Lindsey Graham: 'Birthright Citizenship Is A Mistake,' 'We Should Change Constitution

[bobbyw24]

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says that the United States should end its policy of guaranteeing citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants as ensured by the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The South Carolina Senator defined his stance on the immigration issue on Wednesday in an interview with Fox News host Greta Van Susteren.

"Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake," explained Graham. "We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen."

Graham signaled his intent to introduce a constitutional amendment to change the existing immigration law as it stands today.

"People come here to have babies," argued the Republican lawmaker. "They come here to drop a child. It's called "drop and leave. To have a child in America, they cross the border, they go to the emergency room, have a child, and that child's automatically an American citizen. That shouldn't be the case. That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons."

Graham dismissed the notion that his position is in any way controversial.

"I'm a practical guy, but when you go forward, I don't want 20 million more 20 years from now," he explained. "I want to be fair. I want to be humane. We need immigration policy, but it should be on our terms, not someone else's. I don't know how to fix it all. But I do know what makes people mad, that 12 million people came here, and there seems to be no system to deal with stopping 20 million 20 years from now."

YouTube - Lindsey Graham on Birthright Citizenship (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jctte9Zzu9g&feature=player_embedded)

[Jeremy]

If Ron Paul didn't support this, I bet people would be going crazy here.

[FSP-Rebel]

As usual, Lindsey is late to the party. In fact, I doubt he really means this, he's just trying to cover his ass since El Rushbo, Savage and Levin have been calling him a RINO.

[axiomata]

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says that the United States should end its policy of guaranteeing citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants as ensured by the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The South Carolina Senator defined his stance on the immigration issue on Wednesday in an interview with Fox News host Greta Van Susteren.

"Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake," explained Graham. "We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen."

Graham signaled his intent to introduce a constitutional amendment to change the existing immigration law as it stands today.

"People come here to have babies," argued the Republican lawmaker. "They come here to drop a child. It's called "drop and leave. To have a child in America, they cross the border, they go to the emergency room, have a child, and that child's automatically an American citizen. That shouldn't be the case. That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons."

Graham dismissed the notion that his position is in any way controversial.

"I'm a practical guy, but when you go forward, I don't want 20 million more 20 years from now," he explained. "I want to be fair. I want to be humane. We need immigration policy, but it should be on our terms, not someone else's. I don't know how to fix it all. But I do know what makes people mad, that 12 million people came here, and there seems to be no system to deal with stopping 20 million 20 years from now."

YouTube - Lindsey Graham on Birthright Citizenship (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jctte9Zzu9g&feature=player_embedded)
Don't like agreeing with him but he's mostly right.

I would reword his quote to this: "Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake," explained Graham. "We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child is not automatically a citizen."

The illegality of the mother should not come into play in determining whether the kid gets citizenship. I also don't think a kid whose parents came illegally while he was in the oven should be deported (once the birthright citizenship interpretation is changed.) I would support making children born in the US legal immigrants at birth, but would wait for them to graduate high school and pass a naturalization test at 18 to grant them citizenship.

[RM918]

The constitution does not need to be changed, the language in there already is fine if it weren't for the fact we were ignoring it. 'And subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. Even the people who wrote that amendment admitted it shouldn't apply to people who were just passing in.

[Reason]

The constitution does not need to be changed, the language in there already is fine if it weren't for the fact we were ignoring it. 'And subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. Even the people who wrote that amendment admitted it shouldn't apply to people who were just passing in.

Interesting.

[Southron]

He's getting worried, just like McCain.

[Anti Federalist]

Meh, broken clock rule.

Every little bit helps I suppose.

[angelatc]

He's getting worried, just like McCain.

Ron Paul is runnin' his party, you know.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Well, I guess Lindsey Graham needs a need gimmick to offset his policies of killing innocent people around the world, killing Americans, and stealing the Taxpayer's money for his own global conquests.

Yeah, like this is going to deflect his NEOCON FREEDOM STEALING & WARMONGERING.

Nice Try Lindsey Graham... you can't hide behind a brick.

PS: Lindsey Graham couldn't pull a original bill out of his ass if he tired... the snake only jumps upon populist movements after he's seen the poll numbers. What a POS!

[james1906]

Moot point. The babies are getting amnesty along with the parents.

[constituent]

. 'And subject to the jurisdiction thereof'.

/facepalm

You do realize that you make "illegals" "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" when you subject them to the jurisdiction of fedgov through the immigration regulatory regime, right?

[squarepusher]

considering Lindsey is usually wrong about everything he says, I'm not sure what to think of this.

[Koz]

considering Lindsey is usually wrong about everything he says, I'm not sure what to think of this.

+1, but I think he may be correct here. I am having to rethink my reasoning since he made these comments.

[bobbyw24]

+1, but I think he may be correct here. I am having to rethink my reasoning since he made these comments.

For real

[YumYum]

I'd rather see the Constitution changed where it says that Congress has the right to borrow money. Change that and people wouldn't be coming here to have babies.

