It is what it is until the courts decide. There's an argument to be made that the "asylum seekers" aren't necessarily here illegally since they showed up, said the magic words, and were processed into the country through the system with a date to determine their status. Of course it's bs, but one can easily see how it could be interpreted that way.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Then how can an illegal alien be arrested, charged, and sentenced for murder if they aren't subject to our jurisdiction?
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/illegal-alien-honduras-ice-detainer-sentenced-45-years-prison-murder#:~:text=HOUSTON%2520%E2%80%93%2520An%2520illegal%2520alien%2520from,in%2520Montgomery%2520County%2520(Texas).

---

When the Japanese invaded the Aleutian Islands in WWII, were they then subject to our jurisdiction? Instead of repealing them with our military, we should have given them court dates?

What if the russians (or any country) send troops into the states. We just give them all court dates because they're suddenly "subject to our jurisdiction?"

Bring their pregnant women over for birth, and they get to keep a force here or raise an army back in russia that gets to walk right back, because the kids would be US citizens.

Imagine that version of the movie "Red Dawn."

infinity ag said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

That is why I say the Constt is a dusty old 1788 book and needs revision to get it up to 2025.
Else we will become another archaic Islamic country who goes by a 700AD book.

---

Hell fuggin NO.

Can you imagine what the quality of our politicians today, combined with the absolute stupidity of people today, would put in a document that became the law of the land?

No. Absolutely not. In no way, shape or form.

The Constitution is as valid today as it was the day it was written and signed. The difference is that we have way too many morons that cannot read that think we should do exactly what you are proposing here.

No.

---

What about in 1000 years? 2000 years?
What is the expiry date for the constitution in your mind?

---

The principles and limitations on what a government can and cannot do as defined and outlined in our Constitution have no expiration date.

Tell me - why, and be specific, do you believe that the Constitution is somehow out of date and should be tossed in the trash or used to wipe the ass of some government official?

B-1 83 said:

---

Im going to revisit an area I mentioned in a different thread. We have well into 7 figures of "migrants" who are permitted to be here until their court dates. How do they fall? I don't trust the courts to treat them as they should. There's time to throw out lots of anchors between now and their dates.

---

And just how should the courts treat them? What about the actual taxpayers and citizens of this country?

When the sewer backs up in the house and floods the bathroom with a foot thick layer of feces, you don't simply turn off the water or just unclog the drain and call it good - you clean up the mess.

I'm at the point that I honestly DGAS how much wailing and gnashing of teeth there is if a whole lot of illegals have to pack up and go back to where they came. Nobody gives a single sht about my wailing and gnashing of teeth lamenting the fact that they have broken our laws coming here illegally or that they are a massive tax burden on an already over-taxed entity such as myself or that their presence here takes away from basic things like education for my children, etc.

Sorry. If it were the other way around, guarantee you that Mexico would have zero issue telling us to pack our bags and head back north.

Seven Costanza said:

---

It is what it is until the courts decide. There's an argument to be made that the "asylum seekers" aren't necessarily here illegally since they showed up, said the magic words, and were processed into the country through the system with a date to determine their status. Of course it's bs, but one can easily see how it could be interpreted that way.

---

Any "asylum seeker" that did not follow the established laws and protocol when applying for asylum is, by definition, here illegally.

Which means that anybody from south America that showed up in Eagle Pass claiming asylum that did not claim asylum in the first country they came to is not legally claiming asylum and are just another illegal crossing our border.

infinity ag said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

That is why I say the Constt is a dusty old 1788 book and needs revision to get it up to 2025.
Else we will become another archaic Islamic country who goes by a 700AD book.

---

Hell fuggin NO.

Can you imagine what the quality of our politicians today, combined with the absolute stupidity of people today, would put in a document that became the law of the land?

No. Absolutely not. In no way, shape or form.

The Constitution is as valid today as it was the day it was written and signed. The difference is that we have way too many morons that cannot read that think we should do exactly what you are proposing here.

