House Republicans Introduce Bill to Repeal Birthright Citizenship Amendment

Originally posted by TimBrummer
They DID write it that way, subject in "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is used in the citizenship sense, defined as "a person who owes allegiance to a government and lives under its protection".

Defined where? It’s nowhere in the Constitution or any statute.

The Senators confirmed this in their debate.

So, they never defined what they meant by jurisdiction in the amendment.

If they had written “the color red” in an amendment but, in the debate, said they actually meant blue, would the Courts then have to read the language in the amendment as meaning blue and not what was actually written on it (red)?

These people were amending the Constitution, our national charter, which the Supreme Court has the highest authority in interpreting, and the Court has interpreted ‘jurisdiction’ like it traditionally has, and not as some synonym of allegiance.

So I reaffirm my position that, if it was really what they meant, and they didn’t mean the clause to be as broad as it’s interpreted, then they should have more carefully crafted the language.

Originally posted by whatukno
Anyone care to research and assure the rest of us that this just won't strip everyone of their citizenship, thus opening up a reason for TPTB to enslave us all?

I wouldn’t worry about it whatukno, because, even if this bill passes — which I doubt — they can’t retroactively strip people of their citizenship and it won’t go anywhere, seeing as the jus solis standard comes from the Constitution (14th Amendment) and not some statute.

That’s why they focus on what “the Senators said in the debate at the time” because they know the amendment’s language is as clear as they come.

Originally posted by aptness

No they don’t, but the Court’s opinion of the 14th Amendment vis-a-vis children of illegal immigrants is clearly relevant, and that’s what I said in my post was it not?

I don't see where the birthright citizenship clause is "clearly relevant" to the Supremes at all, only other portions of the 14th Amendment.

Please don’t put words in my mouth. I said no such thing and I believe my comments regarding existing law are clear enough for anyone to understand.

Well your comments are we should solve the problem by enforcing existing laws, then you admit they are not enforced and don't know when they will be, so essentially it seems to me you are throwing you hands up in surrender.

Originally posted by aptness
Defined where? It’s nowhere in the Constitution or any statute.

Defined in the 14th Amended Senate debate, which is why these debates are recorded and considered by the Supreme Court in any relevant cases.

So I reaffirm my position that, if it was really what they meant, and they didn’t mean the clause to be as broad as it’s interpreted, then they should have more carefully crafted the language.

Or maybe back then everyone understood it was meant to be limited, but now with changes in the American language and liberal media stories for decades that the 14th Amendment includes everyone born in the USA except diplomats, you think it means something it was never intended to mean.

Well if this law is passes and the Supreme Court agrees with you, we will just have to go pass a Constitutional Amendment.

Originally posted by aptness
That’s why they focus on what “the Senators said in the debate at the time” because they know the amendment’s language is as clear as they come.

It was pretty clear back then the Amendment did not apply to anyone born in the USA that it did not have complete sovereignty over, which the Supreme Court agreed with by denying birthright citizenship to American Indians who were tribal citizens upon birth in the 1884 Elk vs. Wilkins decision. The question is, will the Supreme Court today rule the same way regarding the children of Mexican Indians who are automatically Mexican citizens when born?

reply to post by TimBrummer

During the debate, Senator Doolittle raises the concern that the amendment would perhaps make Indians US citizens. Senator Trumbull, chairmain of the Committee on the Judiciary, then says the following regarding the question of jurisdiction—

Now, does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajoe Indians are subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. This is what it means. Can you sue a Navajoe Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction.

Immigrants, illegal or not, once they step in the United States are subject to US law. You can sue an immigrant in court. You can’t make treaties with immigrants.

Sen. Trumbull, further, goes on to say—

If they are there and within the jurisdiction of Colorado, and subject to the laws of Colorado, they ought to be citizens; and that is all that is proposed. (…)

It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.

The 14th Amendment addresses the child which is born in the United States, and not the parents.

reply to post by johnny2127


Intentions not matter.

What is written matters.

If you want to express the opinion that intentions can be implied to reflect the application of the constitution, I guarantee we will lose our other rights quite quickly.

This is all just political show anyways.

Originally posted by aptness
Immigrants, illegal or not, once they step in the United States are subject to US law. You can sue an immigrant in court. You can’t make treaties with immigrants.

You can make treaties with countries the immigrants come from, just like the US has treaties with Indian tribes.

The 14th Amendment addresses the child which is born in the United States, and not the parents.

Not exactly, it addresses if the child gets automatic tribal or foreign citizenship through their parents, or not.

Anyway like I said doesn't matter what we think, only matters what the Supremes think if the law passes. If they say a Constitutional Amendment is needed to eliminate anchor babies, then we will do that.

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by johnny2127

 

Intentions not matter.

What is written matters.

You don't understand how the Supreme Court works, they are supposed to consider the original intentions of the law when ruling on a case, The Supreme Court has been called "Protectors of the Constitution, and the ideals of the men who wrote it". After all those men created not only the Supreme Court but also the rest of our government.