[dean.engelhardt]

Well, I guess Lindsey Graham needs a need gimmick to offset his policies of killing innocent people around the world, killing Americans, and stealing the Taxpayer's money for his own global conquests.

Yeah, like this is going to deflect his NEOCON FREEDOM STEALING & WARMONGERING.

Nice Try Lindsey Graham... you can't hide behind a brick.

PS: Lindsey Graham couldn't pull a original bill out of his ass if he tired... the snake only jumps upon populist movements after he's seen the poll numbers. What a POS!

So correct.

[erowe1]

We don't need to change the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment says:

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The purpose of the birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment wasn't to let any and all foreigners cross our border just to have a kid here so that the kid becomes a citizen, it was to make former slaves into citizens. All Congress has to do is enact legislation recognizing this according to the authority vested in it in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment (which was something John Hostettler tried to do in a bill he was pushing while in Congress). There's already precedent for this. When foreign diplomats have babies here their babies don't get birthright citizenship.

[constituent]

When foreign diplomats have babies here their babies don't get birthright citizenship.

That's because foreign diplomats are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."


Diplomatic immunity is a principle of international law by which certain foreign government officials are not subject to the jurisdiction of local courts and other authorities.
http://www.ediplomat.com/nd/diplomatic_immunity.htm


Immigrants on the other hand, as long as you maintain that fedgov is in charge of immigration, are in fact "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

HTH :)

[erowe1]

That's because foreign diplomats are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Right. You'll notice I bolded that.




Immigrants on the other hand, as long as you maintain that fedgov is in charge of immigration, are in fact "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Again, according to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, that's for Congress to decide (just as the example of diplomatic immunity and babies born to diplomats is the result of acts of Congress). Congress has the authority right now to pass a law saying that babies born to people here illegally do not automatically become citizens. They don't need a new constitutional amendment to give them the authority that the 14th Amendment already explicitly gives them.

As a matter of fact, we can take this a step further. According to the 14th Amendment, there is no such thing (legally and constitutionally) as birthright citizenship for the babies of illegal immigrants unless and until Congress positively acts under the authority vested in it in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to legislate explicitly that they do have birthright citizenship. Without such an act of Congress no such application of the 14th Amendment would be constitutional.

[Matt Collins]

Someone should tell him that the 14th Amendment wasn't really ratified

[constituent]

Right. You'll notice I bolded that.

Yea, and then tried to say that the children of foreign diplomats not being given birthright citizenship sets a precedent that reinforces your case.

It doesn't. :)

For now I gotta run, but will likely address the rest of your post later.

Have a good one. :)

[erowe1]

Yea, and then tried to say that the children of foreign diplomats not being given birthright citizenship sets a precedent that reinforces your case.

It doesn't.

It does.

The precedent is that Congress is to legislate what being under US jurisdiction does and does not entail, and to whom it applies. In the case of foreign diplomats there is a complicated set of rules about which laws apply to which kinds of diplomats and staffers and consulars and so on, and which don't. One of the things that doesn't apply to any of them is birthright citizenship. There are other laws that apply to all of them (such as traffic laws), and some that apply to only some of them. This all exists because Congress legislated it as section 5 of the 14th Amendment delegates. In the same way Congress can exempt babies of illegal immigrants from birthright citizenship via legislation. It is up to Congress to define them as not being under US jurisdiction and to delineate what that entails. No new amendment is required.

[Stary Hickory]

I agree with this but I hate Graham. Birthright citizenship should be outlawed and immigration controlled. Illegal immigration should is not permit able. Unless you can guarantee that outsiders cannot loot other people using government force you must enforce immigration.

[erowe1]

I agree with this but I hate Graham. Birthright citizenship should be outlawed and immigration controlled. Illegal immigration should is not permit able. Unless you can guarantee that outsiders cannot loot other people using government force you must enforce immigration.

Why are outsiders using government force to loot other people any different than insiders using government force to loot people?

It seems that the use of government force to loot people is the problem and whether or not someone is an "outsider" is an irrelevant separate attribute. We might as well point to the fact that people with widows peaks are using government force to loot people and, therefore, people with widows peaks should not be allowed to be in the country.

[yokna7]

If Ron Paul didn't support this, I bet people would be going crazy here.

Not true. Our fear/loathing of liabilities in this country is too great. This is not in the Constitution.

[constituent]

It does.

The precedent is that Congress is to legislate what being under US jurisdiction does and does not entail, and to whom it applies. In the case of foreign diplomats there is a complicated set of rules about which laws apply to which kinds of diplomats and staffers and consulars and so on, and which don't. One of the things that doesn't apply to any of them is birthright citizenship. There are other laws that apply to all of them (such as traffic laws), and some that apply to only some of them. This all exists because Congress legislated it as section 5 of the 14th Amendment delegates. In the same way Congress can exempt babies of illegal immigrants from birthright citizenship via legislation. It is up to Congress to define them as not being under US jurisdiction and to delineate what that entails. No new amendment is required.


