Simple question on 14th Amendment...

[Lukey]

It passed in 1868 and until 1924 (when Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act) no Indians were citizens of the US, including all those born after 1868. How is it that now the 14th Amendment is accepted to cover people born in America of non-citizens when as soon as it was passed that was not the case?

 

[connieb]

It passed in 1868 and until 1924 (when Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act) no Indians were citizens of the US, including all those born after 1868. How is it that now the 14th Amendment is accepted to cover people born in America of non-citizens when as soon as it was passed that was not the case?

Supreme Court activisim.

Plain and simple.

TBH - I do not understand why it was ever interpreted to include just anyone. It should have at least been interpreted to include only the children of legal residents. It is completely ridiculous that someone could be vacationing here, give birth and then that child is a citizen here, for later which if they go home would have to revoke citizenship potentially down the line for opportunities in their home country, etc.

 

[Drumcollie]

Supreme Court activisim.

Plain and simple.

TBH - I do not understand why it was ever interpreted to include just anyone. It should have at least been interpreted to include only the children of legal residents. It is completely ridiculous that someone could be vacationing here, give birth and then that child is a citizen here, for later which if they go home would have to revoke citizenship potentially down the line for opportunities in their home country, etc.

Winner supreme court hacktivism

 

[Queen Titania]

It passed in 1868 and until 1924 (when Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act) no Indians were citizens of the US, including all those born after 1868. How is it that now the 14th Amendment is accepted to cover people born in America of non-citizens when as soon as it was passed that was not the case?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

 

[Lukey]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

Pinhead elite intelligentsia strikes again!

 

[Lukey]

Supreme Court activisim.

Plain and simple.

TBH - I do not understand why it was ever interpreted to include just anyone. It should have at least been interpreted to include only the children of legal residents. It is completely ridiculous that someone could be vacationing here, give birth and then that child is a citizen here, for later which if they go home would have to revoke citizenship potentially down the line for opportunities in their home country, etc.

Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is the familiar language: “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.” Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Today, we somehow have come to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction; but this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous. If this had been the intention of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, presumably they would have said simply that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are thereby citizens.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/birthright-citizenship-not-mandated-by-constitution

 

[Fast Eddy]

Congress needs to just pass a law defining it, that or Trump can just issue an executive order when he takes office.

I doubt the map shown on the link. If you are born in Mexico you are not automatically a citizen.

 

[trapdoor]

Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is the familiar language: “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.” Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Today, we somehow have come to believe that anyone born within the geographical limits of the U.S. is automatically subject to its jurisdiction; but this renders the jurisdiction clause utterly superfluous. If this had been the intention of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment, presumably they would have said simply that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are thereby citizens.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/birthright-citizenship-not-mandated-by-constitution

I think that's a misread of the law. It's not that I disagree with the overall sentiment, but I think the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is meant to extend citizenship to those born in other countries, where U.S. jurisdiction might apply -- a child born in an embassy or on a U.S. military base to provide an example.

 

[Lukey]

I think that's a misread of the law. It's not that I disagree with the overall sentiment, but I think the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is meant to extend citizenship to those born in other countries, where U.S. jurisdiction might apply -- a child born in an embassy or on a U.S. military base to provide an example.

That would be part of it but the Indians were not afforded the birth citizenship because they were members of an independent nation within our borders. As with children of aliens, they would be subject to US "jurisdiction" in the event of committing a crime, but that's not the full extent of the term, especially as it was used at the time. It was more like "allegiance" than simply subject to law. In fact the drafter of the 14th Amendment said exactly that, as did at least one of the Senators involved in putting it into motion.

 

[Max R.]

It passed in 1868 and until 1924 (when Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act) no Indians were citizens of the US, including all those born after 1868. How is it that now the 14th Amendment is accepted to cover people born in America of non-citizens when as soon as it was passed that was not the case?

