The Constitution does NOT guarantee birth citizenship

Who are you to assume that which is not under your control?

 

Do you think the law meant to give automatic birthright citizenship to a Native American baby who was born when his mother travelled outside the tribal lands and then came back to the tribe?

I believe the requirement of being under U.S. jurisdiction is a current requirement.

That doesn't mean you have to be under U.S. jurisdiction to be a U.S. citizen, but you do have to be under U.S. jurisdiction to be guaranteed citizenship protections by the Fourteenth Amendment.
A baby can be guaranteed temporarily those citizenship protections and still be deported with its parents.

 

Didn't matter since they became US citizens nonetheless..

 

And then that citizenship was taken away from them once they left, since they only had it under the Fourteenth Amendment, which no longer applies once they are outside of U.S. jurisdiction.

I don't believe the citizenship conferred by the Fourteenth Amendment is necessarily a permanent citizenship, if one wants to see it that way.

Imagine, a baby might have spent the first 8 months of its life gestating in some foreign country, and only the last month in the U.S.

 

Indian reservations are not US territory.

You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Sure it is, to the extent the Constitution is considered irrelevant.

Nobody knows that, because it's nonsense.

To be sure, even foreign diplomats who enter the US are under its jurisdiction; but no foreigner is subject to US jurisdiction in the sense contemplated by the framers of the 14A citizenship clause.

Then quoting the applicable law as it existed in 1789 won't be a problem, so ante up.

 

Frankly I don't care since the words make plain the intent of the law.

 

Your interpretation is fundamentally flawed as well as being diametrically opposed to the original intent of the 14th amendment.

The 14th Amendment was co-drafted by John Merritt Howard. John Howard made very clear that the intent of the 14th amendment was NOT to give foreigners birthright citizenship.

John Merritt Howard stated: "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."

I'm not sure how he can be any more clear.

 

I won't disagree with you, but one thing at a time.

Let's see if we can't come to an agreement about the meaning of the 14th Amendment to get rid of this silly Birth Tourism.

 

That was the meaning. The intent behind the 14th was simply to give black people who did not have citizenship but were slaves a right to citizenship. The left has construed that to be applied to many different classes including illegals.

But the intent of the 14th is clearly spelled out that it does NOT include a child birthed by illegal immigrants.

Hell we didn't even HAVE birthright citizenship until the 1980's.

 

I can't find a reference for that...

 

Haha - that's a kick. Would that now mean that if your ancestors weren't here when the constitution was adopted, you can't run for president?

 

Birth tourism is a legal loophole similar to the Ark case. If a person comes here with a legal visa, then they are legally here and therefore under our jurisdiction because we granted them that at Customs/Border (usually at an airport). Border agents can always turn someone back for any reason and not let them in, visa or not.

You should stick to illegals dropping kids at the county hospital on our dime. At least tourist birthers pay their way and usually go home after giving birth.

 

Plyler V Doe

Which is where we get birthright citizenship from. It originated from the footnote in Plyler V Doe... specifically the last part.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44251.pdf page 10 shows the footnote

But here it is:

Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase ["within its jurisdiction"], we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[all] persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (189, detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was "impossible to construe the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words ‘within its jurisdiction,’ in the concluding sentence of the same section…."

Justice Gray concluded that "[every] citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States." Id., at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.89

Before this footnote, a child born in the US by two foreign parents who entered illegally was NOT considered a citizen.

ETA: I guess I should clarify but I thought this was implied... I'm referring to illegals. So I reckon birthright citizenship isn't the correct term. Anchor-babies might be a better one.

 

So you are saying that it is bullshit that has been propagated for 232 years? Good thing you came along to set us straight. James Madison should be quaking in his grave.

 

Totally.

The entire premise of the OP is beyond ludicrous.

 

If that is what the law is, it was only by convenience. There is no Constitutional requirement for the law to be that way.

Here's something else to consider in argument against automatic birthright citizenship. Back then there was no official way to verify whether someone had actually been born on U.S. soil. This was before social security numbers and before birth certificates were common.
I think it's pretty obvious that this clause in the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to be in general, and not strictly apply in individual cases.

As far as African Americans were concerned, everyone knew they were not foreigners and had been born on U.S. soil, so specific cases were not really in question. It wasn't like there were substantial numbers of African immigrants coming back then.

