- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
What did the author of the 14th Amendment have to say about birthright citizenship?
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:53 am
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:53 am
Let's ask him. This dude's name was Jacob Howard. He was a senator from Michigan and close friend of Abraham Lincoln. He was heavily involved with helping to pass the 13th Amendment and was a member of the committee that authored the 14th Amendment. Here is what he had to say about anchor babies/birthright citizenship in 1866:
The United States likewise did not have set immigration laws at the time of the 14th Amendment's passage in 1868, so the men who wrote the amendment had no reason to qualify the wording of the text when it was passed. But it's clear from the words of one of the amendment's chief authors that anchor babies were never part of the equation.
Further Reading
quote:
"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."
The United States likewise did not have set immigration laws at the time of the 14th Amendment's passage in 1868, so the men who wrote the amendment had no reason to qualify the wording of the text when it was passed. But it's clear from the words of one of the amendment's chief authors that anchor babies were never part of the equation.
Further Reading
3
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:56 am to RollTide1987
It’s clear this was meant to apply to slaves and minorities, and not meant to apply to the entire world to come have their babies here
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:56 am to RollTide1987
Guess he should have put that in the amendment, then.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:56 am to td01241
quote:
It’s clear this was meant to apply to slaves and minorities, and not meant to apply to the entire world to come have their babies here
I do agree with this. But the constitution says what it says.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:58 am to ohiovol
quote:Put what?
Guess he should have put that in the amendment, then.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 9:59 am to ohiovol
Are you under the impression that constitutional definitions cannot be considered by the court? Thee have been hundreds of cases. Your argument is really perplexing to me.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:02 am to ohiovol
quote:
Guess he should have put that in the amendment, then.
He did:
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.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:09 am to ohiovol
quote:
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.
The 14th A requires that a citizen is BOTH born AND subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
what it means to be "subject to the jurisdiction" has not (to my knowledge) been interpreted by a court for purposes of US Citizenship. It's my understanding that whether a baby born to a parent present illegally in the US is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US for purposes of naturalization. The term "jurisdiction" does not necessarily just mean in personam (or personal) jurisdiction. It can have other connotations, for example "subject matter"
For example - a lawsuit between two citizens of Louisiana are outside of the jurisdiction of a Federal Court, unless the lawsuit involves a Federal Statute. For the purposes of the lawsuit, the court has no "subject matter jurisdiction."
I think an EO, or statute could be easily drafted denying "birthright" citizenship to children born to an illegal alien, or providing a naturalization process by which a child born in such circumstances may become a citizen.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:15 am to ohiovol
quote:
Guess he should have put that in the amendment, then.
You do understand how amendments work right?
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:20 am to RollTide1987
quote:
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.
There is Section 1 of the 14th A.
You will see the equal protection clause towards the end. Now when it was written, folks didn't think it would be applying to women, gays, the disabled, and others.
But it doesn't say "any person except..." The clear language states "any person" and yes that includes illegal immigrants.
Anyway, please stop trying to add exceptions to the Constitution when the clear language does not provide them. No matter what Mr. Howard may have said in an interview, the language of the 14th as passed by Congress and ratified by the States does not provide for those exceptions.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:22 am to BRTigerDad
quote:
But it doesn't say "any person except..." The clear language states "any person" and yes that includes illegal immigrants.
Only if they are “under the jurisdiction”. The answer to that question is clear as mud. Your legal analysis leaves a lot to be desired.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:27 am to RollTide1987
quote:
He did:
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.
So illegal immigrants aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the US?
Posted on 10/30/18 at 10:27 am to Wednesday
quote:
The 14th A requires that a citizen is BOTH born AND subject to the jurisdiction of the US. what it means to be "subject to the jurisdiction" has not (to my knowledge) been interpreted by a court for purposes of US Citizenship
You'd be wrong.
The case has been tried in US v Wong Kim Ark.
Trump can do whatever he'd like with an EO, but it is unlikely to hold up in a court of law.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 11:34 am to slackster
quote:
You'd be wrong. The case has been tried in US v Wong Kim Ark. Trump can do whatever he'd like with an EO, but it is unlikely to hold up in a court of law.
I thought that Wong Kim Ark involved two legal residents.
I’m talking about babies born to ILLEGAL immigrants. Not sure how they are subject to the same body of law as those born to citizens or permanent legal residents, etc.
I don’t know why Trump’s EO interpreting the 14th for Administrative Agencies wouldn’t bind them. And so long as it relates to babies born to illegal aliens - I don’t see how it wouldn’t have a chance to at least get an interp of the 14thA By a Federal Court.
Scalia would say “original” meaning of the language of the 14th at Time drafted is what makes sense.
They were talking about slaves born inside the US. They were here legally. Not citizens. But still subject to the jurisdiction.
This post was edited on 10/30/18 at 11:40 am
Posted on 10/30/18 at 12:01 pm to ohiovol
quote:
So illegal immigrants aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the US?
Perhaps not as it applies the the 14th. Why is that funny to you?
The first question you should ask yourself when reading the Amendment is “what doe ‘under the jurisdiction’ mean?”
The last thing you should do is assume your personal/preferred definition is the applicable definition.
I guess it’s humorous that you skipped the first thing you should do and skipped straight to the last thing you should do. Is that why you are laughing?
Posted on 10/30/18 at 12:13 pm to slackster
quote:
The case has been tried in US v Wong Kim Ark.
That decision does not help anchor babies.
Posted on 10/30/18 at 12:16 pm to ohiovol
quote:
Guess he should have put that in the amendment, then.
Like they did with abortion = Right??
Posted on 10/30/18 at 12:18 pm to BRTigerDad
quote:
please stop trying to add exceptions to the Constitution when the clear language does not provide them
Like it did for the ACA = right??
Posted on 10/30/18 at 12:23 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
That decision does not help anchor babies.
That's your opinion, and it would be right if you ignored the fact that it has been referenced as the basis for birthright citizenship for anchor babies
Posted on 10/30/18 at 12:23 pm to td01241
quote:
It’s clear this was meant to apply to slaves and minorities, and not meant to apply to the entire world to come have their babies here
Yeah it's not hard.....it shouldn't be that hard......for the uneducated, find another topic bc you suck at this one.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News