Post New

....until the Supreme Court rules that children born in the United States to two illegal aliens unlawfully present in the United States, are not "automatically" U.S. citizens.

Now it's possible it goes the other way but the fools who think it's a slam dunk don't know how to read the room.

I think they are going to rule that that's not what the Constitution means and that it's up to Congress to grant them citizenship but unless and until that legislation is passed, they are not automatically citizens.

Not sure that they will agree that Trump's E.O. means anything or not.

Pretty much every Western country doesn't grant birthright citizenship to children born of illegal aliens on their soil.

So you lefties should actually be in favor of such a decision.

You guys will be freaking out worse than when Roe v. Wade was overturned.

The question that the proponents of birthright citizenship have yet to answer--because they can't--is "Why?" Neither Wong Van Ark nor the Constitution itself states that anyone born in the U.S. is automatically a citizen. You actually have to read what they say to understand this and stop relying on your propaganda sources to do your thinking for you.

....until the Supreme Court rules that children born in the United States to two illegal aliens unlawfully present in the United States, are not "automatically" U.S. citizens.

The interesting thing is, if the court holds that the spawn of illegals, or any foreign national, born in the US is *not* automatically a citizen, granting citizenship to those people, in the past, was based on a flawed decision, thus invalid. So, if your grandparents were not citizens when your parents were born, then your parents are not citizens, so *you* are not a citizen, even if your parents, and you, were born in the US.

On or about September 22, 1922, the INS apparently stopped listing every member of a family on the Naturalization certificate for the head of the family. Each person needed their own certificate. So, a hypothetical O'Relliy young, married, couple, steps off the ship in NYC, in 1927, and starts the years long process of becoming citizens. In the interim, they squirt out two or three children. When the parents do become naturalized, they assume they don't need certificates for their spawn, because they were born here. A century later, the court waves it's magical wand, and takes that citizenship away. What a lovely mess that would be.

Steve

....until the Supreme Court rules that children born in the United States to two illegal aliens unlawfully present in the United States, are not "automatically" U.S. citizens.

Neither Wong Van Ark nor the Constitution itself states that anyone born in the U.S. is automatically a citizen.

Actually, the Constitution states exactly that.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, 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.

Of course, the current Supreme Court “textualists” will ignore the Constitution’s text, and probably rule that the Constitution is unconstitutional. Such is the state of the radicals who currently run the country.

And they’re doing a great job running it. Right into the ground.

Actually, the Constitution states exactly that.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 1:

Correct. The only exception is the progeny of foreign soldiers on US territory as part of a conflict. Mostly because they are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Same goes for foreign diplomats (embassies are not US soil), though I think they can apply in some manner. I'm not as familiar with that bit.

Alpha Puppy,

Where in the U.S. constitutional phrase that you quoted does it say "children born in the United States, whose parents are both illegal aliens, are automatically entitled to U.S. citizenship"?

It doesn't.

At best, the phrase you quoted is ambiguous, which is why at least 4 Supreme Court justices voted to take this up this year and make a ruling.

There are 2, not one, requirements which are conjunctive, not alternative: 1) born in the U.S. AND 2) subject to the jurisdiction of.

The second phrase has never been conclusively defined by the Supreme Court in this particular context.

Legal interpretation principles that are commonly understood by the courts is that nothing in the Constitution is "surplusage," i.e. redundant or unnecessary. If all that was necessary was to be born in the U.S., the 2nd phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction of," would be unnecessary.

If you actually knew what you were talking about--which you don't, but that's no surprise--you would understand that.

Also, the Wong Van Ark case that is commonly cited did not address the issue in its holding. That case involved two Chinese alien parents with a U.S. born child, but the parents were LEGALLY in the U.S. when the child was born in the U.S.

The Supreme Court has never decided the issue of whether children born in the U.S. of 2 illegal aliens automatically have citizenship according to the Constitution. The problem they then have is to explain why the Constitution has an extra, completely unnecessary and redundant phrase defining citizenship.