This all exists because Congress legislated it as section 5 of the 14th Amendment delegates. In the same way Congress can exempt babies of illegal immigrants from birthright citizenship via legislation.

Cool, can you link the legislation where Congress stated that the children of foreign diplomats were not eligible for birthright citizenship?


Here is why I still say that it doesn't, and yes an amendment would be required.

Reviewing section 5 I notice that it states, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Congress shall have the power to "enforce" the provisions rather than "define" them as you stated in the first quote above (bolded for emphasis).

Meaning that if a state (or other governmental entity) attempted to deny an individual eligible for birthright citizenship the protections/obligations of that
citizenship, congress could then enact legislation to enforce (as the text suggests) the application of the various provisions in the Amendment.

I don't see a way to legislate around this so long as immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of fedgov, be that through labor
regulations, immigration regulation, etc.

Which is why I'd be interested to see the legislation you claim exists concerning the children of foreign diplomats.

[erowe1]

Cool, can you link the legislation where Congress stated that the children of foreign diplomats were not eligible for birthright citizenship?

No.



BTW, just sort of reviewing section 5 I notice that it states, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Congress shall have the power to "enforce" the provisions rather than define them as you seem to be suggesting.

Which is why I'd be interested to see the legislation you claim exists concerning the children of foreign diplomats.
It doesn't just say "enforce." It says "enforce, by appropiate legislation..." The use of the word "enforce" there isn't handing over the power of the executive branch to Congress. It's still the executive branch that will enforce whatever legislation Congress enacts pursuant to the 14th Amendment. But it's delegating to Congress the legislative role of making laws that apply the 14th amendment. As with all legislation, including the laws related to foreign diplomats, this involves definitions and delineations between categories.

It shouldn't be up to the courts to work these things out by stretching and reapplying the 14th Amendment to situations it wasn't intended for, using its decisions effectively to write new laws. The 14th Amendment itself delegates that legislative application of its provisions to Congress alone. The courts should only apply the 14th Amendment in such ways as Congress has already legislated it to be applied.

[constituent]

It doesn't just say "enforce." It says "enforce, by appropiate legislation..." The use of the word "enforce" there isn't handing over the power of the executive branch to Congress.

I don't recall saying that it was. :confused:

Congress may enact legislation to enforce the amendment does not equal congress may enact legislation redefining the amendment.

Sorry. :)

BTW, I notice you didn't link the legislation you claim exists concerning the children of foreign diplomats.

[erowe1]

I don't see a way to legislate around this so long as immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of fedgov, be that through labor
regulations, immigration regulation, etc.


It looks like here you are using the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction of fedgov" to mean subject to any federal laws. But if that's what "subject to the jurisdiction" means, and if any application of federal law to anyone results in their children born here being citizens, then you haven't gotten around the analogy of foreign diplomats, because there's a whole complicated system of which kinds of laws apply to which kinds of diplomats. If that means that they are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA, then by your reasoning their children can't be exempted from birthright citizenship.

But if you do want to keep allowing for the children of diplomats to be exempted from birthright citizenship, on the ground that they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, then there's no reason Congress can't legislatively define how its laws specially apply to illegal immigrants in a way that it has done for diplomats and similarly to exempt their children from birthright citizenship.

[constituent]

But if that's what "subject to the jurisdiction" means, and if any application of federal law to anyone results in their children born here being citizens, then you haven't gotten around the analogy of foreign diplomats,

The example you used was traffic laws which are within the jurisdiction(s) of the various states.

Your example was invalid given the discussion.

And you still haven't linked the legislation you claim exists concerning the children of foreign diplomats. ;) :D

[erowe1]

Congress may enact legislation to enforce the amendment does not equal congress may enact legislation redefining the amendment.



I haven't proposed Congress redefining anything in the amendment. The amendment was never intended for anchor babies. We all know that. If it is ever to applied to them, the 14th Amendment itself delegates to Congress and Congress only the role of so applying it through appropriate legislation. Until Congress actually writes such a law, it doesn't exist. It isn't the role of the courts to concoct it out of the 14th Amendment itself without Congress legislating it.

Similarly, if Congress wants to head the courts off at the pass by explicitly legislating that the 14th Amendment isn't to be applied that way, by the same reasoning, it can do that.

[erowe1]

The example you used was traffic laws which are within the jurisdiction(s) of the various states.

There are lots of examples, and they are all (including the part about how traffic laws apply to diplomats) part of federal law.



And you still haven't linked the legislation you claim exists concerning the children of foreign diplomats. ;) :D
I said I wasn't going to. Feel free to do your own research and get back to us if you're so inclined.

[constituent]

It looks like here you are using the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction of fedgov" to mean subject to any federal laws.

Let's make this easy for ya.


Jurisdiction is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility.

It is clear why the children of diplomats are not protected under the 14th, because their parents are given diplomatic immunity that protects them from the jurisdiction of fedgov.

Immigrants, however, are currently subject to the jurisdiction of fedgov, and naturally the 14th amendment applies to their children born in the United States.

