RichTAkes! on Birthright Citizenship
I’ve posted frequently on illegal aliens, the daily alien invasion and natural born citizens for years. Especially since Obama’s natural born status was a hot topic of debate. Earlier today, news broke that Trump was asked a direct question for an HBO special by Axios, and Trump being Trump, answered it directly.
He flatly stated that he was advised that he could end birthright citizenship outright by means of an Executive Order. That would not be my first choice, but I agree that this policy, which just seems to have evolved willy-nilly needs to end. Critics claim that a Constitutional Amendment would be required, and I agree that it would be a good proposal for the Convention of States. I disagree with the critic’s claims, Trump would not be changing the Constitution, he would be enforcing it.
Imagine for a moment that you come home from work and find a couple who have no legal basis, or jurisdiction for being here have birthed a child in your bedroom, and when you open the door they present you with their child and say congratulations, you are now a proud daddy (or mommy) of our lovely baby girl. That is exactly what birthright citizenship is.
Welcome to Rich Takes!
Harry Reid has an opinion on birthright citizenship in 1993. He must have been sane at one time.
The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments are the slave amendments. The 13th abolished slavery. The 14th addressed certain laws in the south which restricted former slaves rights, which it intended to correct. Sadly, it did not envision illegal aliens, persons present on our soil without our consent, whose very presence violates our law from bestowing citizenship upon their offspring. We did that to ourselves, and the 14th neither prescribes nor condones birthright citizenship for those without a legal presence.
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.<<
Section 2 raised some interesting points. The first deals with the Census (without specifically mentioning the census) and Representation. It says “counting whole persons residing in each state, excluding Indians not taxed”. First, the Indians not taxed means that they weren’t to be counted for purposes of representation, since they were considered citizens of their respective Indian Nations, and thus, not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
Second, we have states today who benefit from representation not meant, in other words, by counting illegal aliens for purposes of the census and representation. Illegal aliens in California alone account for as many as 8 seats in the House of Representatives that they don’t deserve.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, …
…for anyone who breaks into our country without consent or overstays the terms of his or her entry, it’s as if they are physically not present on our soil. Constitutional rights on our soil, much less the ultimate prize of citizenship, only apply if you come here with consent. That is deeply rooted in social compact theory and settled law. As the court said long ago in United States v. Ju Toy (1905), a person who comes to the country illegally is to be regarded as if he had stopped at the limit of its jurisdiction, although physically he may be within its boundaries.
Already as far back as the 1950s, the Supreme Court had already said, “For over a half century this Court has held that the detention of an alien in custody pending determination of his admissibility does not legally constitute an entry though the alien is physically within the United States.” Leng May Ma v. Barber, 1958.
This is why the court said in Turner v. Williams (1904) that an inadmissible alien does not have First Amendment rights because “[h]e does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by our Constitution by an attempt to enter forbidden by law.”
In the notorious Zadvydas v. Davis case (2001), the court reiterated that any alien “paroled in to the United States pending admissibility,” without having “gained [a] foothold,” has “not effected an entry.”
It’s absurd to assert that people who are supposed to be off our soil can, strictly by trespassing on it, achieve the ultimate benefit of citizenship for their kids.
…The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the child be born here and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It is indisputable that even according to those opinions in which jurisdiction means territorial jurisdiction and not political jurisdiction (absurdly rendering the phrase superfluous, as noted earlier), the language of “subject to the jurisdiction” is certainly more restrictive than the purely geographical and literal phrase “dwelling in the United States.” After all, everyone concedes that Indian tribes and children born to foreign diplomats were excluded by this phrase, even though they are physically born on our soil.
Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment – he spoke – he told us what he meant. He defined who would fall within the ‘jurisdiction of the United States.’
“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, [meaning the states – 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.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.
So the Jurisdiction clause in the 14th Amendment not only excluded foreigners, but also native American Indians from birthright citizenship status. American Indians were considered to be citizens of their own native Indian nation, which is why they conducted and ratified thousands of treaties with the various Indian nations. It would be two or three decades until an Act of Congress bestowed US citizenship upon native Indians, who today are still the only legally recognized dual citizens of these United States.