On Friday, April 21, 2017 at 11:23:28 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 4/16/2017 12:26 PM, wrote:
On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 8:29:11 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 4/14/2017 12:55 PM, wrote:
On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 3:21:57 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 4/14/2017 12:08 PM, wrote:
On Friday, April 14, 2017 at 2:42:50 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On 4/9/2017 3:12 PM, wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 5:22:13 PM UTC-4, Rudy Canoza wrote:
From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship
by John C. Eastman, Ph.D
http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm18.cfm
It is today routinely believed that under the CitiÂ*zenship Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, mere birth on U.S. soil is sufficient to obtain
U.S. citizenÂ*ship. However strong this commonly believed interÂ*pretation
might appear, it is incompatible not only with the text of the
Citizenship Clause (particularly as informed by the debate surrounding
its adoption), but also with the political theory of the American Founding.
It is time for Congress to reassert its plenary authority and make
clear, by resolution, its view that the €śsubject to the jurisdiction€ť
phrase of the CitizenÂ*ship Clause has meaning of fundamental importance
to the naturalization policy of the nation.
The Original Understanding of the Citizenship Clause
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth AmendÂ*ment provides that €śAll
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.€ť[1] As manifest by the conÂ*junctive €śand,€ť the
clause mandates citizenship to those who meet both of the constitutional
prerequiÂ*sites: (1) birth (or naturalization) in the United States and
(2) being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The widely held, though erroneous, view today is that any person
entering the territory of the United States€”even for a short visit; even
illegally€”is considered to have subjected himself to the jurisÂ*diction
of the United States, which is to say, subÂ*jected himself to the laws of
the United States. Surely one who is actually born in the United States
is therefore €śsubject to the jurisdiction€ť of the United States and
entitled to full citizenship as a result, or so the common reasoning goes.
Textually, such an interpretation is manifestly erroneous, for it
renders the entire €śsubject to the jurisdiction€ť clause redundant.
Anyone who is €śborn€ť in the United States is, under this
interpreÂ*tation, necessarily €śsubject to the jurisdiction€ť of the United
States. Yet it is a well-established docÂ*trine of legal interpretation
that legal texts, includÂ*ing the Constitution, are not to be interpreted
to create redundancy unless any other interpretation would lead to
absurd results.[2]
This is manifestly bull****.
It's not.
There is no redundancy.
That's right. So, subject to the jurisdiction does *not* mean merely
subject to the laws. It means something more.
This section [citizenship clause] contemplates two sources of
citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The
persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized
in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The
evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some
respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but
completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them
direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of
birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in
the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards
except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings
under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a
treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.
Elk v Wilkins
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed...2/94/case.html
That's about citizenship.
Exactly.
It has nothing to do with non-citizens who are subject to US jurisdiction.
It does. It's about aliens in the country who are not subject to the
*complete* jurisdiction of the U.S. - that is, they do not owe the U..S.
direct and immediate allegiance - and so *THEREFORE* their U.S.-born
children also do not.
Jesus. So nobody in the US can be a US citizen unless their parents, or *their* parents, etc., were naturalized
Wrong. *NO* other developed country in the world, except Canada, has
automatic /jus soli/ citizenship, and somehow they figure it out. This
is not the infinite series you imagine.
What? That has nothing to do with what I said.
It has everything to do with it, lying nsf eddie. Your objection is the
same as every pro-anchor-baby liar: that without automatic /jus soli/
citizenship, no one can prove his citizenship. It's a lie.
Call me a liar again, Jon, and I'll post links to photos of you in your cute hiking hat and your high school graduation. d8-)
My "objection" to your fantasy is that the Court has affirmed birthright citizenship (United States v. Wong Kim Ark) and the meaning of jurisdiction (Plyler v. Doe). You'd first have to overturn those precedents. Posner and others who suggest overturning it first suggest a constitutional amendment. As Posner says, in a concurring opinion (7th Circuit), "A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U.S. citizenship, but I doubt it." He's guessing that the Court would go along with a statute. It's possible, but there is no sign of it in Supreme Court rulings. Many jurists think he's wrong, and that the Court would adhere to precedent.
And he's the highest-level judge who agrees with you that the 14th Amendment doesn't require birthright citizenship. He's in a distinct minority.
So your opinion is parallel to that of Larry about climate: you both prefer the opinions of small minorities of experts because you want them to be true. So far, the precedent is against you, and it isn't just because of Ark. Several other cases cite Ark.
If that's the case, figure this one out: My ancestors were never naturalized. They were not immigrants to the US, either, but they were not native Americans (Indians).
So what were they?
Citizens, because they were born to citizens.
Citizens of Britain.
Not all of your ancestors immigrated here from Great Britain.
It doesn't matter. I asked what were *they*, not what am I. They became US citizens by statute, not by naturalization or birth. There was no United States in 1667.
Subject to the jurisdiction, in the sense intended in the citizenship
clause, means owing full allegiance. Or put another way, as it was in
the Civil Rights Act of 1866:
That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any
foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to
be citizens of the United States
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/1866cra/1866.cra.htm
The children of *all* aliens born in the U.S. are subject to the power
of their parents' country of citizenship. Their allegiance is that of
their parents.