Indians were considered sovereign nations and not subject to US jurisdiction.

http://www.americaslibrary.gov/jb/jazz/jb_jazz_citizens_1.html
Many Native Americans had, and still have, separate nations within the U.S. on designated reservation land. But on June 2, 1924, Congress granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S. Yet even after the Indian Citizenship Act, some Native Americans weren't allowed to vote because the right to vote was governed by state law.

 

[Lukey]

Indians were considered sovereign nations and not subject to US jurisdiction.

http://www.americaslibrary.gov/jb/jazz/jb_jazz_citizens_1.html
Many Native Americans had, and still have, separate nations within the U.S. on designated reservation land. But on June 2, 1924, Congress granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S. Yet even after the Indian Citizenship Act, some Native Americans weren't allowed to vote because the right to vote was governed by state law.

If they went off the reservation and murdered somebody they would be subject to prosecution under US jurisdiction. Just like illegal aliens. There has never been a law passed that says anyone born here of non-citizens is automatically a citizen. Trump is right - he could remove that interpretation with an Executive Order.

 

[Max R.]

If they went off the reservation and murdered somebody they would be subject to prosecution under US jurisdiction. Just like illegal aliens. There has never been a law passed that says anyone born here of non-citizens is automatically a citizen. Trump is right - he could remove that interpretation with an Executive Order.

No interpretation, it's in black and white:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
Section 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. 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.

 

[Lukey]

No interpretation, it's in black and white:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
Section 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. 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.

What does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean?

 

[Max R.]

What does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean?

Not a lawyer, but I'm guessing US territories, embassies, US-flagged vessels and anywhere else jurisdiction would apply that is outside the boundaries of the USA.

Example, John McCain and Ted Cruz were born outside the US but are still citizens.

 

[Lukey]

Not a lawyer, but I'm guessing US territories, embassies, US-flagged vessels and anywhere else jurisdiction would apply that is outside the boundaries of the USA.

Example, John McCain and Ted Cruz were born outside the US but are still citizens.

Why don't we ask the drafter:

Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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.[1]

http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html

 

[Arkady]

It passed in 1868 and until 1924 (when Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act) no Indians were citizens of the US, including all those born after 1868. How is it that now the 14th Amendment is accepted to cover people born in America of non-citizens when as soon as it was passed that was not the case?

For a long time the 14th Amendment was read to allow the states to force black people to go to separate and unequal schools, despite the guarantee of equal protection. Then Brown v. Board of Education changed that. Sometimes it takes courts a while to get things right.

 

[Lukey]

For a long time the 14th Amendment was read to allow the states to force black people to go to separate and unequal schools, despite the guarantee of equal protection. Then Brown v. Board of Education changed that. Sometimes it takes courts a while to get things right.

What part of "equal protection" applies to the progeny of visiting foreigners?

 

[Arkady]

Supreme Court activisim.

Plain and simple.

TBH - I do not understand why it was ever interpreted to include just anyone. It should have at least been interpreted to include only the children of legal residents. It is completely ridiculous that someone could be vacationing here, give birth and then that child is a citizen here, for later which if they go home would have to revoke citizenship potentially down the line for opportunities in their home country, etc.

I like the idea that we're all on equal ground, when it comes to citizenship, rather than some getting more rights than others based on who their parents are. I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of the government being able to decide who gets citizenship and who doesn't, at birth. If they can say that those with foreign parents don't get citizenship, couldn't they say that those with Jewish parents, or poor parents, or black parents, or parents who are (or are not) veterans, or parents from Texas, etc., aren't citizens?

 

[Arkady]

What part of "equal protection" applies to the progeny of visiting foreigners?

If they're born where they're subject to US jurisdiction, then they're supposed to be afforded equal protection. The only exception would be those who had special diplomatic rights that excluded them from US jurisdiction.

 

[Lukey]

If they're born where they're subject to US jurisdiction, then they're supposed to be afforded equal protection. The only exception would be those who had special diplomatic rights that excluded them from US jurisdiction.

Nope!

Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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.[1]

http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html