[constituent]

It looks like here you are using the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction of fedgov" to mean subject to any federal laws.

Let's make this easy for ya.


Jurisdiction is the practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility.

It is clear why the children of diplomats are not protected under the 14th, because their parents are given diplomatic immunity that protects them from the jurisdiction of fedgov.

Immigrants, however, are currently subject to the jurisdiction of fedgov, and naturally the 14th amendment applies to their children born in the United States.

[erowe1]

It is clear why the children of diplomats are not protected under the 14th, because their parents are given diplomatic immunity that protects them from the jurisdiction of fedgov.


How is that clear? The very definition of "jurisdiction" that you just provided is one that would indicate that diplomats are under the jurisdiction of the federal government, since the federal government does have "practical authority granted to a formally constituted legal body or to a political leader to deal with and make pronouncements on legal matters and, by implication, to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility" regarding diplomats.

[constituent]

I said I wasn't going to.

Because it doesn't exist, and it was an invalid argument concerning Section 5 of the 14th.

Congress, in section 5, is given the authority to enact legislation designed to enforce the provisions of the 14th amendment.

Congress is not, however, given the power to redefine the other provisions contained within the 14th amendment as you have suggested. :)

[constituent]

How is that clear? The very definition of "jurisdiction" that you just provided is one that would indicate that diplomats are under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

One more time erowe.


Diplomatic immunity is a principle of international law by which certain foreign government officials are not subject to the jurisdiction of local courts and other authorities
http://www.ediplomat.com/nd/diplomatic_immunity.htm

[erowe1]

One more time erowe.

So you have a definition of diplomatic immunity that says that. So what? In actuality diplomatic immunity is not that simple. There are a variety of ways that federal law does subject foreign diplomats to its authority, as well as a variety of ways that it exempts them.

As I stated above, by your own definition of "jurisdiction" that you copied and pasted above, it is still true that diplomats are under federal government jurisdiction.

If you want to say that they can be under federal jurisdiction according to the various ways that federal law applies to them, and still not be under its jurisdiction in the sense meant by the 14th Amendment (and if you did say this, you would be correct), then you should have no trouble accepting that Congress has similar authority to legislate how federal jurisdiction applies to illegal immigrants.

[erowe1]

Because it doesn't exist.

Let's say it doesn't exist (and if you have evidence for that, I'd love to see it). So what?

That would only illustrate my point even better. Unless Congress positively passes legislation declaring that foreign diplomats are under federal jurisdiction according to the 14th amendment, and that babies born to them here are automatic US citizens, then no such law exists. And the courts would be wrong to legislate from the bench that babies born to diplomats are US citizens (notwithstanding the 14th Amendment and all the ways that diplomats in practice are subject to federal jurisdiction). Similarly with illegal immigrants, until Congress enacts legislation pursuant to the 14th Amendment that would make their babies citizens, then no such legislation exists. The 14th Amendment on its own doesn't do anything without congressional legislation.

[erowe1]

Congress is not, however, given the power to redefine the other provisions contained within the 14th amendment as you have suggested.

I never suggested that it can "redefine" them. Congress is not to redefine them, it is simply to define them (i.e. to enforce them through appropriate legislation). And until it does, they are not defined (i.e. there does not exist such legislation). The only legislation that exists enforcing any part of the 14th Amendment is whatever legislation Congress has passed, and including whatever definitions and distinctions are included in that legislation.

Even in the case of babies born to slaves, the 14th Amendment didn't simply make them citizens on its own. It accomplished that by authorizing Congress to enact legislation that would make them citizens, which Congress had already done at the time of the Amendment's ratification.

And if you want to talk about "redefining" the 14th Amendment, then we have to come to terms about what it means to begin with. Do you take an originalist approach or a living document approach? If you take a living document approach then it's constantly being redefined with and without the help of Congress, and there should be no reason it can't be redefined to exempt illegal immigrants from having anchor babies. But if you take an originalist approach, then you run into a different problem, which is that it wasn't originally intended to grant citizenship to anchor babies, nor did those who ratified it understand it to mean that. So exempting them from birthright citizenship would not require any redefining of the amendment from what it originally meant.

[constituent]

I never suggested that it can "redefine" them. Congress is not to redefine them, it is simply to define them (i.e. to enforce them through appropriate legislation).

And this is where your interpretation of Section 5 is wrong.

Congress is not authorized to define the terms within the amendment according to Section 5.
It is, however, authorized to enact legislation to enforce the provisions of the amendment.

Once more, Section 5:


The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Again, the word is "enforce" not "define."

The rest of your post, which was built upon this false premise, is meaningless until you come to terms
with the reality of what the words in Section 5 actually mean versus what you want them to mean.

The 14th amendment does apply to the children of immigrants, "legal" or otherwise.
(Unless they're foreign diplomats of course, b/c they do not fall under the jurisdiction of fedgov.)

[erowe1]

And this is where your interpretation of Section 5 is wrong.