 

I don't believe that's true.

The clause in the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to state what should already have been the case, that those permanently living in the country were citizens, by natural course.
If they were born and still living in the country then they were under U.S. jurisdiction.
A child who was born in the U.S. and went (or taken) back to a foreign country with his parents is not under U.S. jurisdiction.

 

Yes I am, but I am ALSO completely under the jurisdiction of the USA.

Yes indeed on the first one (taxes.) On the second, if I was served with the Summons before I left the USA and you blokes let me leave, you could still seek to extradite me back to the US to answer that Summons, and Australia would likely allow you to take me back to answer the Summons.

And you do not need to get into verbal gymnatics to go beyond the words.

Then it monumentally failed to simply......say so.

Okay. How jolly.

 

Correct, but the instant that Child is back in the USA, then they are under US jurisdiction.

 

Okay, and is it your position that they are no longer US citizens. I assume you have parents born in the USA and you were born in the USA. If you come to Australia....for whatever reason....are you no longer a Citizen of the USA while you are in Australia?

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"

 

It's my opinion that (unless the regular law specifically chooses to grant citizenship) they are not citizens.

No specific time, I mean in general they are not citizens.

I don't believe the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to be particular and specific.
Being "under the jurisdiction" doesn't automatically convey permanent citizenship to foreigners.

The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't say they become citizens, it says those under the jurisdiction are citizens. Present tense.
And I believe it was originally meant to specify over a longer period of time.

Let me phrase it once more in a different way. The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't grant citizenship, it confers citizenship. As in an active process, and generalized, specifying who are citizens and who are not.

The small child who returns with his parents back to his country is not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. and is not a citizen (if it were not for the ordinary law), though he may have been born in the U.S.

 

The Constitution (particularly before the Fourteenth Amendment) is never clear on exactly what conditions constitute citizenship.

Some my statements are not completely technically accurate because they had to be simplified. If they were not the statements would become too complicated and difficult to understand, for you to focus on the specific points. Obviously I just assumed readers would be able to make to proper assumptions and interpretation.

I'm not going to bother being technically and semantically accurate because it would be too difficult in this situation.

So if you had to ask that question, you were not using basic common sense.

Citizenship, as it is understood in the Constitution, is a very generalized thing.

I think you may also be making the erroneous presumption (and I tried to warn you about this if you bothered to read a past post) that the citizenship is completely defined by the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not. If the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't confer citizenship to you, it doesn't necessarily mean you're not a citizen. That should be obvious.

 

Putting aside the dubious constitutionality of the fourteenth so-called "amendment", I'd have to say this is solid legal reasoning.

However, there is also nothing in the original intent of the constitution which gives the US government the power to round up and deport people who aren't citizens. It says the US government may make uniform rules for naturalization, but that simply means the US government gets to decide what "naturalization" means for purposes of conferring citizenship. I does not say or imply that US government can round up and deport non-citizens except in very limited contexts pertaining to constitutionally declared military threats. The actual residency status of people inside the united STATES falls under the purview of State and local governments. That's what "federalism" necessarily implies. Where the constitutional falls silent, the interpretation should favor State and local sovereignty. And that is why, when looking back, we see there were no federal immigration agencies like ICE or DHS prior to the 20th century. In fact, most major restrictions that were placed on immigration and residency in the US were developed and enacted by big government progressives like Woodrow Wilson.

 

And the other side of that coin is...

So...any person born in the USA and in the USA ie subject to the jursidiction thereof, is a citizen. You lot have called them 'anchor' children. They are US citizens without doubt.

Another hypothetical. In our Constitution (Section 44,) anyone who has dual citizenship (that is Australian and that of another Country) may not be a Member of our 'Congress.' So.....if my Son and his Wife were holidaying in the USA, and the Wife gave birth there, and then they all left the US, returning to Australia, that Grandchild of mine is not disallowed from becomming a Member of our Parliament, as while they were born in the USA, they are not subject to its Jurisdiction. However, if they were geographically in the USA (subject to its jurisdiction) on a holiday while being a Member of Parliament, would your 14th Amendment put them in breach of out S.44?

Can you tell me what the Canadian 'citizenship' equivalent is?

 

Nope. The status of the parents are considered.