That may be a bridge too far and they may figure out a way of punting the whole thing, as in: "Congress has to decide this but Trump cannot do it by Executive Order," leaving the core issue unresolved for another day.

So as they say, this is a "case of first impression."

Your certainty about these kinds of complicated issues is not an indication that you are correct, simply that you are more ignorant than you might think yourself to be.

Please see my response to Alpha Wolf.

You're not the legal scholar that you believe yourself to be.

Have you even read the Wong Van Ark case?

Where in the U.S. constitutional phrase that you quoted does it say "children born in the United States, whose parents are both illegal aliens, are automatically entitled to U.S. citizenship"?

For those who understand plain English, it says that in the Constitution.

What part of ALL do you not understand?

And it’s not as if the word ALL is tucked away somewhere in the text of the amendment.

Literally and inescapably, IT IS THE FIRST WORD.

Please look at my response on this issue to Alpha Puppy Chow.

You're leaving out the second clause: "AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF". If you had actually read Wong Van Ark, you would understand that the holding in that case addressed the U.S. born child of 2 Chinese alien parents who were LEGALLY present in the U.S. The issue of whether or not the U.S. born child of 2 ILLEGAL ALIENS would also automatically have citizenship was not before the court.

it's up to Congress to grant them citizenship

Congress granted them citizenship starting with the passing of the US Constitution. READ IT SOME DAY.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs

The second phrase has never been conclusively defined by the Supreme Court in this particular context.

It is stated in the Congressional Record. Now whoda thunk of THAT? Or is THAT "too hard for you"?

I shall now let YOU "do your duty" and RUN AWAY !!!! That is what you ALWAYS do !!!

BYE !!! Don't come back !!

MACO PLUS TACO !!

You're leaving out the second clause: "AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF". If you had actually read Wong Van Ark, you would understand that the holding in that case addressed the U.S. born child of 2 Chinese alien parents who were LEGALLY present in the U.S. The issue of whether or not the U.S. born child of 2 ILLEGAL ALIENS would also automatically have citizenship was not before the court.

So marco, you're telling us that illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" the laws of the USA while physically in the USA? I think that's news to all of us.

So marco, you're telling us that illegal aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" the laws of the USA while physically in the USA? I think that's news to all of us.

So the person who thinks Denmark is the same country as The Netherlands also thinks that undocumented individuals in the United States are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Shocking.

...that undocumented individuals in the United States are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Good point. If they were not "subject", then the SA could not grab them off the street and toss them in prison. They could only do that to US citizens.

To clarify the situation would require Congress to say something explicit that you are only a citizen if at least one parent is a citizen, at the time of your birth.

Steve

To clarify the situation would require Congress to say something explicit that you are only a citizen if at least one parent is a citizen, at the time of your birth.

That wouldn't work. You can't legislate contrary to the Constitution. Unless you're suggesting they amend it to say that. Which would never happen. Even if they could pass the bill, the states would never ratify it.

The Mighty Steve
To clarify the situation would require Congress to say something explicit that you are only a citizen if at least one parent is a citizen, at the time of your birth.

One Poor Guy the Great: That wouldn't work. You can't legislate contrary to the Constitution. Unless you're suggesting they amend it to say that.

Yes. I've suggested that we make an amendment that they're a citizen if one parent is a citizen. Some countries in Europe do that. I think it would pass easily - I'd vote for it. We can DO that.

jerry ab solutely NUTZ,

The Congressional Record is from Congress, not the Supreme Court.

The more you know.

No, I'm telling you that the Supreme Court has never decided the issue of whether a child born in the U.S. to two non-citizen parents who are not lawfully present in this country, is automatically a citizen of the U.S. with no ifs, ands, or buts.

Evidently they will decide that later on in 2026 in the spring or summer.


What a wonderful confluence of this case with the bisesquicentennial!

I predict the Supreme Court will rule, on a prospective basis (i.e. it won't apply to people already born here and deemed U.S. citizens even if that turned out to have been in error), that children born in the U.S. to two illegal aliens aren't automatically citizens and that Congress has the authority to specify otherwise, if it wants to.

