Amendment 14

[MarcSpaz]

I think dual citizenship is relatively new. Never really looked into that.

[SHMIV]

Never much cared for the idea of duel citizenship.

Conflict of interest.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[WVUBeta1904]

Ah, dual citizenship.

From what I understand, if you're born in Canada, the US will grant you dual citizenship if you apply, assuming all goes as it should. However, Canada will not grant dual citizenship to US born citizens.

It was a while ago that this was explained to me, so I'm sure Canada's laws could have been ammended.

Gotta love America's hat...

[MarcSpaz]

H... something else that supports your opinion and solidifying it as fact and law... as you are aware, there were several people who co-authored the 14th Amendment. The man who wrote the Citizenship Clause (Senator Jacob Howard) specifically said, on the floor of the House, during session...

“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.”

Well, if a baby born in the US is a citizen regardless of their parents status, how the heck could this not include "persons born in the United States who are foreigners" or "aliens"? Its impossible! That's how! Therefor, by virtue, if the parents are not citizens, the baby is not a citizen.

As with the assertion of definition proclaimed by John Bingham, Jacob Howard's supporting definition has never been contested by the Supreme Court. No Represenative ever challenged Howard on this point. The House definition stands and officially remains unchallenged as of today.

It seems pretty clear when the main author of the Amendment and the main author of the Citizenship Clause both agree that birth, in and of itself, does not entitle a person to citizenship.

[Jeff82]

Throw the anchor babies overboard!

[wittmeba]

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.

@SHMIV - did I misunderstand your question? Seems to me you said that persons born in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the home country of their parents. I phrased it differently than you did on purpose.

If this is what you meant, then I would have to disagree. That first sentence in the 14th means to me that if foreign individuals come here and give birth that the child is, by birth, a US citizen.

I would agree with this. In the case of which jurisdiction it would be the state (US state) where the parents reside. It does not indicate that the parents or other family members become citizens, just the natural born child. This is why I feel they - the parents - should be citizens for a min of 1 year prior to having rights to naturalizing the birth of their child.

[SHMIV]

That interpretation still renders the "jurisdiction thereof" clause redundant.

Plus, there's the record of debate that Marc posted. That seems to imply that the intent wasn't to grant citizenship to any child born on our soil.

I think that the primary intent was to ensure citizenship to former slaves and their offspring.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[MarcSpaz]

I think that the primary intent was to ensure citizenship to former slaves and their offspring.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

That is exactly what it was for. The 14th Amendment provides "citizens" equal protection under the law. To provide justice and equality to all free men who were formally slaves as well as there decedents and migrants that came to the US, you must first define what a citizen is.

Originally the 14th Amendment did not include Native Americans by default, as many of them were loyal to their Indian Nation. The Indian Nations were referred to as "domestic dependent nations". Hence, Native Americans were not inherently US citizens.

Actually, the Native Americans are another great example of how geographic location means nothing, but rather jurisdiction.

Look at Elk versus Wilkins (1884). John Elk was a Ponca Indian who left his tribe and moved to Omaha, Nebraska. He owned a house, paid taxes, and was a member of the Nebraska National Guard. When he attempted to register to vote, he was told that he was not a U.S. citizen even though he had been born in the U.S. and therefore could not vote.

In Elk v. Wilkins, the Court found that Indians were not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. While recognizing that Indians were born in the United States in a geographical sense, they were not citizens. The Court declared that citizenship must be directly bestowed upon the Indians by the United States.

It wasn't until 1887 when Congress passed the Dawes Act, which allowed Indians to become citizens if they renounced their tribes and adopted "civilized life". It was generally assumed that “civilized life” meant that they could speak English, had become Christian, and were actively engaged in farming. In 1924 and again in 1940, Congress passed legislation granting citizenship to all Indians.

So, it really can't become anymore clear. The only ruling body who can say whether someone is a citizen or not is Congress. Via the US Constitution and the 14th Amendment, simply being born geographically in the US does not make you a US citizen. This fact had been repeatedly upheld in court ruling. Any Legal exceptions had been put in place by Congress, and exclusively for Native Americans. Any other person who was in the US legally or illegally, was not already a citizen, gave birth and that child received citizenship, had done so obviously and blatantly in violation of our laws.

But listen... I'm not a heartless jerk. If enough people in the US that ARE LEGAL CITIZENS want to change the law, I'm sure the bleeding heart law makers can make it happen for you. But, disagreeing with a law does not nullify that law. The nation must abide by its laws, regardless of agreement or comprehension, until such time as that law is changed or repealed. You can't just say screw it, and than do whatever you want.

[SHMIV]

I came across the Elk case. I also ran across the Kim something or other case, whereupon a son of Chinese citizens was challenging his citizenship, or apparent lack thereof.

He had been born here, and the court decided in his favor. But a couple of things stood out, in his case. One, while his parents were subjects of China, they were here legally. They had gone through all the proper channels to live and work here. The second thing, was apparently the discussion regarding the intent of the 14th Amendment, at the time of it's creation, was not allowed to be considered in the court room, when deciding the case.

I'll find it and post it later. But, right now I'm in Wyoming. My main phone has no signal here, and this phone is small, slow, and generally crappy; when I get signal on the good phone, I'll go searching.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[MarcSpaz]

That's United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Very familiar with that case.

That case was extremely complex. The parents were both working and living in the US. Kim Ark was born in the US, left the country for travel to visit family and was denied re-entry into the US based on a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens.

The Judge found that, for the sake of re-entry into the US, Kim had already established residency in the US and could not be denied re-entry. The Judge was supported by many peers in taking a little wiggle room to say that the 14th Amendment did protect Kim as a citizen of the US because, both of Kim's parents were in the US legally for the purpose of residency and work, making the parents "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States", and Kim was born in the US.