No.

---

What about in 1000 years? 2000 years?
What is the expiry date for the constitution in your mind?

---

There is already a process to change the constitution, an amendment.

If something is so pressing, there should be consensus enough to amend the constitution.

And the founders were infinitely smarter as a group than our current politicians.

Perhaps someone better versed in this than I am can explain why we ever started giving citizenship to the children of illegals.

When did it start?
Why was the issue not put to rest then?
If the courts never clarified the issue, who made the call to bestow the full benefits of citizenship without clear authority?

Certainly this must have been tested with a scenario that didn't involve slaves?

96AgGrad said:

---

Perhaps someone better versed in this than I am can explain why we ever started giving citizenship to the children of illegals.

When did it start?
Why was the issue not put to rest then?
If the courts never clarified the issue, who made the call to bestow the full benefits of citizenship without clear authority?

Certainly this must have been tested with a scenario that didn't involve slaves?

---

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-court-case-library/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark-1898

Quote:

---

The Supreme Court addressed the meaning of this key provision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco to parents who were both Chinese citizens. At age 21, he took a trip to China to visit his parents. When he returned to the United States, he was denied entry on the ground that he was not a U.S. citizen. In a 6-to-2 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark. Because he was born in the United States and his parents were not "employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China," the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment automatically made him a U.S. citizen. This case highlighted a disagreement between the Justices over the precise meaning of one key phrase in the Citizenship Clause: "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

---

That does not quite answer his question though because the parents of the Chinaman in Wong Ark Kim case were not here illegally!

Im Gipper said:

---

That does not quite answer his question though because the parents of the Chinaman in Wong Ark Kim case were not here illegally!

---

It's the correct answer. The court only used 2 criteria for Kim's citizenship:

1) He was born on US soil.
2) His parents were not here via an official capacity of the emporer (foreign government).

Chief Justice Roberts is envious of the logical *******ization those 6 justices used to come up with that specific definition of "subject to the jurisdication thereof".

Try again!

Not a single child of an illegal alien was given citizenship until many years after that case.

So the posters question stands. When did that start?

Im Gipper said:

---

That does not quite answer his question though because the parents of the Chinaman in Wong Ark Kim case were not here illegally!

---

Dude, Chinaman is not the preferred Nomenclature, Asian-American please.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

All persons born

---

And subject to the jurisdiction thereof. You libs keep forgetting that small but important piece of the language in the amendment.

If a foreign diplomat has a child in the US, the child is not a US citizen because the parents are subject to the jurisdiction of another country. Notice I said jurisdiction, not law. There's a distinction. However, if someone is in the US on a green card (legal resident) and has a child, that child would be a US citizen.

Similarly, if I traveled to France and had a child, the child would not be a French citizen as the parent is not subject to the jurisdiction of France. However, if on the same trip I committed a serious crime, I would still be subject to the laws of France even though I am not a citizen and subject to French jurisdiction.

Just because you are subject to US law if you are here illegally doesn't mean that you are subject to US jurisdiction. Hope this helps. Also, birthright citizenship is never what the framers of the 14th Amendment intended.

Seven Costanza said:

---

It is what it is until the courts decide. There's an argument to be made that the "asylum seekers" aren't necessarily here illegally since they showed up, said the magic words, and were processed into the country through the system with a date to determine their status. Of course it's bs, but one can easily see how it could be interpreted that way.

---

Precisely my point. It doesn't matter what you, I, or anyone else thinks. Ultimately it was the courts that decided they could come and legally stay until their court dates - they're even allowed legal employment. The question on the floor is how they might fall if the strict definition of birth citizenship is allowed to take over. If we use the concept outlined by other posters - they're can't vote, can't be drafted, can't get any benefits, it certainly becomes clearer, but I don't trust courts to always use common sense.

That is one tortured definition of jurisdiction!