What further consequences may happen to the little baby illegal niblets will be reserved for future case law as it develops in the lower courts.

Then, LEFTIST TEARS. Many, many tears.

That's incorrect, Steve.

You're mixing up issues in a confusing and ambiguous area of the law.

There has to be a difference between simply being born in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of it. Or else there wouldn't be two distinct clauses in the Constitution.

By simple logic, being born in the U.S. does not automatically mean the child is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

That phrase needs to be defined by the Supreme Court.

Stop assuming the conclusion you want.

I have repeatedly said it could go either way or it could be punted entirely.

Given the current make up of this court, I would prepare yourself to be disappointed.

No, I'm telling you that the Supreme Court has never decided the issue of whether a child born in the U.S. to two non-citizen parents who are not lawfully present in this country, is automatically a citizen of the U.S. with no ifs, ands, or buts.

Nor have they ever decided whether the children of two Jews born in New York are citizens. Or whether a child born in Nebraska of two non-citizens, or twins born of one citizen and one non-citizen. I mean… is one of them a citizen and the other isn’t?

Such important questions that need answering!

Nor has the Supreme Court yet taken on the monumental task of parsing those extremely imprecise words found in the Constitution:

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 word “all” is such an imprecise and ambiguous word

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 word “all” is such an imprecise and ambiguous word

Ah, but you're assuming the definition of a person includes non-legal residents! 😉

That quip aside, I'm sure that the ultimate decision of the SCOTUS will talk a lot about the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

The Congressional Record is from Congress, not the Supreme Court.

Nice try to run away.

Congressional Record is public info.

Failing to consider the meaning of the law/amendment/whatever--as contained in the Congressional Record--means the Supreme Court is irrelevant when they ignore the data.

By simple logic, being born in the U.S. does not automatically mean the child is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.

That phrase needs to be defined by the Supreme Court.

Already decided.

Anyone BORN in the US is a US citizen--unless the parents are representing a foreign govt. Which is what Spankee did AND does. So, Barron is NOT a US citizen (per the US Constitution).

Here, read it some day:

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs

“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”

Now there’s a stumper.

Here’s an experiment to try, especially if you are the citizen of another country….

Get on the interstate and blow by the HighPo going 120 mph.

When the cop pulls you over and tries to give you a ticket, in your most polite voice, tell him “sorry officer. “I’m a citizen of Canada and am not under your jurisdiction”.

There’s only one scenario in which that tactic will work, and that scenario is triggered….

When you also hand over your diplomatic passport for inspection, and then wish the nice officer a good day.

You're mixing up issues in a confusing and ambiguous area of the law.

There has to be a difference between simply being born in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of it. Or else there wouldn't be two distinct clauses in the Constitution.

Lambo, PoorGuy, and Marco, wrt the "under the jurisdiction of", that was added to the 14th, to clarify the Civil Rights Act of 1866, to make clear that people with diplomatic immunity could not squirt out US citizens, while in the US.

Remember when Colorado tried to use the insurrection clause to keep Trump off the ballot? SCOTUS held, unanimously, that Colorado did not have jurisdiction. A 5-4 majority also held that Section 3 is not enforceable. Section 5 of the 14th requires Congress to pass enforcing legislation. Congress never passed enforcing legislation regarding the insurrection clause, so it's unenforceable.

Congress *did* enact enforcing legislation for Section 1, in 1952.

Immigration and Nationality Act

https://www.uscis.gov/laws-and-policy/legislation/...

The act says, under Title III:

Nationals and citizens of United States at birth

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years,...

So, being an act of Congress, without which, Section 1 of the 14th is not enforceable, seems that an act of Congress is all that is needed to ammend the definition of who is a citizen.


Steve

Yes. I've suggested that we make an amendment that they're a citizen if one parent is a citizen. Some countries in Europe do that. I think it would pass easily - I'd vote for it. We can DO that.

So, if you're born to permanent residents (NOT citizens), you're not a citizen? I don't think that would fly.

