Are the children of illegal immigrants... (14th amendment)

[A18]

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.

Michigan Senator Jacob Howard insisted upon the addition of the text in bold specifically because he wanted to make it clear that the mere "accident of birth" in the United States was not sufficient to justify citizenship. "[The amendment] 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."

Despite that addition, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment as granting citizenship to every person born in the United States.

What do you think is the proper interpretation?

[A18]

Do the people voting yes want to post an argument, or do they just pick the interpretation that gets the result they like?

[A18]

LOL. Ag is so clueless.

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a common law concept. It has nothing to do with whether you can prosecute that person for murder. A state can prosecute any person for murder, since common law is not binding upon sovereign powers.

[A18]

Maryland Senator Reverdy Johnson was even more explicit: "[A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power -- for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before -- shall be considered as citizens of the United States."

Furthermore, Senator Howard made it very clear that he understood the text as "simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already."

Federal laws governing naturalization, since at least 1795, have required aliens to renounce all allegiance to any foreign power and to support the U.S. Constitution. Such allegiance was never assumed simply because the alien was residing in the United States; instead an affirmative oath was required.

By "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," they meant subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense.

It would be difficult to argue that the son or daughter of two aliens is not an alien, when citizenship has always had a meaning in this country fixed upon parenthood or naturalization.

[A18]

It is common practice among nations to give citizenship to the children of their citizens, even if they happen to be visiting another nation at the time of birth. Would you go as far as to argue that a child who is a citizen of another nation is not "subject to a foreign power"?

[A18]

I direct you to Section 2 of the article: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed."

Indians not taxed are, in spite of section 1, still excluded from the count, presumably for the reason that they are not citizens. Their full exclusion from the basis of representation seems completely inconsistent with the idea that they are citizens; all other persons are now included.

Yet Indians, not taxed, are born in the United States.

[A18]

Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872)

The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

Elk v. Wilkins, which you cite, seems to reaffirm that holding: The main object of the opening sentence of the fourteenth amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes, and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.

I think it is fair to say that citizens of a foreign state owe allegiance to a foreign power every bit as much as Indians.

[A18]

You are relying on the Slaughterhouse Cases? That decision was a farce.

A more careful reading of the opinion leads me to disagree. The majority in that case simply did not do what it is accused of having done. Rather, the Court simply refused to make up a right to pursue a "legitimate occupation" out of thin air.

I would go as far as to say... that it would be perfectly consistent with the precedent established in the Slaughterhouse Cases for the Court to rule that the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights were, in their entirety, incorporated against state laws by the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If Indian tribes are an exception to the common law understanding, why not something more deeply rooted in American law?

[A18]

How are Indians any different from aliens, except that they are subject to another 'nation'?

Aliens subject to a foreign power were apparently not known to the common law, as it would be plainly absurd to say that a citizen of another state is not subject to a foreign power.

It has long been held that a person can lose his citizenship for reasons including service in a foreign military and naturalization as a citizen of another state.

[A18]

You keep dodging the issue of whether or not a citizen of another state is subject to a foreign power or not.

[A18]

Identifying a common law concept is one thing. Saying how it applies to a given situation is another.

The Constitution mentions Indians only twice, and never are they excluded from citizenship.

[A18]

Well, I'll have to concede that I lost this debate. I do think we should levy a 200% flat tax on these people until they renounce their citizenship, though.

[A18]

Except those ten were really just the result of one (due process). You also won on Incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

[A18]

Well, I'll have to concede that I lost this debate. I do think we should levy a 200% flat tax on these people until they renounce their citizenship, though.

How many provisions of US constitution would that violate?

Explicit or implied?