Trump is right: "birthright citizenship" isn't required by the Constitution, no matter how many pundits tell you otherwise. And it's being badly abused.
I agree with you. Thank you for an outstanding explanation of this issue. I see American citizenship as a privilege and my loyalty to my country. I hope that this issue is resolved properly and quickly.
I debated a Yale Law professor on this issue just this morning. Implicit in her argument is the idea that everyone is entitled to American citizenship on these terms, and if that's 300,000 a year (the actual number) or 30,000,000 a year, we would have no right to deny these people.
But that's absurd. Of course we have the right to set the terms of how one comes here, no different than I get to set the terms of who stays in my home.
I'm pro-immigration. I'm just asking them to come through the door, not break in the window. I don't think that's unreasonable, and neither does any other country on the planet. Just us.
My late mother was a LEGAL immigrant. She played by all the rules. It is insulting to the legal immigrants by allowing the government government to be so irresponsible with their handling of illegal immigrants.
As much as I detest the proliferation of EOs, it's unfortunately necessary during this time of war and utter lawlessness. Because we've been so inattentive to the direction our government/country has gone, we now have a huge job to steer things back to rights again. All of this has been a slow, creeping effort to establish communism/globalism as our "rule of law." We are watching genius at work to claw back our rightful government and our rightful rule of law through our President and those whom he's enlisted to assist in this undertaking.
One of the most glaring injuries by the enemies of our country has been the steady encroachment upon our almost unlimited unalienable rights but, having been done stealthily over many years, most have not recognized it as such. Our God-given rights are truly almost limitless, only stopping when we seek to injure others. Much of this began in 1934 with the passing of the Rules Enabling Act which took away our common law courts and replaced them with equity courts, ruling judges, utter disregard for our unalienable rights and our now lost ability to gain true justice.
The seventh Amendment specifically notes our common law and the rules of common law. By passing this unconstitutional act, we, the people, lost our ability to use our own courts and everything connected to them. The courts have become vehicles of human trafficking, gross and unending theft of property and the people's money, and pillars of breathtaking injustice. That's a huge reason why taking back our proper local governments is now so difficult or impossible in many deep blue places.
73d Congress. Sess. II CHS. 651, 652. June 19, 1934
AN ACT
To give the Supreme Court of the United States authority and to make and publish rules in actions at law.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the of United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Supreme Court of the United States shall have the power to prescribe, by general rules, for the district courts of the United States and for the courts of the District of Columbia, the forms of process, writs, for the district courts of the United States and for thecourts of the District of Columbia, the forms of process, writs, pleadings, and motions, and the practice and procedure in civil actions at law. Said rules shall neither abridge, enlarge, nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant. They shall take effect six months after their promulgation, and thereafter all laws in conflict therewith shall be of no further force or effect.
SEC. 2. The court may at any time unite the general rules prescribed by it for cases in equity with those in actions at law so as to secure one form of civil action and procedure for both: Provided, however, That in such union of rules the right of trial by jury as at common law and declared by the seventh amendment to the Constitution shall be preserved to the parties inviolate. Such united rules shall not take effect until they shall have been reported to Congress by the Attorney General at the beginning of a regular session thereof and until after the close of such session.
And as to the E.O., it is of course limited in scope to how the executive branch interprets the laws as it enforces them. So the EO is the first shot in a legal battle that now constitutes a "case in controversy" for procedural purposes, and we can take this to the Supreme Court. That's 90% of what Trump was doing, the rest being drawing attention to the issue, as he always seeks to do.
Watching POTUS is a wonderful thing. Bit by bit, we can see threads being gathered one by one with patches being made. I hope I live long enough to see the full tapestry in all of its glory.
I’ve never understood how the State can confer citizenship on a person too young to even say yes or no to the action. The infant never requested it, and the parents don’t have standing since they are citizens of a different country.