Though, that is how McCain was a citizen. He was born to citizen parents, even though he was overseas at the time (I think Panama?). Therefore, that law already exists. You don't really need to pass an amendment for it.

Though, that is how McCain was a citizen. He was born to citizen parents, even though he was overseas at the time (I think Panama?).

John was born in the Coco Solo Naval Hospital, in the Panama Canal Zone, which was sovereign US territory at the time.

Steve

Rev. Baloney,

Not sure why you decided to focus on "Jews" other than anti-Semitism.

That speaks for itself though.

jerry no visible abs,

The Supreme Court hasn't decided anything yet.

They may see it your way.

They may not.

Let's keep our fingers crossed that they choose wisely.

Not sure why you decided to focus on "Jews" other than anti-Semitism.

I didn’t focus on Jews. I included Jews in the scenario that highlights the danger of restricting the meaning of the word “All”. That’s precisely what Germany did to Jews in Germany by dropping them from citizenship, and that’s precisely the path this country begins to follow when it starts restricting the meaning of “All”. As you are Jewish, I thought you would recognize the danger.

Apparently not

Wow Rev. Zambaloney,

You really are way out of your depth, aren't you?

If a cop stops a diplomat that doesn't mean the cop can't enforce the vehicle and traffic regulations.

It just means the diplomat has a possible defense to prosecution, which can be waived by the diplomat's country.

If it's a driving infraction, the diplomat would surely be given a ticket and summons to a court date.

If the diplomat was drunk and unable to drive, or behaving in a reckless manner, or some other more serious infraction, he would be apprehended and his vehicle towed.

That's for public safety.

It would be up to a judge to decide the limits of diplomatic immunity, and if it applied at all in the particular circumstance.

Or do you actually think if a diplomat started firing off rounds in the middle of the street, or driving his SUV at an ICE officer while his lesbian friend screamed at him to DRIVE BABY DRIVE, the police would be powerless to stop him?

It's clear you come up with the stuff you spew here without a single moment of reflective thought.

But then that's why actual judges, on the Supreme Court, have to decide issues like birthright citizenship.

I never said they would rule against it, I simply said it had never been addressed in this particular factual scenario by the Supreme Court, and was a case of first impression.

But you know everything, so yeah, if you think diplomats can just do anything they want and the cops are powerless to prevent them from doing those things, even if illegal or grossly reckless or dangerous, then it's obvious you don't think at all.

Steve,

The statute you cited just repeated the exact language of the amendment, including the additional requirement, in addition to being born here, of "subject to the jurisdiction of."

I didn't see where the statute you cited defined what "subject to the jurisdiction of" actually means.

Even if Congress had its own definition of what that language means, since it's taken from a Constitutional provision, it would still be up to the Supreme Court to review Congress's definition.

Apparently that's what's going to happen later this year.

Unlike a lot of people posting here, I don't claim to have a crystal ball to know what the Supreme Court is going to do.

Also unlike a lot of people posting here, if the Supreme Court decides in favor of the U.S. born spawn of illegal aliens, I won't be upset, I won't gnash my teeth and rend my garments, and I won't declare the Supreme Court to be illegitimate Nazis just because they decided the case contrary to my feelings about what would be best for our nation.

Like lots of other things in the law, it's subject to varying interpretations.

I can almost predict you guys will declare the Supreme Court void, illegitimate, and Nazis if they decide the way Trump wants him to.

Because you guys don't believe in the Rule of Law.

Or do you actually think if a diplomat started firing off rounds in the middle of the street, or driving his SUV at an ICE officer while his lesbian friend screamed at him to DRIVE BABY DRIVE, the police would be powerless to stop him?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBOi7nfrd8k

I could shoot someone and not lose a vote. Cops would do NOTHING? Per YOU.

Because you guys don't believe in the Rule of Law.

Spankee does not believe in the Rule of Law. Felons should be locked up, RIGHT? Or not?

John was born in the Coco Solo Naval Hospital, in the Panama Canal Zone, which was sovereign US territory at the time.