Black defines it as "a government's general power to exercise authority."

What is the source of your definition? Words can obviously have different meanings for different things.

As for what the framers of the 14th amendment wanted, you can find people that voted for it that clearly wanted birthright citizenship, such as a senator from California:

Quote:

---

The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. . . . Here is a simple declaration that a score or a few score of human beings born in the United States shall be regarded as citizens of the United States, entitled to civil rights, to the right of equal defense, to the right of equal punishment for crime with other citizens; and that such a provision should be deprecated by any person having or claiming to have a high humanity passes all my understanding and comprehension.

---

The issue we are faced with today is whether the language of the 14th amendment extends to the children of people here illegally


Because it's not something the framers of the amendment, even contemplated, I think we have to look at it in a little bit different context.

The closest comparison is to invading armies. It's not a perfect example, but it is the closest. They clearly we're not meant to be citizens. (a distinction being that an army would not stay in a country if it lost the contest. Illegals intend to stay).

To me, Congress needs to write a bill that gets rid of birthright citizenship for illegals. Then let's let Supreme Court decide!

Anyone saying it's a clear question either way is fooling themselves!

Im Gipper said:

---

Try again!

Not a single child of an illegal alien was given citizenship until many years after that case.

So the posters question stands. When did that start?

---

When the State Department would grant/issue US Citizen Passports just on the basis of a birth certificate from a state, without regard to the legal status of the parents or just the mother if no father listed? It was an administrative decision?

That's one way birthright citizen came to accepted as "established" law.

When the 14th amendment passed, members of Native American tribes were not considered citizens even though most all were likely born on American soil.

If they broke the law, though, I'm sure they were held accountable to the law.

It seems to me that following a legal process to immigrate is an act of submission to the jurisdiction. However, crashing the gate (magic asylum word or not) is a willful act in defiance of the jurisdiction - a de facto claim that the jurisdiction does not apply to you.

Mehhhh.The Kim Wong Ark case says and makes very little to nothing about the immigration status of his parents. And says the following, amongst other similar statements, in its recitation of the common law:

Quote:

---

Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent...

---

And it repeatedly says things like this, making no distinction of the immigration status of the "foreigners" or "aliens."

Quote:

---

it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, were native-born citizens of the United States...

The child born of alien parents in the United States is held to be a citizen thereof, and to be subject to duties with regard to this country which do not attach to the father."

---

They made nothing of the parents immigration status because it wasn't an issue!

It was undisputed that they were not here illegally!

Quote:

---

If they broke the law, though, I'm sure they were held accountable to the law.

---

That depended on where the crime took place and for a time, whether both the perpetrator and the victim were Native American or not. Needed federal statutes to make changes granting federal jurisdiction (exclusive) over crimes committed on reservation lands. Example would be the Major Crimes Act of 1885 granting jurisdiction over murder, manslaughter, rape, aggravated assault with intent to kill, etc.

Im Gipper said:

---

That does not quite answer his question though because the parents of the Chinaman in Wong Ark Kim case were not here illegally!

---

Let us be clear. The case only regards whether they were domiciled here. It says nothing else about the status of the parents.

Quote:

---

The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.

---

You have to insert someone's immigration status into "domicile" to even have a chance to get around Wong Ark Kim.

Let us be clear. There was no "illegal immigration" when the child was born! It was impossible for the parents to have been here "illegally"! It was only after his birth that laws were passed for being Chinese immigrants

Learn the facts of the case!

That's not historically accurate, but either way, does not contradict anything I've said.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

That's not historically accurate,

---

Wrong!!

What year was the law passed making Chinese immigration illegal?

Im Gipper said:

---

That is one tortured definition of jurisdiction!

Black defines it as "a government's general power to exercise authority."

What is the source of your definition? Words can obviously have different meanings for different things.

