Bibao’s quoting of the amendment is deceptively edited. What goes in those dots? Here is the full text of that sentence:

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.

Read more …

“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” only serves to further the point that anyone residing within any U.S. state or territory is subject to the rule and law of the Constitution. That’s to say that even someone born outside the U.S., say on a military base, who has never actually lived within the U.S., should still be afforded their citizenship and all rights that come with it. This clause actually strengthens the argument that citizenship status has little to no bearing on one’s membership in that society. The omission helps to focus the point that we are talking specifically about stripping away citizenship of people literally born within our borders. In that sense the 14th Amendment is indeed clear-cut and the omission of the superfluous caveat regarding jurisdiction is simply a tactic of space, not of dishonesty.

In response to the first comment in regards to Bilbao’s possible dishonesty by omission, the intent and application of the aforementioned clause must be duly noted. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” serves more to avoid very obvious diplomatic issues than to actively exclude any group of people. For instance, say Mahmoud Ahmedinijad and his 8 1/2 month pregnant wife grace us with another UN visit. His wife may conceivably (no pun) push out an Ambassador of Death a half month early. In such a case would we expect that child to be an American citizen? Absolutely not, that is because diplomats (an other individuals in unique circumstances) are “subject to the jurisdiction” of their respective countries of origin. The clause simply clears that all up. Now, someone may reasonably argue that illegal immigrants fall under a similar category as diplomats with regard to the status of foreign jurisdiction, but when one looks deep into the argument it proves superficial and unattached from the reality of the situation. The fact is, diplomats and the like enjoy an array of privileges and assume a unique position with respect to the US, essentially, they are invited in as guests. Illegal immigrants on the other hand enter the country as criminals and are thus immediately under the jurisdiction, albeit one with an iron fist, in a way no diplomat would ever be.

Ron, sorry I’m not buying it (though I do accept that you weren’t being dishonest). Thanks for responding. Your response might make more sense if the law said ‘or subject to the jurisdiction thereof’, which would cover people born on imperial military bases outside the country. But the amendment clearly says ‘and‘… this indicates that there are cases where you might be in the US when born, but not subject to its jurisdiction. Plausibly, the citizen of another country illegally here meets that case. Not saying that’s how the phrase is to be interpreted (it is very vague and ambiguous) but it’s nowhere near as clearcut as you make it out to be.

Paul C, two things: firstly, you can’t write. Secondly: illegal immigrants are not criminals. Entering the country illegally is not a crime.

In response to Ohai

Firstly: you can’t argue, A) attacking my writing and B) stating that illegal immigrants are not criminals do not in any way deal with my analysis of the true meaning of the clause you espoused as being indicative of an unclear meaning, basically its a classic diversion response since you did not prove my reading of the clause wrong or right.

Read more …

And I do agree the law can be vague, all we really have to go on is case law which does help to clear things up a bit.

We actually worked this case in class, United States v. Wong Kim Ark there are a couple of other ones but this one should clarify US precedent with respect to the citizenship clause.

“A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.” Granted this case dealt with China thus the text specifically mentions China, but the precedent was set by the Supreme Court in this case dating back to 1898, and has been essentially untouched since. And that was just the final position, the more thorough analysis of it is contained in the entire case.

Your argument from authority notwithstanding, I’m going to have to resort to wikipedia to disagree with you. That is, at least some people have thought it had another meaning:

“There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment.² During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding Indians, who maintain their tribal ties, and “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.³

Read more …

Your evidence highlights some important points. There was obviously a debate about the intent and application, even the wording, of the amendment. Your example providing some of those views, but they don’t indicate the totality, that is, a complete view of every member of congress. But as it is, that is a side issue, the important thing to remember is how our political system works. The Supreme Court’s job is to interpret the law with respect to a myriad of considerations, they did just that and their ruling effectively became the law of the land.

Our government needs to prove to American labor that they mean what they say? That means secure borders and interior immigration enforcement. E-Verify are part of nationwide enforcement, a tool that has caused hysteria amongst the open border demagogues.

E-verify was nearly sold out by Sen. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Joe Baca (D-Calif.) and even Janet Napolitano. But this time they failed to arrest it’s capability to remove E-Verify from the Parthenon of tools that addresses the illegal immigration invasion. Brought into the spotlight by Senator Sessions, they Democratic leadership were unable to sink it beyond the enlightened eyes of the attentive public. In every state E-Verify should be mandatory, including the 287 (G) policing law. State troopers, highway patrol should have the power of arrest in any suspicious police stop.

Read more …

You didn’t even deal with any of the issues the article presented. And FYI the 1986 law did NOT overstep state jurisdictions which is virtually non-existent with regards to foreign immigration. Go back and read the last 150 years of immigration history and you’ll clearly see what I mean. The federal government has always taken an active role in formulating immigration policy, whether you think its effective or whether you think they actually enforce the law is a different issue altogether. The federal government formulated immigration policy as early as the late 18th cent and created a comprehensive immigration regime as early as the late 1800’s going as far as issuing race-based quotas. Facts are facts, and they don’t change with ideologies and political persuasions.