 14th Amendment itself) to settle the "anchor baby" and "natural-born" citizen questions firmly, there will continue to be doubts, speculations and fear as to who comes across our boards and how citizenship is inherently acquired at birth on U.S. soil.

All Barry has to do is take his documents to court instead of spending millions to hide all of his docs. Simple really, and it won't go away.

You know it's funny........ you would never have learned as much as you did about citizenship if it weren't for Barry. :lamo

 

[Objective Voice]

And once again, the same tired arguments on unsettled law.

Supreme Court opinions, not the law.

We're through. I'm just not going to have this same, tired debate with you that's already been argued to death X1,000. So, to you I say, Good Luck in your quest to revise, modify or otherwise repealing the 13th and/or 14th Amendments to suit your cause. I seriously doubt either will happen, but have fun trying anyway. :doh

BTW, nice attempt at an insult, but I doubt you've learned anything on this matter except what you've been spoon fed. Still, best regards on your quest. You're gonna need it.

 

[Crunch]

And once again, the same tired arguments on unsettled law.

Supreme Court opinions, not the law.

We're through. I'm just not going to have this same, tired debate with you that's already been argued to death X1,000. So, to you I say, Good Luck in your quest to revise, modify or otherwise repealing the 13th and/or 14th Amendments to suit your cause. I seriously doubt either will happen, but have fun trying anyway. :doh

Bye bye...... every time you bring it up again, I'll slam you down again, then you'll run off again saying you are tired of the same old debate.......... again. :roll:

 

[Objective Voice]

Bye bye...... every time you bring it up again, I'll slam you down again, then you'll run off again saying you are tired of the same old debate.......... again. :roll:

I choose NOT to have this same tired debate with you or anyone else again because it's obviously you won't try to see the failures in your arguments. Each time I point THE LAW at you, you merely come back with the same tired SC opinions. Not one of the SC arguments you've laid out settled the issue of natural-born citizenship as you would have one believe. They merely addressed the citizenship issue of those individual cases placed before them:

Won Kim Ark - earned citizenship because he was born in the U.S. and his parents were resident aliens.

Elm - was born to a nationalized U.S. citizen father whose mother became a U.S. citizen by default (marriage), thus, making Elm a U.S. citizen at birth. Her citizenship was reaffirmed after she was taken out of the US and subsequently attempted to return.

Minor v. Happersett - woman challenged the right to vote in Missouri; citizship status was widely discussed including aspects of one's "natural-born and native-born" status, but although the SC acknowledged that Minor was a citizen, woman's sufferage was not the basis of the case. Therefore, she lost.

In each case the question of where the child was born was the first criteria followed by who was the child born unto. And in every case, born onto the soil generally won out. But in no SC case was the "natural-born" issue affirmed as settled law. In any case, Congress passed INA law and, as such, has outlined who are citizens of this nation and under what circumstances citizenship is acquired or forefeited. But no law has affirmed who are "natural-born citizens" of this country. NONE!

So, once again, show me the law that states that one's natural-born status MUST be of two U.S. citizen parents and I'll support your argument 100%. Until then...

But I digress to bring this thread debate back to its origin...

The issue here is "citizens", not "natural-born" citizen, and while I fully understand how you would like the latter to be interpreted, unfortunately the law does not support your definition. And as you and others are so found of saying, "Opinions are like a-holes..."

Done.

 

[LizardofOz]

If people even mused the idea of repealing the 14th amendment when my family was coming over here from Whales and Germany back in the late 1800's I wonder if I would be here today...hmmm.....

 

[Crunch]

I choose NOT to have this same tired debate with you or anyone else again because it's obviously you won't try to see the failures in your arguments. Each time I point THE LAW at you, you merely come back with the same tired SC opinions. Not one of the SC arguments you've laid out settled the issue of natural-born citizenship as you would have one believe. They merely addressed the citizenship issue of those individual cases placed before them:

Won Kim Ark - earned citizenship because he was born in the U.S. and his parents were resident aliens.

Elm - was born to a nationalized U.S. citizen father whose mother became a U.S. citizen by default (marriage), thus, making Elm a U.S. citizen at birth. Her citizenship was reaffirmed after she was taken out of the US and subsequently attempted to return.

Minor v. Happersett - woman challenged the right to vote in Missouri; citizship status was widely discussed including aspects of one's "natural-born and native-born" status, but although the SC acknowledged that Minor was a citizen, woman's sufferage was not the basis of the case. Therefore, she lost.

In each case the question of where the child was born was the first criteria followed by who was the child born unto. And in every case, born onto the soil generally won out. But in no SC case was the "natural-born" issue affirmed as settled law. In any case, Congress passed INA law and, as such, has outlined who are citizens of this nation and under what circumstances citizenship is acquired or forefeited. But no law has affirmed who are "natural-born citizens" of this country. NONE!

So, once again, show me the law that states that one's natural-born status MUST be of two U.S. citizen parents and I'll support your argument 100%. Until then...

But I digress to bring this thread debate back to its origin...

The issue here is "citizens", not "natural-born" citizen, and while I fully understand how you would like the latter to be interpreted, unfortunately the law does not support your definition. And as you and others are so found of saying, "Opinions are like a-holes..."

Done.

Then quit trying to sell your version of NBC and we won't debate it. see, simple.

As far as my interpretation of anchor babies and the Constitution? I won that one too.

 

[MaggieD]

Amendment now, and only amendment!! Anything else is only a way out for the intellectually lazy, and if we do go down that other road, then the Constitution is something that we no longer deserve, and we might as well throw it in the garbage, along with another quaint idea, known as freedom.

Absolutely,. Amending the Constitution is the only way to make it happen. I don't think it ever will -- but I applaud Senator Graham for wanting to bring the subject to the Senate floor for discussion.

 

[Objective Voice]

Then quit trying to sell your version of NBC and we won't debate it. see, simple.

Last I checked this was a public forum (though members only), not the Crunch show. I think I'm entitled to my opinion same as you. And since the premise of the OP is "amend the 14th Amendment or leave it alone," I'd say my suggestion (post #22) clearly has merit. Whether you or others agree with it or not is certainly "debateable". After all, isn't that why we're here?

BTW, you haven't won anything. You've simply continued to put forth the same tired arguments. But as I said, Good Luck with that.