Birthright Citizenship NOT Granted under 14th Amendment

The baby is not necessarily natural born. The term natural born citizen has never been officially defined. Being born to a US citizen, outside the US, even though it gives citizenship at birth, may not be considered natural citizenship. It would take either amendment or SCOTUS ruling to settle the issue.

There is enough opposition to people like Ted Cruz and John McCain, and misinformed opposition to Obama that they will never able to run without someone claiming that not being born on US soil makes them ineligible.

And the idea that people born to US citizens overseas are subject to US law comes from the fact that all US citizens living overseas are subject to US law. The diffrence is that a child is not officially considered a US citizen until their parents register their birth with an embassy. The child is entitled to citizenship, but not forced to use it. That is also the argument against natural citizenship for children born overseas. They are not citizens until their parents register them. Being entitled to citizenship is not the same as being automatically born as one, which is what happens with those born on US soil.

 

Actually it is... Thousands of kids are born overseas every year to US citizen parents are natural born US citizens ... like my 3 brothers.........

 

Being entitled to citizenship from birth is not the same as natural citizenship. If your brothers were born outside of the US, your parents would have had to register their births with the US embassy before they were considered citizens. Natural citizenship means that one is considered a citizen from the moment of birth. Your brothers and others like them were entitled to citizenship, but it took actions by your parents to make them citizens. If your parents had chosen to not register them, they would not be considered citizens. Though they could still register themselves later and become citizens, since they would still be entitled to it.

 

There are only TWO kinds of US citizenship.. natural born and naturalized..

 

No it won't. It takes the same thing that resulted in current law, and act of Congress. Congress has the power to set immigration policy, it's a clearly stated power in Article One.

SCOTUS has only the implied power of review, and even that is dependent on Congress allowing the Court to have that power. None of the framers of the 14th amendment made the claim that is included illegal immigrants, in fact the author of the amendment stated quite clearly that it does not. Congress already exempts ambassadors, heads of state, they previously exempted American Indians, they still exempt Enemy Combatants and they sure as hell can exempt illegal aliens.

If they pass the law and someone wants to take it to the Supreme Court, and the statute doesn't have language preventing review by the Court, then I guess they will. Big deal.

 

Hypocrisy; A child of US Parents, born in Russia or China is considered a US Citizen, but a child born of parents from anyplace else, in the US is classified as an American Citizen.....by birth. Yes, they should register, but many don't.

One more thing; Legal immigrants that earned citizenship, take an oath of allegiants and we have somewhere over 15,000,000 people in the US, from some other countries, that have never taken that oath, many of which collect some form a assistance. The purpose has always been to prevent foreign influence, but then that's questionable.

 

No they are not, they are within our jurisdiction. If they were subject to our jurisdiction we could draft them into the military, etc. The term Jurisdiction has many meanings, not just the one that you wish to use.

 

Look up the definition of jurisdiction in LAW.. I posted it earlier.. It means authority over. If YOU are on US soil they US has jurisdiction.. whether you are a tourist or an illegal.

 

Illegls are within US jurisdiction, they are not under US jurisdiction, if they were they could be conscripted.

Do you know what within the ligeance of the government means?

1401 is open to interpretation, that's the joy of law. Your interpretation of it is questionable and is easily shown to be inept, as I just did above.

 

For every law graduate you show that says it is I can show one that says its not. Tit for tat.

 

If you are on US soil, you are subject to US jurisdiction.. Don't parse with me.. I have a lot of legal training.

 

Those are recognized exception, does that mean there can be no other recognized exceptions?

So maybe children born to illegals can be a recognized exception as Indians were standing in a peculiar relation to common law.

All standing law is interpreted, some law is less easily interpreted than other laws, that's why we have the SCOTUS.

- - - Updated - - -

most rational people also understand that the term jurisdiction has more then just the meaning you want to assign to it.

 

That paragraph was not found in WKA, it is found in the CRS document form 2010. It is nothing more than Margaret Mikyung Lee's interpretation. http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/147254.pdf

 

No they are not, they are within the jurisdiction of the US as they can not be conscripted into military service. There Constitutional rights and protections are limited to the 5th and 6th Due Process Clauses and the 14th Equal Protection Clause.

- - - Updated - - -

So why can't we add a new exception to children born of illegals?

- - - Updated - - -

The 14th is merely declaratory of existing law, i.e. the 1866 CRA (WKA)

 

OK, can the US conscript an illegal into the military? If not then the US does not have authority over the individual. If an illegal is within the US they are within the jurisdiction of the US and can be charged with an infamous crime if committed and are eligible for the equal protection of the law in the state they are in per the 14th Equal Protection Clause.

Look at that your definition completely DQ's your claim and backs mine up. Do you see the difference in the meanings of the term jurisdiction that I used?

 

So do I, and yours severely lacks, Mrs. paralegal. You're arguing beyond your paygrade.

 

Then why were Indians excluded under the 14th amendment? You are arguing that the jurisdiction clause is meaningless and reading the amendment as if it were not in the text.

The only reason you can self-immigrate by walking into the US is because current law allows it, not because of some so-called right in the 14th amendment. The author of the citizenship clause was quite clear:

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael...hip-embraced-us-constitution-completely-false

 

This of course is an excellent point, and one I was going to use if no one else brought it up. The Fourteenth Amendment DID NOT provide for Indian citizenship for either those currently alive, or newly born American Indians REGARDLESS of the location of their birth. Why not? The Fourteenth Amendment did not directly prohibit American Indians from gaining citizenship. American Indians did not gain US citizenship until the Indian citizenship act of 1924. I guess they simply were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States...

 

Yes "subject to the jurisdiction of" means "having no other allegiance". This is not true of the illegal alien, which is why we deport them to their own country when the need arises.

 

No. If that were the case there would be no need to add the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction of" and in fact you are reading the amendment as if the phrase didn't exist. But the the term "subject to jurisdiction" absolutely did have a definitive meaning to the framers of the fourteenth amendment, complete allegiance inherent in citizenship, and not merely being subject to American laws.

Foreign diplomats, rulers, invaders and so forth do not have allegiance to the US, and so their offspring are not given automatic citizenship. Since it's true that not every person born in the United States is an American citizen under the Constitution, how difficult can it be to understand that the Constitution to not require something it does not require?

That some see denying birthright citizenship as an offensive proposition simply confirms that some have lost their sense of what citizenship is, and the concept of national allegiance inherent in it. Foreign nationals from another country that happen to give birth to a baby here, in what sense is it rational to presume the minor child’s allegiance is to the United States rather than the country their parents hold allegiance to? If an American couple happened to give birth while vacationing in Japan, who would assume that the baby's allegiance was to Japan?

 

Of course, how else were the democrats going to replace their slaves?

 

On this issue, the SCOTUS usually defers to the Congress. In passing the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act in 1996, a lot of the reforms seized on some prior rulings and various aspects of the laws were changed to prohibit Judicial Review of those provisions.

 

Because people who would live in a country for years and then blow themselves up to hurt it would NEVER break an oath.

 

When McCain was running for President, Republicans used the 14th Amendment to declare him a legitimate American citizen.

How old is this forum? I wonder if we can dredge up some old posts from conservatives arguing that McCain is a natural born citizen because of the 14th Amendment.

 

You're crushing their dreams.