Congress is not authorized to define the terms within the amendment according to Section 5.
It is, however, authorized to enact legislation to enforce the provisions of the amendment.

Once more, Section 5:



Again, the word is "enforce" not "define."

The rest of your post, which was built upon this false premise, is meaningless until you come to terms
with the reality of what the words in Section 5 actually mean versus what you want them to mean.


I already answered that above. The way Congress is to enforce it is by passing appropriate legislation. The amendment doesn't dictate to Congress what specific legislation is appropriate for accomplishing that, it delegates to Congress the role of deciding (i.e. defining) it. Legislation necessarily uses words to define what is being legislated. Until Congress passes legislation to enforce the 14th Amendment in any given way, then no such legislation exists. The 14th Amendment doesn't create that legislation by itself. There's no getting around it. Section 5 gives Congress the role of defining how the 14th Amendment is to be applied, just as Congress did when it made the children of slaves U.S. citizens by legislation.

This is an important thing to understand about the 14th Amendment. All those 20th-21st century court cases that take away powers the states formerly had, and that the 14th Amendment was not originally intended to deal with, even state powers that the Constitution explicitly forbids the federal government from interfering in (such as the establishment or religion), without acts of Congress legislating these things, are totally unconstitutional rulings.

Furthermore, the rest of what I said wasn't entirely based on that premise anyway. My additional point still stands that, regardless of what Congress's role is, if Congress did legislate that anchor babies aren't citizens it wouldn't be redefining anything in the 14th Amendment as that amendment was understood by those who ratified it. And if the meaning of the amendment is not determined by its original intent, but is something that changes over time, then there's no reason Congress can't redefine it. Whether you take an originalist or a living document approach to this, your argument about "redefining" the 14th Amendment is lose-lose.

[aGameOfThrones]

If congress can legislate U.S citizenship to the people in Puerto Rico -- then surely congress can legislate to remove that citizenship to the people in Puerto Rico born after such date as congress legislates to end U.S citizenship to the people born in Puerto Rico, right? So why can't congress under current "Law" exempt people who are not Citizens of any state, or citizens of the U.S from having their kids become either?

[Depressed Liberator]

If anyone could clear this up, do you guys support of citizenship for legal immigrants?

[constituent]

If congress can legislate U.S citizenship to the people in Puerto Rico

Congress is in charge of naturalization per Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution. So as far as I can tell (particularly without seeing the law you're talking about), that's not really a 14th amendment issue, unless perhaps it dealt with congress passing a law to enforce the recognition of citizenship held by the citizens of Puerto Rico(?). HTH :)

[specsaregood]

If anyone could clear this up, do you guys support of citizenship for legal immigrants?

Sure, why not?

[constituent]

I already answered that above.

And your answer was wrong.



The way Congress is to enforce it is by passing appropriate legislation. The amendment doesn't dictate to Congress what specific legislation is appropriate for accomplishing that, it delegates to Congress the role of deciding (i.e. defining) it.

This is a fiction that you've created out of whole cloth by warping the actual words contained
in the amendment into the words you wish were in the amendment.

The amendment did not give Congress the power to define "jurisdiction."

Again, it gave congress the power to pass laws necessary for the enforcement of the text of the amendment.

You're just flat wrong.




Legislation necessarily uses words to define what is being legislated.

And now you're just yapping... Listen, you could write a 5000 word essay on this and you'd still be wrong.



Until Congress passes legislation to enforce the 14th Amendment in any given way, then no such legislation exists. The 14th Amendment doesn't create that legislation by itself. There's no getting around it.

And the 14th amendment doesn't need to create that legislation. It assumes compliance,
but in the case of non-compliance, that is where section 5 comes in.

It gives the amendment teeth by allowing congress to pass laws designed to enforce the mandates of the Amendment.

The language is actually quite plain. Its meaning (as defined by the words actually present), apparent.


Section 5 gives Congress the role of defining how the 14th Amendment is to be applied, just as Congress did when it made the children of slaves U.S. citizens by legislation.

Here we go again, "defining."

No, Section 5 does not give congress the power to define the term "jurisdiction."

Section 5 gives congress the authority to enact legislation designed to ENFORCE the amendment. That's it.

One. More. Time.

The Text of Section 5:


"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."


"The power to enforce... the provisions," NOT "the power to define, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."



Furthermore, the rest of what I said wasn't entirely based on that premise anyway.

Actually, your entire argument rests on it.

You tried to use the children of foreign diplomats to prove it.

You were wrong on that count too. :)



My additional point still stands that, regardless of what Congress's role is, if Congress did legislate that anchor babies aren't citizens

As long as immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of fedgov, Congress cannot legislate that anchor babies aren't citizens.

Period. End of discussion.



it wouldn't be redefining anything in the 14th Amendment as that amendment was understood by those who ratified it.

Got source?

Of course not...



And if the meaning of the amendment is not determined by its original intent

Actually, it is.



but is something that changes over time

It isn't.



then there's no reason Congress can't redefine it.