While I share your overall conclusions about birthright citizenship, on thing that weakens OUR case is that the Slaughterhouse quotation you cite was in dicta, not in the opinion of the court, and therefore not precedent-setting.
I agree completely; dicta is not unimportant, but the issue rubs both ways. The Left is taking comments in dicta in Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy and INS v. Rios-Penada to "prove" their case that birthright citizenship is seen by the court as extending to the children of illegal aliens. They reference Plyler v. Doe to prove that the children of illegal immigrants are entitled to all the the "equal protection of the laws" as citizen children. I'm giving a presentation on this topic tomorrow night to the Republican Committee of Norfolk. I'll send you my slides if you'd like.
What are your thoughts regarding children born to parents legally in the United States but who were not citizens of the United States at the time? Although the legal immigrant parents may subsequently have become US citizens, how do we regard their children born here while they had not yet earned citizenship? Those children were never asked for their allegiance and were, up until now considered US citizens by the US government. Not at all disputing the flagrant abuse of birthright citizenship and the clear need to more carefully create policies to prevent such abuse but I would submit that if we fail to very carefully consider and implement any revised policy, we will have shot ourselves in the foot.
You must be referring to green-card holders. I'd think that the same criteria applies to them as well. THEY ARE NOT U.S. CITIZENS, their presence is conditional....how can their children be anything other than what's called anchor babies?
Well, that’s interesting. Because that’s me. Born in Seattle 1961. Registered for Selective Service, voted Republican nearly my entire life (in blue states I might add), follower of Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior, serving in my Republican district as a party officer, lifelong anticommunist, member of the John Birch Society. Shall I be deported? If so where?
Did you hatch from an egg? You were born in Seattle.....to illegals? Or to American citizens? If you were born to illegals here and they stayed....do you think that was right? You've apparently spent your whole life here and seem to have become "one of us." I would not nitpick about that.....just saying....come here lawfully and become an American or come here illegally--which no country likes. Honesty and integrity go a long way.
The first sentence of my initial remark above addressed this question you raised. My parents were always legally here as noncitizens at first but subsequently naturalized citizens. I was born in the United States before they became naturalized citizens.
My passport has always listed me as a citizen of the United States which one may presume reflects the view that at least the government considers me a citizen. Mr. Martin referenced the Wong Kim Ark case of 1898 in response to my initial remark above which makes these distinctions clear.
Thank you for that reference. It seems the threshold for considering children born to noncitizen residents of the United States is whether the noncitizen parents were here legally as authorized nonresidents or illegal migrants with no legal status. It may not seem an important delineation to make but it is, lest we stumble and falter when we cannot afford to fail with our nation’s sovereignty under attack without and within.
It is an extremely important distinction that no one on the left is willing to even consider. I debated a Yale Law professor on this topic yesterday. Nice woman, very smart, but genuinely believes that everyone on Earth is entitled to come here (she literally used the word "entitled"), and to gain all rights and privileges of citizenship simply by physical location. The mind just boggles.
Noncitizen residents are not legal citizens.....so how can their children be citizens? That sounds a lot like the anchor baby ploy. Can you further explain that?
The whole "anchor baby" thing just frustrates me. Even if you were wrong about the meaning of the 14th (My opinion, fwiw: you're not wrong), that would only apply to the child, not to the illegally-present parent(s).
The notion we should give any preference to such violators of our laws, instead of holding that they shouldn't be just at the end of the list, but have an absolute prohibition against ever immigrating, flabbergasts me.
This seems to be a simple matter that is entirely within Congress's purview. Let's have some legislation stating that.
Excellent article Rod!
Thanks!
Outstanding summary of this issue... complete yet concise. Thank you for this... I'm confident this is all I need to know.
I very much appreciate that.
I agree with you. Thank you for an outstanding explanation of this issue. I see American citizenship as a privilege and my loyalty to my country. I hope that this issue is resolved properly and quickly.