As for what the framers of the 14th amendment wanted, you can find people that voted for it that clearly wanted birthright citizenship, such as a senator from California:

Quote:

---

The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. . . . Here is a simple declaration that a score or a few score of human beings born in the United States shall be regarded as citizens of the United States, entitled to civil rights, to the right of equal defense, to the right of equal punishment for crime with other citizens; and that such a provision should be deprecated by any person having or claiming to have a high humanity passes all my understanding and comprehension.

---

The issue we are faced with today is whether the language of the 14th amendment extends to the children of people here illegally


Because it's not something the framers of the amendment, even contemplated, I think we have to look at it in a little bit different context.

The closest comparison is to invading armies. It's not a perfect example, but it is the closest. They clearly we're not meant to be citizens. (a distinction being that an army would not stay in a country if it lost the contest. Illegals intend to stay).

To me, Congress needs to write a bill that gets rid of birthright citizenship for illegals. Then let's let Supreme Court decide!

Anyone saying it's a clear question either way is fooling themselves!

---

I wasn't trying to provide a definition for "jurisdiction", just examples of it.

I'm not sure which senator you were quoting, but here are some thoughts from Jacob Howard (spokesman for the 14th Amendment in the Senate) and Lyman Trumbull (author of the 1866 Civil Rights Act)

Senator Jacob Howard, the Amendment's co-author, described it as "simply declaratory of … the law of the land already,"14 referring to the Civil Rights Act already enacted. Thus, he was confirming that the 14th Amendment, with slightly different wording, was intended to constitutionalize the statute's requirement that the baby must "not [be] subject to any foreign power."

This conclusion that no change of meaning was intended was also confirmed by the provision's prime author, Senator Lyman Trumbull, who explained to the Congress before it voted, that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" required being "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof," meaning, as he put it, "not owing allegiance to anyone else."15 As Thomas Jefferson earlier wrote, "aliens are the subjects of a foreign power,"16 and thus owe allegiance to another country; hence, the alien's children are not U.S. citizens simply by virtue of birth on U.S. soil. Furthermore, Senator Howard's explanatory words are nearly identical to the Civil Right Act's words "not [be] subject to any foreign power," making explicit that the 14th Amendment was intended to put in Constitutional "stone" what Congress had first enacted as legislation. Applying that meaning, the U.S.-born child, returning to the parent's country, is a citizen of and subject to that foreign country, and thus does not meet this requirement for birthright citizenship.

These gentlemen seemingly didn't believe in the concept of birthright citizenship.

Also, if birthright citizenship was so pervasive and established, why did congress need to pass the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

Im Gipper said:

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

That's not historically accurate,

---

Wrong!!

What year was the law passed making Chinese immigration illegal?

---

The Chinese Exclusion Act became law in 1882. But that wasn't the first time someone could be here "illegally."

But again, you're not contradicting anything I said.

Quote:

---

These gentlemen seemingly didn't believe in the concept of birthright citizenship.

---

Exactly! Some were for, some were against. That's why we can claim they were with one voice on what that wanted.

Quote:

---

Also, if birthright citizenship was so pervasive and established, why did congress need to pass the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

---

Due to treaties and other various laws and unique sovereignty issues, whether Indians were "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States government was, at most, a muddled mess and it was generally accepted by the Courts and others that the 14th Amendment did not affirmatively grant citizenship to Indians the unique circumstance around Indians.

In any event, Congress affirmatively extending citizenship beyond that granted by the 14th Amendment is quite a different question than Congress attempting to narrow citizenship granted by the 14th Amendment.

Quote:

---

The Chinese Exclusion Act became law in 1882.

---

AFTER Wong was born! His parents could not have been illegal. That's why the court duct discuss this issue!

You proved yourself wrong! Thanks!

schmellba99 said:

---

Seven Costanza said:

---

It is what it is until the courts decide. There's an argument to be made that the "asylum seekers" aren't necessarily here illegally since they showed up, said the magic words, and were processed into the country through the system with a date to determine their status. Of course it's bs, but one can easily see how it could be interpreted that way.