And without amending it through the actual amendment process, they can't. :)



Whether you take an originalist or a living document approach to this, your argument about "redefining" the 14th Amendment is lose-lose.

Actually, it's your argument about redefining the 14th amendment not mine.

It is you who believes that congress can redefine the terms contained within the 14th amendment as it chooses. It can't.

Not only is your argument "lose-lose," it is total, absolute, utter and complete FAIL.

Congratulations. :)

[aGameOfThrones]

Congress is in charge of naturalization per Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution. So as far as I can tell (particularly without seeing the law you're talking about), that's not really a 14th amendment issue, unless perhaps it dealt with congress passing a law to enforce the recognition of citizenship held by the citizens of Puerto Rico(?). HTH :)


(It was the Jones-Shafroth Act)

Isn't U.S citizenship tied to the 14th amendment? American Samoans are not U.S citizens, but are American Nationals which falls under (A1 S8), right? Puerto Ricans are U.S citizens but not American Nationals which falls under the 14th amend, right? Puerto Ricans also have their own "Puerto Rican citizenship" along with the U.S citizenship.

[constituent]

Your (erowe) argument:

A constitutional amendment is not needed to ensure that anchor babies are not granted birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. That is because of the language "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" which congress is allowed to define as it chooses, because Section 5 states that ""The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

The argument concerning Section 5 is proven out, because the children of foreign diplomats are not granted birthright citizenship.

....

Every single aspect of this argument is wrong. Every. Single. One.

[constituent]

Isn't U.S citizenship tied to the 14th amendment?

"Birthright citizenship," yes. Previously, U.S. Citizenship was tied exclusively to meeting the "uniform rule for Naturalization,"
which congress was free to define (or "establish") as it chose.



American Samoans are not U.S citizens, but are American Nationals which falls under (A1 S8), right? Puerto Ricans are U.S citizens but not American Nationals which falls under the 14th amend, right?

Good question, but I'm thinking no.

The important question here is how jurisdiction relates to U.S. protectorates (unincorporated territories) like American Samoa.



Puerto Ricans also have their own "Puerto Rican citizenship" along with the U.S citizenship.

The courts have consistently ruled that there are two forms of citizenship within the United States, that of citizenship within a state and citizenship within the United States, so it doesn't surprise me.

I would be interested in reading more about the finer points of how this relates to protectorates like Puerto Rico, Guam, etc. :)

[constituent]

Ewww... so I'm reading on the Jones-Shafroth act, and that's just an ugly situation no matter how you slice it.

Was the passage of the Jones-Shafroth Act even constitutional? Doesn't it step outside the bounds of the uniform rule of naturalization, or is it merely a law passed to "enforce" the recognition of the citizens of Puerto Rico as citizens of the United States? If the latter, than the constitutionality of it is clear. The former, however, not so much.

[One thing it most certainly did not do though was attempt to define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." ;) :D]

A question that might give us some context to explore:
Are all natural born residents of American protectorates granted birthright citizenship?

[aGameOfThrones]

(Organic Act of 1917 Jones Act)

§ 5. [Citizens of United States]




That all citizens of Puerto Rico, as defined by § 7 of the Act of April twelfth, nineteen hundred, "temporarily to provide revenues and a civil government for Puerto Rico, and for other purposes", and all natives of Puerto Rico who were temporarily absent from that island on April eleventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and have since returned and are permanently residing in that island, and are not citizens of any foreign country, are hereby declared, and shall be deemed and held to be, citizens of the United States; Provided, That any person hereinbefore described may retain his present political status by making a declaration, under oath, of his decision to do so within six months of the taking effect of this Act before the district court in the district in which he resides, the declaration to be in form as follows:




"I, ________________________________________ , being duly sworn, hereby declare my intention not to become a citizen of the United States as provided in the Act of Congress conferring United States citizenship upon citizens of Puerto Rico and certain natives permanently residing in said island."




In the case of any such person who may be absent from the island during said six months the term of this proviso may be availed of by transmitting a declaration, under oath, in the form herein provided within six months of the taking effect of this Act to the Executive Secretary of Puerto Rico; And Provided, further, That any person who is born in Puerto Rico of an alien parent and is permanently residing in that island may, if of full age, within six months of the taking effect of this Act, or if a minor, upon reaching his majority, or within one year thereafter, make a sworn declaration of allegiance to the United States before the United States District Court for Puerto Rico, setting forth therein all the facts connected with his or her birth and residence in Puerto Rico and accompany due proof thereof, and from and after the making of such declaration shall be considered to be a citizen of the United States.


(Mar. 2, 1917, c. 145, § 5, 39 Stat. 953; continued in effect July 3, 1950, c. 446, § 4, 64 Stat. 319)



*****************


§ 5a. [Citizens of Puerto Rico]




That all citizens of the United States who have resided or who shall hereafter reside in the island for one year shall be citizens of Puerto Rico: Provided, That persons born in Puerto Rico of alien parents, referred to in the last paragraph of § 5, who did not avail themselves of the privilege granted to them of becoming citizens of the United States, shall have a period of one year from the approval of this Act to make the declaration provided for in the aforesaid section: and Provided, further, That persons who elected to retain the political status of citizens of Puerto Rico may within one year after the passage of this Act become citizens of the United States upon the same terms and in the same manner as is provided for the naturalization of native Puerto Ricans born of foreign parents.