Originally posted by TimBrummer
You can make treaties with countries the immigrants come from, just like the US has treaties with Indian tribes.

Yes you can make treaties with countries the immigrants come from, but how is that relevant to the 14th Amendment?

Immigrants, illegal or not, are persons not countries or tribes, and the amendment, clearly, specifies and applies to persons.

Moving the goal posts huh?

Originally posted by aptness
Immigrants, illegal or not, once they step in the United States are subject to US law.

So why did the 14th authors include a "subject to the jurisdiction" clause, and have such a big discussion if it was redundant? They talked about excluding a lot more than foreign diplomats in that discussion.

Originally posted by TimBrummer
You don't understand how the Supreme Court works, they are supposed to consider the original intentions of the law when ruling on a case

If you could, I would be interested in reading your opinion on the, admittedly absurd, hypothetical scenario I previously described—

If they had written “the color red” in an amendment but, in the debate, said they actually meant blue, would the Courts then have to read the language in the amendment as meaning blue and not what was actually written on it (red)?

Thank you.

Originally posted by TimBrummer
So why did the 14th authors include a "subject to the jurisdiction" clause, and have such a big discussion if it was redundant?

I didn’t say it was redundant, what I said was that allegiance and jurisdiction are two different things.

They included the jurisdiction provision because they recognized there were circumstances in which people could be born in the United States and wouldn’t be necessarily subject to US law (diplomats, invading armies, Indian tribes).

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by TimBrummer
You can make treaties with countries the immigrants come from, just like the US has treaties with Indian tribes.

Yes you can make treaties with countries the immigrants come from, but how is that relevant to the 14th Amendment?

Ask yourself how it is relevant, you brought it up pointing out that the US makes treaties with Navajoe Indian tribes. I am not moving any goal posts, you are trying to compare apples with oranges, an Indian tribe on one hand, and an individual immigrant on another, it makes absolutely no sense.

Originally posted by aptness

I didn’t say it was redundant, what I said was that allegiance and jurisdiction are two different things.

They didn't say "jurisdiction", they said "subject to the jurisdiction", and back then it did mean allegiance, today maybe not. No point in arguing this further, if a Constitutional Amendment is needed to correct this, we wil do it.

They included the jurisdiction provision because they recognized there were circumstances in which people could be born in the United States and wouldn’t be necessarily subject to US law (diplomats, invading armies, Indian tribes).

Go visit Maywood California for a week, the population is over 50% illegal aliens, that is an example of a place that ignores US laws, is de-facto also not subject to them, there are hundreds of similar places in the USA. How are these illegal alien barrios any different than Indian tribes of 100 years ago?

Originally posted by aptness
If you could, I would be interested in reading your opinion on the, admittedly absurd, hypothetical scenario I previously described—

If they had written “the color red” in an amendment but, in the debate, said they actually meant blue, would the Courts then have to read the language in the amendment as meaning blue and not what was actually written on it (red)?

Thank you.

It's not aburd at all, languages change over time, go read the original Magna Carta.

Originally posted by TimBrummer
Go visit Maywood California for a week, the population is over 50% illegal aliens, that is an example of a place that ignores US laws, is de-facto also not subject to them, there are hundreds of similar places in the USA. How are these illegal alien barrios any different than Indian tribes of 100 years ago?

The government can, for instance, arrest and deport illegal aliens. Could the government at the time do that to Indians? Reading the debates the answer is objectively no. In the debates it is clear that they considered the Indian tribes to be the same as a foreign nation. This is evident in Sen. Trumbull’s Sen. Howard’s comments (source).

It seems to me that the difference is quite obvious when it comes to the law and Constitution.

You also seem to be making an argument based on politics and policy, I am merely addressing it based on legal and Constitutional meanings and implications. I, in no way, condone illegal immigration.

My overall point is that what people are proposing through this bill can’t be done in this fashion, and that I don’t think changing the 14th Amendment is the solution to illegal immigration.

Originally posted by aptness
My overall point is that what people are proposing through this bill can’t be done in this fashion, and that I don’t think changing the 14th Amendment is the solution to illegal immigration.

It is about 40% of the solution to illegal immigration, and the majority of Americans agree with me. If need be we will pass a Constitutional Amendment.

reply to post by TimBrummer


Really? Stripping Americans of their citizenship is NOT a solution to illegal immigration. Fact of the matter is, even if this worked the way you claim it works, that would not solve the "terror anchor baby" situation. Nor would it solve anything at all about illegal immigration. All this would do is cause innocent infants to become criminals through no fault of their own.

Yea, once they get through with this, why not just repeal the 13th Amendment? And re-institute slavery in America? That would be a boon to those that treat us as slaves anyway.

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by freedish
reply to post by whatukno

 

GOOD! This is great news! Maybe finally we won't have a border problem.

I guess that holy constitution was only good for the last two years then. Now that the people that love it so much are in power, it is kind of meaningless?

I agree. Our Founding Fathers had a vision.

It is not something I want to destroy.