What the 14th Amendment actually says (and what Trump thinks it says), and what would happen if Trump signed an executive order to reinterpret it.

Sep 2018
6,579
1,083
cleveland ohio
#1
What the 14th Amendment actually says (and what Trump thinks it says), and what would happen if Trump signed an executive order to reinterpret it.
Birthright citizenship is unequivocal under the 14th Amendment — at least according to a Supreme Court decision from the 1890s

The amendment, ratified in 1868, was primarily intended to nullify the Supreme Court’s infamous 1857 ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which ruled that no African American could become a citizen, regardless of their status at birth. Without the guarantee of citizenship, black Americans had lacked clear rights to own property, move freely, or even remain in the United States — “colonization societies” raised money for the mass deportation of former slaves to Africa, a continent their ancestors had left generations before. The 14th Amendment offered them a legally secure position in the United States for the first time.
n 1894, Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco, came back to the US after a visit to China. But immigration officials wouldn’t let him in. He protested that he was a citizen; the federal government used the case to lay out the position that (in the words of historian Erika Lee) “American-born Chinese could not be considered citizens if their parents were not, and could never become, naturalized citizens.”

The case made its way to the Supreme Court, where the justices ruled 6-2 in favor of Wong, stating that “the right of citizenship ... is incident to birth in the country.”

Birthright citizenship, explained
 
Jun 2012
41,957
15,163
Barsoom
#2
The Ark ruling has nothing to do with birthright citizenship and illegal aliens. The issue was debated here ad nauseum within the past two weeks.

Ark dealt with legal aliens in the US under US law who had legal permanent residence in the US. The court also used the laws of England to make their opinion.
 
Nov 2012
39,848
11,554
Lebanon, TN
#3
What the 14th Amendment actually says (and what Trump thinks it says), and what would happen if Trump signed an executive order to reinterpret it.
Birthright citizenship is unequivocal under the 14th Amendment — at least according to a Supreme Court decision from the 1890s

The amendment, ratified in 1868, was primarily intended to nullify the Supreme Court’s infamous 1857 ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which ruled that no African American could become a citizen, regardless of their status at birth. Without the guarantee of citizenship, black Americans had lacked clear rights to own property, move freely, or even remain in the United States — “colonization societies” raised money for the mass deportation of former slaves to Africa, a continent their ancestors had left generations before. The 14th Amendment offered them a legally secure position in the United States for the first time.
n 1894, Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco, came back to the US after a visit to China. But immigration officials wouldn’t let him in. He protested that he was a citizen; the federal government used the case to lay out the position that (in the words of historian Erika Lee) “American-born Chinese could not be considered citizens if their parents were not, and could never become, naturalized citizens.”

The case made its way to the Supreme Court, where the justices ruled 6-2 in favor of Wong, stating that “the right of citizenship ... is incident to birth in the country.”

Birthright citizenship, explained

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.


if are an illegal you are not subject to the JURISTICTION of the US, you are subject to the jurisdiction of you NATION OF ORIGIN.
 
Jul 2008
17,687
11,543
Virginia Beach, VA
#4
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.


if are an illegal you are not subject to the JURISTICTION of the US, you are subject to the jurisdiction of you NATION OF ORIGIN.
Really, so if an illegal immigrant kills someone in the US there isn’t anything we can do since they are not subject to our jurisdiction?
 
Jun 2012
41,957
15,163
Barsoom
#5
Subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the Fourteenth Amendment is political jurisdiction, not legal jurisdiction, per the men who wrote the amendment.
 
Jul 2008
17,687
11,543
Virginia Beach, VA
#6
Subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the Fourteenth Amendment is political jurisdiction, not legal jurisdiction, per the men who wrote the amendment.
Nope, in Ark the majority held that the phrase “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” referred to being required to obey U.S. law. This is why children born to persons in the US holding “diplomatic immunity” do not become citizens.
 
Jun 2012
41,957
15,163
Barsoom
#7
Ark dealt with legal aliens in the US under US law who had legal permanent residence in the US. The court also used the laws of England to make their opinion. Ark was based on US law and the offspring of permanent and legal Chinese residents.

Ark is also not precedent.
 
Jul 2008
17,687
11,543
Virginia Beach, VA
#8
Ark dealt with legal aliens in the US under US law who had legal permanent residence in the US. The court also used the laws of England to make their opinion. Ark was based on US law and the offspring of permanent and legal Chinese residents.

Ark is also not precedent.
It is currently what is used. The “legal” status of the parents was not the question, so the fact that they had “legal permanent residence” is irrelevant. The question was what was meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

The minority said that it meant the parents could not be subject to a foreign power. Their opinion, as stated, was the minority.

The majority held that it meant that the parents were required to obey US Law. So unless you can point to another SCOTUS ruling that overturns it, that is the interpretation that should be used.
 
Jun 2012
41,957
15,163
Barsoom
#9
Ark was limited to children born of lawful and permanent residents. There is nothing in the opinion regarding children of illegal or non-permanent resident aliens. This was affirmed with the Slaughter House cases and Elk.

No Supreme Court opinion has ever stated that children born to parents in the US illegally are citizens.
 
Jul 2014
13,481
8,155
massachusetts
#10
Ark dealt with legal aliens in the US under US law who had legal permanent residence in the US. The court also used the laws of England to make their opinion. Ark was based on US law and the offspring of permanent and legal Chinese residents.

Ark is also not precedent.
of course you misread Ark.
The decision wasn't based on Ark's parents being legal residents, it rested on the fact that they were not employed by the Emperor of China, in which case they would not have been subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

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.


if are an illegal you are not subject to the JURISTICTION of the US, you are subject to the jurisdiction of you NATION OF ORIGIN.
If you have diplomatic immunity, you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
When the 14th Amendment was written, there wasn't an immigration system, so there was no differentiation between legal immigration and illegal immigration.

There were people who were born in the United States, and ALL of them were citizens, EXCEPT those born to people with diplomatic immunity.