If I was that judge, I would not have bestowed citizenship on Kim, but would have granted admittance into the US under the US residency laws that existed at the time. BUT... I still feel that in that one very specific case, the end result would have been the same and justice was served either way.

[SHMIV]

Yes, that was the one. If I recall correctly, wasn't there a treaty with China, at the time, that prevented Wong Kim Arks parents from becoming US citizens?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[MarcSpaz]

Actually, there were two treaties in place prior to that time. There was the Treaty of Tianjin in 1858 and the Burlingame-Seward Treaty in 1868. The idea behind the two treaties was to ease immigration restrictions with regard to Chinese coming to the US, and an effort on the part of the Chinese to limit American interference in internal Chinese affairs.

There was a huge, state level push in California to ban and/or block Chinese immigrants from being naturalized. However the two treaties put the federal government into a position where they had to force CA into follow the treaties.

After a long, ugly protest by many states, a new treaty was struck with China in 1880. The new treaty was called the Angell Treaty. Basically it permitted the United States to restrict, but not completely stop, Chinese immigration. In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Chinese Immigration Act.

That treaty combined with the two Acts really significantly impacted the Wong Kim Ark case. Racism and a shortage of work for Americans really caused a huge commotion leading to very, very strict immigration laws (hmm, that sounds oddly familiar, doesn't it?). The judge finding on behalf of the Wong family was controversial at the time.

However, in my opinion it was a ground-breaking case, but likely set the standard for the wave of anchor babies and chain migration that was prominent in the 1930, 1980's and now. 117 years later and still feeling the affects. Progressive/socialists twisting the tort law into something it never was. I guess its true that no good deed goes unpunished.

[Viper21]

I doubt it matters what the intent of the amendment was. There is no way this supreme court would rule to not give citizenship to babies born here imo.

Look at the 2nd amendment. "Shall not be infringed" seems pretty concrete, & clear. Yet.... look at all the infringements. Intent of the founders matters not in todays government imo.

[MarcSpaz]

Andy, you can't imagine how much I agree with you. We have a rouge government that does whatever the hell they want to maintain power and control, all under the the color of "for the good of the people". Its such BS.

We need a good cleansing of the socialists from our government, but I fear it will only get worse and we will never see those days of greatness again.

[SHMIV]

Yes. We have a rouge government.

The popular interpretation of the 14th Amendment is the view that being born here grants citizenship. That was my view, until the other day. I'd never really thought about it. I guess that it's just one of those things they taught me in school, and I never got around to questioning it.

But, recently, there's been talk about immigration on the air waves, and the 14th popped up in regard to anchor babies. W2B actually paid more attention to it at first, and she was fussing about it. "I don't like that babies can be born here and become automatic citizens," she said. "But that's what the Constitution says."

I keep a pocket Constitution on the truck. So, I decided to look it up. I've read the thing a hundred times, but never in that particular context, and that troublesome clause caught my attention, this time. It didn't take much Googling to realize that I wasn't the first one to have this epiphany. The points that Marc brought up were easy to find.

I didn't figure that creating this thread would have any kind of major global or national impact. But, it's a relevant topic, worthy of discussion, anyhow. Think of it as a critical thinking exercise.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[MarcSpaz]

The points that Marc brought up were easy to find.

The truth is always easy to find. You need only be willing to accept it once its found.

I didn't figure that creating this thread would have any kind of major global or national impact. But, it's a relevant topic, worthy of discussion, anyhow. Think of it as a critical thinking exercise.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

I think its a great thread. I hope someone who would otherwise disagrees due to being uninformed, actually learns from it... maybe wants to prove me wrong and researches it and finds that truth. The only way we win is to educate people to the truth.

There are reasons for everything in the constitution. Not one single word, comma or period was a mistake or coincidence. Every mark serves a purpose. We need only to be will to accept things for what they are. The Constitution is in simple and plain English. There is no need to over think it.

[wittmeba]

This is and will remain the problem throughout the debating & elections.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... tizenship/

They want to keep blaming Trump for his outspokenness but what he has done is surface the issue and now as everyone is talking about it the truth seems to be surfacing.

[Viper21]

It doesn't matter what thoughts, essays, speeches, etc... turn up declaring the interpretation of the amendment, or the intent of the authors of the 14th. Pro-illegal immigration folks, & liberals will demonize those that want the 14th upheld & continue to interpret the constitution, like other laws they disagree with.

There is no disputing that it is illegal to sneak across our borders & is a crime. Yet how many sanctuary cities exist...?? When a liberal politician sees a law they don't like, they ignore it, or change the interpretation of it to fit their agenda.

Personally, I'd like to see the 14th amendment applied as intended. Then again, I'd like to see our borders secure, & immigration laws enforced too.

[wittmeba]

Viper21 -- I wish there was a like button - your post would earn one.

I would still take the US government over all the others but can you imagine how much better it could be if the Constitution, BoR and all the laws were enforced as intended?

We have a president and many others that support sanctuary cities, illegal immigration and many other laws of this country. We can never expect a illegal immigrant to honor those laws that are not honored in D.C.

This country needs leaders that will run this country the way it was intended. But it will take a lot of time and patience.

[Swampman]

Well, now I think my mind is changing. H and Marc, I understand what you are saying. Ironbear, thanks for posting that article from the WaPo. Never really considered anything other than the "anchor baby" concept.

Guess the problem is the wording of the 14th. Like DusterDude said, it always read that way to me.

Always something new to learn! Thanks fellas!