No they're not.
Yes, they are.
You must be pulling this from from ancient British laws
No, that's what Justice Gray stupidly did in Wong Kim Ark.
His conclusions were based on common law, not laws of monarchical allegiance. That's what many USSC Justices have done for two centuries. Here's Gray in Wong Kim Ark:
"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 OF REFERENCE TO THE POLITICAL CONDITION OR ALLEGIANCE OF THEIR PARENTS [emphasis mine], with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent.
"The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.
"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens." [Justice Gray for the Court, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898]
We've bantered for some years here now, Jon. Don't you know better than to try to bull**** me on documented facts?
Tell us specifically about which of Gray's statements you're complaining about. I see that the anti-immigrant crackpots look down their noses at his comment about allegiance: €śTo hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.€ś
But he's exactly right. The average time, even today, for a legal immigrant to apply for naturalization and to swear allegiance to the US is seven years. Until the 1880s, some US ports didn't even require lists of passengers disembarking from ships coming from foreign ports. Hell, if those crackpots were right, a lot of long-time US citizens born here were never really citizens. The crackpots are nuts.
Keep your day job. And lay off of NR. They've gone to pot.
Sorry, Eastman and Howard Sutherland and Edwin Meese are right on this..
You keep *your* day job, nsf eddie - you don't know as much about this
as I do.
Actually, I know the state of the law and the relevant court cases.
**** off. You know some **** you read at some pro-anchor-baby web site.
I've read the court cases and quite a lot of the commentary. You obviously have skimmed the cases and came to the opposite conclusions to what they actually said. Your comment about Gray is telling; likewise, what you said about Scalia in the Hamdi case. There was nothing in his dissent that denied, or even questioned, that Hamdi is a US citizen.
Scalia was largely a textualist (but certainly not in Heller), but also respectful of precedent. And it's unlikely he would have reached a novel decision that would claim, for example, that children of immigrants from Europe, born to parents who were not yet naturalized, were not citizens.
You make everyone sick with your non-stop pretense to be an expert in
everything. You have *no* expertise in this topic at all, and you
haven't read about it as much as I have, so **** off.
Aw, you're just jealous. d8-) You're a sloppy researcher and I'm not. It ****es you off that you can't get away with bluster and insults, with me, like you often can with some others. When you start slinging insults, all it tells us is that you just got caught with your pants down and you're throwing a temper tantrum.
They may claim citizenship in their parents' country, and, depending on the country, they probably can claim it. But they have citizenship in the US
*Not* under a correct reading of the citizenship clause.
Good luck with that one. It isn't just Ark.
It *is* just Ark. You never went over the court cases. You don't know
them.
Yeah, I have.
Bull****.
So, which other, relevant cases are you claiming that you know?
There's a good reason that in Hamdi v Rumsfeld, Scalia referred to Hamdi
as "a presumed American citizen."
Right. And the "good reason" is that the Court assumed that he was, and the point was not contested
It ought to have been. Several amicus briefs were specifically about
that threshold question. The court ****ed up, again.
It was the ones who wrote those amicus briefs who ****ed up. Hamdi was a natural-born US citizen.
If the right anchor-baby case had got
to the court while Scalia was alive, there is a very good chance that
the presumption of citizenship by birth alone would have been ditched,
as it should be.
Unlikely.
Very likely.
You say that with no evidence, while there is plenty of evidence that Scalia stuck to precedent even when he hated doing it. Abortion is one such subject.
and that has been the default situation in the US since the founding.
That's complete bull****.
No, it's not.
Yes, it is. It's *complete* bull****.
http://cf.heritage.org/research/repo...ht-citizenship
That was an amicus brief written for the Hamdi case.
Its reasoning and conclusion are sound and correct.
Bull****. For example, it says: "Textually, such an interpretation is manifestly erroneous, for it renders the entire "subject to the jurisdiction" clause redundant."
It does not. Plenty of commentators, including several Justices of the S.C., and the majority in Ark, have pointed out who it distinguishes -- families of foreign diplomats and members of certain Indian tribes (before 1924). There are a few others, as well. Most of the debate in Congress, by Howard and Trumbull, concerned the Indian nations and their special status, not Europeans or other foreign immigrants.
"As this formulation makes clear, any child born on U.S. soil to parents who were temporary visitors to this country and who, as a result of the foreign citizenship of the child's parÂ*ents, remained a citizen or subject of the parents' home country was not entitled to claim the birthÂ*right citizenship provided by the 1866 Act."
Bull****! See Justice Gray's comments about immigrants who have not yet been nationalized. Are all of their children born in the US "subject to the jurisdiction" of their parents' home countries? Baloney.
"Subject to the jurisdiction of" delineates between those who are, for example, foreign diplomats (and their children).
It's more than that.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...zenship-john-c
What a complete pile of revisionist bull****.
It's not. Eastman is right, Yoo is wrong.
Keep your day job
You go get one, nsf eddie. You're just jerking off.
The law contradicts you at every turn.
So did Plessy v Ferguson and Dred Scott v Sandford. The law is often wrong.
That's two. They get about 80 per year.
--
Ed Huntress