I double-checked it. We controlled the zone, but it was not "sovereign US territory". It was technically an unincorporated US territory per the 1903 treaty. It was still sovereign Panamanian territory. Perhaps picking a nit, but that's what the law is. Picking nits. So, McCain was not born on US soil.

I double-checked it. We controlled the zone, but it was not "sovereign US territory".

I checked your check. You are correct.

The Canal Zone is specifically mentioned in the 1952 Immigration and Citizenship act:

§1403. Persons born in the Canal Zone or Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904
(a) Any person born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

(b) Any person born in the Republic of Panama on or after February 26, 1904, and whether before or after the effective date of this chapter, whose father or mother or both at the time of the birth of such person was or is a citizen of the United States employed by the Government of the United States or by the Panama Railroad Company, or its successor in title, is declared to be a citizen of the United States.

(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title III, ch. 1, §303, 66 Stat. 236 .)

The same question came up in 68, when George Romney ran for POTUS. He was born in Mexico, of US citizen parents.

Steve

I predict the Supreme Court will rule, on a prospective basis (i.e. it won't apply to people already born here and deemed U.S. citizens even if that turned out to have been in error), that children born in the U.S. to two illegal aliens aren't automatically citizens and that Congress has the authority to specify otherwise, if it wants to.

This could happen, marco. Have you considered it?

"It is difficult to argue that the (Trump's) Executive Order is consistent with 8 U.S.C. 1401(a) as it has been traditionally interpreted, understood, and applied. That is, even if one believes that constitutional birthright citizenship is narrower than the conventional understanding, or that Congress has the power to define it more narrowly by limiting the scope of who is born "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, Congress has not done so, and the Executive lacks any power to redefine the scope of birthright citizenship unilaterally.

The Court could simply hold that the Executive Order conflicts with the longstanding interpretation of 8 U.S.C. 1401(a) and defer to another day whether Congress could enact legislation adopting a narrower rule. If the justices are looking for a way to avoid a splintered opinion in Barbara, this approach may be an attractive route to take." Reason

So this doesn't really support birthright citizenship as the Left claims.

The status of the child's parent(s) seems to be significant.

In Wong Van Ark, the parents had to be legal residents.

In the Canal legislation, one or both had to be a citizen.

When a baby is born the the citizenship of one or both parents, or their status as a legal resident, seems to have a significance and bears on whether or not the child should have citizenship conferred upon itself.

That could tie into the definition of "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. as stated in the Constitution.

Are illegal immigrants in the U.S. "subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S."? In at least a limited fashion, yes--if they commit crimes in the U.S. they are subject to the jurisdiction of the criminal courts for purposes of adjudicating the criminal charges. And obviously they are subject to the jurisdiction of the immigration courts for deportation proceedings.

But, are they subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. in the sense intended by the Constitution in the 14th Amendment?

The specific purpose of the Amendment was to confer citizenship on freed former slaves. It would be ridiculous to retroactively try to claim that the intention of the drafters of the 14th Amendment was to confer automatic US citzenship on US born children of illegal aliens who snuck into the country.

But, are they subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. in the sense intended by the Constitution in the 14th Amendment?

If they are deemed able to be arrested, then YES.

If they are NOT deemed able to be arrested, then NO.

Which do you choose?

Knucklehead Smith,

I choose for a judge to decide, not a bald ventriloquist's puppet with someone else's hand up their backside.

I didn’t focus on Jews. I included Jews in the scenario that highlights the danger of restricting the meaning of the word “All”. That’s precisely what Germany did to Jews in Germany by dropping them from citizenship, and that’s precisely the path this country begins to follow when it starts restricting the meaning of “All”. As you are Jewish, I thought you would recognize the danger.

Apparently not
****

Go Progressives Go.

From Omar to AOC, from Sheeple to Zohran.

And...some on the right also.

Drip Drip Drip

I choose for a judge to decide, not a bald ventriloquist's puppet with someone else's hand up their backside.

Then you have eliminated the US Supreme Court--you eliminated them.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.