---

Any "asylum seeker" that did not follow the established laws and protocol when applying for asylum is, by definition, here illegally.

Which means that anybody from south America that showed up in Eagle Pass claiming asylum that did not claim asylum in the first country they came to is not legally claiming asylum and are just another illegal crossing our border.

---

While I agree with you, if you show up at the point of entry, say the magic words, and the border patrol guides you across the border, then there is an argument to be made that the person came through some legal means since they were escorted across by US officials and the previous administration had a policy of participating in this manner of "asylum seeking".

The majority of these people were not "caught" crossing the border. They would be guided by cartels in huge numbers to the fence, inform Border Patrol that they were there seeking asylum, and Border Patrol would process them in. The policy then slightly changed and they were told to be guided to ports of entry to do this instead, which worked all the same.

Obviously there is a perfectly valid argument that they are here illegally, but it could easily be interpreted the other way "thanks" to the previous policy.

No current, extant child with presumptive birthright citizenship will not lose that status under this EO as written.

Only applies to children of illegals born here after the effective date.

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

The Chinese Exclusion Act became law in 1882.

---

AFTER Wong was born! His parents could not have been illegal. That's why the court duct discuss this issue!

You proved yourself wrong! Thanks!

---

You've not proved anything I've said to be wrong.

You said they weren't here illegally. I'll repeat what I said in response. To be clear to everyone, the case doesn't regard the parents status other than their domicile. So you'd have to read immigration status into "domicile" in order to get around the case.

You've not said anything contradictory to what I've said in this thread.

Is your real name Harry or Lloyd? Not sure which brother I'm talking to here.

lino graglia doesn't think it is 'settled' (rip Lino https://law.utexas.edu/news/2022/01/31/in-memoriam-remembering-professor-lino-graglia-texas-law-faculty-member-for-50-years/)

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU01/20150429/103384/HHRG-114-JU01-Wstate-GragliaL-20150429.pdf

"Whatever the merits of Wong Kim Ark as to the children of legal resident aliens and however broad some of its language, it does not authoritatively settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal resident aliens. In fact, the Court's adoption of the English common law rule for citizenship could be said to argue against birthright citizenship of illegal aliens."

Judge Posner (described by Lino as "perhaps the most cited and most influential federal judge not on the Supreme Court" and arguablye one of the nation's leading public intellectuals"): "A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U.S. citizenship, but I doubt it. The purpose of the rule was to grant citizenship to the recently freed slaves, and the exception for children of foreign diplomats and heads of state shows that Congress does not read the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment literally. Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense."

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Quote:

---

Also, if birthright citizenship was so pervasive and established, why did congress need to pass the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

---

Due to treaties and other various laws and unique sovereignty issues, whether Indians were "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States government was, at most, a muddled mess and it was generally accepted by the Courts and others that the 14th Amendment did not affirmatively grant citizenship to Indians the unique circumstance around Indians.

In any event, Congress affirmatively extending citizenship beyond that granted by the 14th Amendment is quite a different question than Congress attempting to narrow citizenship granted by the 14th Amendment.

---

Birthright citizenship in the US has continuously been interpreted so that if you have a child on US soil under any circumstances (except being a foreign diplomat), that child is a US citizen. If that is the interpretation, why did congress even need to pass the Indian Citizenship Act. It is redundant…unless it isn't. This clearly suggests that there are exceptions to birthright citizenship that need to be explored. In my opinion, one of those exceptions is children born to illegal aliens. This is not the prevailing norm, but it doesn't mean it is wrong.

Trump has thrown down a challenge with his executive order and the Supreme Court will eventually have the opportunity to rule on it. It's probably unlikely that the court will rule with Trump because of previous legal precedent, but there's always a chance that they overturn previous decisions…or in this case interpret the language of the 14th Amendment to side with Trump's perspective.

This is very exciting stuff.

Good post!