(Mar. 2, 1917, c. 145, § 5a; added Mar. 4, 1927, c. 503, § 2, 44 Stat. 1418; continued in effect July 3, 1950, c. 446, § 4, 64 Stat. 319)

**********


§ 5b. [Citizenship of persons born in Puerto Rico]




All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899 after the effective date of this Act) and not citizens, subjects, or nationals of any foreign power, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; Provided, That the iniative of Act shall not be construed as depriving any person, Puerto Rico, of his or her American citizenship heretofore otherwise lawfully acquired by such person; or to extend such citizenship to persons who shall have renounced or lost it under the treaties and/or laws of the United States or who are now residing permanently abroad and are citizens or subjects of a foreign country; and Provided, further, That any woman, native of Puerto Rico and permanently residing therein, who, prior to March 2 1917, had lost her American nationality by reason of her marriage to an alien eligible to citizenship, or by reason of the loss of the United States citizenship by her husband, may be naturalized under the provision of § 4 of the Act of September 22, 1922, entitled "An Act relative to the naturalization and citizenship of married women", as amended.


(Mar. 2, 1917, C. 145, added as § 5b on June 27, 1934, c. 845, 48 Stat. 1245)

(Mar. 2, 1917, c. 145, added as § 5b on June 25, 1948, c. 649, 62 Stat. 1015, retroactive to Oct. 13, 1945)

***********

§ 5c. [Citizenship of persons misinformed as to status]




That any person of good character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States, and born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899, who has continued to reside within the jurisdiction of the United States whose father elected on or before April 11, 1900, to preserve his allegiance to the Crown of Spain in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain entered into on April 11, 1899, and who, by reason of misinformation regarding his or her own citizenship status failed within the time limits prescribed by § 5 or 5a hereof to exercise the privilege of establishing United States citizenship and has heretofore erroneously but in good faith exercised the rights and privileges and performed the duties of a citizen of the United States, and has not personally sworn allegiance to any foreign government or ruler upon or after attain ment of majority, may make a sworn declaration of allegiance to the United States before any United States district court. Such declaration shall set forth facts concerning his or her birth in Puerto Rico, good character, attachment to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and being well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States, residence within the jurisdiction of the United States, and misinformation regarding United States citizenship status, and shall be accompanied by proof thereof satisfactory to the court. After making such declaration and submitting such proofs, such person shall be admitted to take the oath of allegiance before the court, and thereupon shall be considered a citizen of the United States.


(Mar. 2, 1917, c. 145, added as § 5c on May 16, 1938, c. 225, 52 Stat. 377; repealed Oct. 14, 1940, c. 876, § 504, 54 Stat. 1137)

************

What do you think of this Constituent?

[constituent]

It's almost bedtime tonight, but I am very much looking forward to reading it all and getting back together with you on it. :)

Have a good evening agameofthrones, and thanks for getting the ol' gears turning!

[constituent]

double post... lol

yep, time for bed. ;) :D

[erowe1]

For those who are interested in what the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant to those who passed the 14th Amendment (and thus, the meaning it should have to any Congress that attempts to enforce the provisions of the 14th Amendment with appropriate legislation), here's a good article about it:
http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html

[constituent]

For those who are interested in what the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant to those who passed the 14th Amendment


Correction, what it meant to one guy who passed a law prior to the 14th amendment, the language of which was ALTERED from "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States," to "‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Jurisdiction means what it means. There is no way for you to wiggle off of that one, sorry. :o

Sure, we could pretend that the language wasn't altered and that what the 14th amendment really says isn't what it really says (according to one guy), but that wouldn't be any more valid than saying that Section 5 gives congress the power to "define" the other clauses in the Amendment *again, it doesn't*, or that congress legislated an exemption for the children of foreign diplomats *again, they didn't*.

HTH :)

[erowe1]

Constituent, looking through your posts you obviously believe that Congress's authority to enforce the provisions of the 14th amendment through appropriate legislation must mean something different than what I've been saying all this time. You keep emphasizing that word "enforce" and just repeating the point. But I don't think I've seen anywhere that you actually say what you think it really does mean, and why you think that.

If it isn't authorizing Congress to pass laws that confer citizenship on certain people born here who are under U.S. jurisdiction, then what is it authorizing them to do? But if it is authorizing them to do that, then who else other than Congress would it be that defines the categories contained in those laws? Has Congress ever passed a law pursuant to the 14th Amendment that confers citizenship on babies of illegal immigrants (as it has done for a wide variety of other categories of people)? If Congress has not done that, then isn't it up to Congress either to do so (in which case it would become law) or not do so (in which case it would not become law)? And if that responsibility to pass such a law, determining that it would be "appropriate legislation" for the enforcement of the 14th amendment, or not to pass a law, determining that it would not be "appropriate legislation" for the enforcement of the 14th Amendment, does not belong to Congress, then what is the point of Section 5 of the 14th Amendment? Why should that section be in the amendment at all?

