Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Birthright Citizenship and Ignorance 13

Journal by pudge

The chairs of the Republican and Democratic parties in Washington (Diane Tebelius and Dwight Pelz) were recently on Lou Doubbs talking about birthright citizenship.

The Washington State Republican Party, at its convention a week or so ago (I did not attend), added this to its party platform:

Therefore, we support ... The original intent of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution (1868) which declared, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..." and thereby recognized the citizenship of ex-slaves and in no way granted citizenship to the babies of illegal aliens.

The facts presented here are true. The 1868 language was based on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which gave citizenship to "all citizens born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power." Senator Lyman Trumbull, a supporter of the 14th Amendment, said at the time the phrase at issue meant subject to the "complete" jurisdiction of the United States, "not owing allegiance to anybody else." Senator Jacob Howard, introducing it to the Senate, explained that children of Indian tribes would not be covered, since they were not subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States, and an amendment to make that clear was rejected as redundant.

The Supreme Court agreed with this interpretation initially, and accepted the notion that there is a "qualified and partial jurisdiction" that subjected people to American law, and a "full and complete jurisdiction" that qualified them for citizenship.

It wasn't until 1898 that the Court read birthright citizenship into the 14th Amendment, and it has never held that people here illegally could get citizenship for their children.

So whatever you think about how it should be, the fact is that it is clear that the original intent of the 14th Amendment was not to give citizenship to everyone born in the United States. But that didn't stop Pelz from responding to Dobbs:

It's hard to misinterpret the 14th Amendmdent, it's very clear: it says that people born in the United States shall be citizens of the United States. ... The language is crystal clear.

Pelz is either lying or ignorant, and either way, the Democratic party should be ashamed of him. Even if you're going to argue that his interpretation, of blanket citizenship, is correct, there's nothing "crystal clear" about it, as the people who offered and supported the amendment said the opposite.

Then he went on to note that Tebelius should argue with the Republican officeholders in DC, then, because they disagreed with her. This is disingenuous. Many people who agree that her interpretation is the correct one nevertheless are against it for political, or other, reasons.

Ramesh Ponnuru of the National Review (Feb. 27, 2006) in the article Born in the U.S.A. (from which I derived many of my facts), makes a strong case that her interpretation is the correct one, and then goes on to say that enforcing it would result in a high political cost for very little gain, and that it is better to focus efforts on enforcement of our immigration laws at the border and workplace, which would bring down the number of children born here to illegals; while birthright citizenship, right or wrong, is a draw to illegals, so too is it important to the United States to integrate the people who come here, and having generation after generation of illegal immigrants doesn't help anybody.

So opposing it does not mean it's incorrect.

And I think, clearly, it is correct.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Birthright Citizenship and Ignorance More

Birthright Citizenship and Ignorance

Comments Filter:
  • All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

    I can't see how someone can argue that this plain, clear language is somehow false based on (discriminatory, though that is hardly the point) legislative history. There is no dispute about what it means to say a person who is born in the United States, right? Emerging from the womb on US soil.

    Do you then claim that the child of an illegal immigrant is not subject to the jurisdiction thereof (assuming this chil

    • I can't see how someone can argue that this plain, clear language is somehow false

      Anyone who says this "plainly" or "clearly" means that anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen is incorrect. It is neither plan nor clear that it means this.

      based on (discriminatory, though that is hardly the point) legislative history.

      So what the people who write and pass a law think it means has no bearing on what it means? That is, fortunately, not what most legislators, judges, and executives believe.

      There is no dispute abo

    • I can't see how someone can argue that this plain, clear language is somehow false based on (discriminatory, though that is hardly the point) legislative history.

      And I can't see how someone can argue against the AUTHOR of the original amendment:

      Jacob Howard [wikipedia.org]

      [The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include very oth

      • The use of the word "jurisdiction" was examined in detail in the controlling Supreme Court case, U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark [findlaw.com], which states in relevant part:

        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. ... It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides, seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when secretar

        • Both commentators are correct.

          [T]he original intent of the 14th Amendment was not to give citizenship to everyone born in the United States.
          AND
          It's hard to misinterpret the 14th Amendmdent, it's very clear: it says that people born in the United States shall be citizens of the United States.

          The language of the amendment does not reflect its intent. Too bad - the language prevails.

          • The language of the amendment does not reflect its intent. Too bad - the language prevails.

            False. That's never been the case, not in this country. Intent prevails, period.
            • Never? I just cited a case in which the Supreme Court overruled intent with the meaning of the word in common law. Unless you don't think that U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark has force of law.
              • There's a few problems here.

                First, the Court did not, in 1898, reject intent. Doubtless, the intention of the congress which framed, and of the states which adopted, this amendment of the constitution, must be sought in the words of the amendment, and the debates in congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words. But the statements above quoted are valuable as contemporaneous opinions of jurists and statesmen upon the legal meaning of the words themselves.

                That is what I mean
          • It's hard to misinterpret the 14th Amendmdent, it's very clear: it says that people born in the United States shall be citizens of the United States.

            Oh, and this, as proven beyond any reasonable doubt above, is also false. It is not remotely "very clear," because the people who wrote it and abided by it for the first 30 years thought it meant something different. By saying it is "very clear," you are denying this fact. That would be like me saying "I burned a faggot" clearly means abusing a homosexual pe
        • It may be an accident that the law has this meaning, but by ruling of the USSC as well as by common law and precedent at the time (1898), "birthright citizenship" (Pudge's words) has and should have force of law.

          But that overruled rulings from before 1898.

          The only way to reverse it would be to convince the current Supreme Court to reverse (unlikely), or amend the Constitution.

          Actually, no. The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled this applied to people in the country illegally. The Legislative and Exe
          • The Legislative and Executive branches could refuse to acknolwedge citizenship of people born to illegals, and force the Court to attempt to overrule them.

            Or, I suppose, someone could sue to demand that a US citizen child born of illegal immigrants (not illegals, they are not violating all laws, just immigration laws) be stripped of his/her citizenship. Why won't someone do this as a test case?

Slashdot Top Deals

Machines take me by surprise with great frequency. - Alan Turing

Close