Furthermore, why are you so insistent that the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" must now include a group of people that were not included in the phrase as it was intended when the 14th Amendment was passed (as you can see, for example, in the article I just linked in my previous post)? And if you have the power to interpret that phrase to mean something different than its original intent, why do you think that Congress, in passing legislation to enforce the 14th Amendment, would not have to interpret that amendment in the process and possibly interpret it differently than you want them to, and more along the lines of what it originally meant?

[constituent]

For those who are interested in what the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant to those who passed the 14th Amendment


Correction, what it meant to one guy who passed a law prior to the 14th amendment, the language of which was ALTERED from "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States," to "‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Jursdiction means what it means. There is no way for you to wiggle off of that one, sorry. :o

Sure, we could pretend that the language wasn't altered and that what the 14th amendment really says isn't what it really says (according to one guy), but that wouldn't be any more valid than saying that Section 5 gives congress the power to "define" the other clauses in the Amendment *again, it doesn't*, or that congress legislated an exemption for the children of foreign diplomats *again, they didn't*.

HTH :)

[erowe1]

Jurisdiction means what it means.

What do you mean by this?

Does "jurisdiction" have a single simple meaning that is always the same in every context?

And what is that meaning? Please provide one that clearly excludes all the various kinds of foreign diplomats, consulars, their staffs, their families, and other foreigners who are exempted from birthright citizenship because of their not being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US, despite the wide variety of ways that US laws do and don't apply to each of them in different piecemeal ways, and yet clearly does not exclude other types of foreigners visiting here, such as people on vacation, pregnant women who cross the border solely to have a baby who's a US citizen, and Canadian women who are transported across the border to give birth in nearby American hospitals for medical reasons?

You provided definitions above that didn't make the cut. Can you do better this time?

[erowe1]

Correction, what it meant to one guy who passed a law prior to the 14th amendment,

Correction. What it meant to several legislators in both the House and the Senate who passed not only that law a few months before the 14th Amendment (a law which does exactly what the 14th Amendment instructs Congress to do--enforces the 14th's provisions through appropriate legislation), and who were also involved in the passing of the 14th Amendment itself, as well as what it meant to state legislators who in the years subsequent to the passage of the 14th Amendment crafted their state laws about citizenship in attempts to conform them to what the 14th says and explicitly excluded children of transient aliens, as well as the U.S. Attorney General in 1870.

Either these individuals opinions were not representative of the legal thinking about the 14th at the time it was passed, in which case I can't see how you can say that "jurisdiction" means something that includes illegal migrants but not foreign diplomats, or their views were not representative, in which case you should have no difficulty finding examples of advocates of a view more like your own from that time, including, I would expect, people arguing against the claims made by the individuals cited in that article and objections raised against the state laws it cites.

[constituent]

Correction. What it meant to several legislators

Uhh no, maybe a few.

I believe the paper you linked only mentioned one or two.

Now, that said, what their feelings toward what the amendment should have said according to those guys vs. what the amendment actually says (that which was agreed upon by enough members to pass) are of interest only from a historical record standpoint.

NOt much use for actually interpreting THE ACTUAL WORDS of the amendment.



(a law which does exactly what the 14th Amendment instructs Congress to do--enforces the 14th's provisions through appropriate legislation),

Oh good, you've come to reason on this point and are ready to admit that Section 5 allows congress to pass laws ENFORCING the amendment rather than "define" the terms within it.

There is hope for you yet. :)




I can't see how you can say that "jurisdiction" means something that includes illegal migrants but not foreign diplomats,

One. More. Time. Sloooooowly.

D-I-P-L-O-M-A-T-I-C I-M-M-U-N-I-T-Y


Do you need me to repost the definition? I think that would make it four times? IIRC, they say it takes six times for it to stick... so maybe later. :)



or their views were not representative

Those couple of guys? Theirs views represent their views of what their ideal law would have said. But hell, they passed an unconstitutional law where an amendment was required. Perhaps you should take their ideas with a grain of salt. ;)

Either way, their views do not change what the amendment ACTUALLY SAYS.



I would expect, people arguing against the claims made by the individuals cited in that article and objections raised against the state laws it cites.

At this point, I'm not sure who you are to be expecting anything. :confused:
You've been wrong for the last five pages.

The source that you cited still doesn't make your case. It only gave some background on a couple of opinions (and some historical context) concerning the Amendment. It did not, however, change what the amendment says.

I would expect that you would admit the error of your ways, adjust your position and move on. But I don't really care what you do.

Your dogmatic adherence to a number of invalid arguments makes all too obvious the fact that your primary motivation here is clearly not reason but rather ideology.

Thanks for playing though.

I've got some things to do before I can get back to agameofthrones, and won't be wasting my time piddling with you any further. :)

Enjoy your weekend.