I debated a Yale Law professor on this issue just this morning. Implicit in her argument is the idea that everyone is entitled to American citizenship on these terms, and if that's 300,000 a year (the actual number) or 30,000,000 a year, we would have no right to deny these people.
But that's absurd. Of course we have the right to set the terms of how one comes here, no different than I get to set the terms of who stays in my home.
I'm pro-immigration. I'm just asking them to come through the door, not break in the window. I don't think that's unreasonable, and neither does any other country on the planet. Just us.
My late mother was a LEGAL immigrant. She played by all the rules. It is insulting to the legal immigrants by allowing the government government to be so irresponsible with their handling of illegal immigrants.
Very well stated, sauce and all!
As much as I detest the proliferation of EOs, it's unfortunately necessary during this time of war and utter lawlessness. Because we've been so inattentive to the direction our government/country has gone, we now have a huge job to steer things back to rights again. All of this has been a slow, creeping effort to establish communism/globalism as our "rule of law." We are watching genius at work to claw back our rightful government and our rightful rule of law through our President and those whom he's enlisted to assist in this undertaking.
One of the most glaring injuries by the enemies of our country has been the steady encroachment upon our almost unlimited unalienable rights but, having been done stealthily over many years, most have not recognized it as such. Our God-given rights are truly almost limitless, only stopping when we seek to injure others. Much of this began in 1934 with the passing of the Rules Enabling Act which took away our common law courts and replaced them with equity courts, ruling judges, utter disregard for our unalienable rights and our now lost ability to gain true justice.
The seventh Amendment specifically notes our common law and the rules of common law. By passing this unconstitutional act, we, the people, lost our ability to use our own courts and everything connected to them. The courts have become vehicles of human trafficking, gross and unending theft of property and the people's money, and pillars of breathtaking injustice. That's a huge reason why taking back our proper local governments is now so difficult or impossible in many deep blue places.
73d Congress. Sess. II CHS. 651, 652. June 19, 1934
AN ACT
To give the Supreme Court of the United States authority and to make and publish rules in actions at law.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the of United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Supreme Court of the United States shall have the power to prescribe, by general rules, for the district courts of the United States and for the courts of the District of Columbia, the forms of process, writs, for the district courts of the United States and for thecourts of the District of Columbia, the forms of process, writs, pleadings, and motions, and the practice and procedure in civil actions at law. Said rules shall neither abridge, enlarge, nor modify the substantive rights of any litigant. They shall take effect six months after their promulgation, and thereafter all laws in conflict therewith shall be of no further force or effect.
SEC. 2. The court may at any time unite the general rules prescribed by it for cases in equity with those in actions at law so as to secure one form of civil action and procedure for both: Provided, however, That in such union of rules the right of trial by jury as at common law and declared by the seventh amendment to the Constitution shall be preserved to the parties inviolate. Such united rules shall not take effect until they shall have been reported to Congress by the Attorney General at the beginning of a regular session thereof and until after the close of such session.
Approved, June 19, 1934.
Yes, absolutely.
And as to the E.O., it is of course limited in scope to how the executive branch interprets the laws as it enforces them. So the EO is the first shot in a legal battle that now constitutes a "case in controversy" for procedural purposes, and we can take this to the Supreme Court. That's 90% of what Trump was doing, the rest being drawing attention to the issue, as he always seeks to do.
Watching POTUS is a wonderful thing. Bit by bit, we can see threads being gathered one by one with patches being made. I hope I live long enough to see the full tapestry in all of its glory.
I’ve never understood how the State can confer citizenship on a person too young to even say yes or no to the action. The infant never requested it, and the parents don’t have standing since they are citizens of a different country.
Rod,
While I share your overall conclusions about birthright citizenship, on thing that weakens OUR case is that the Slaughterhouse quotation you cite was in dicta, not in the opinion of the court, and therefore not precedent-setting.
Yes, but it tells us pretty clearly what the Supreme Court thought the amendment meant within five years of its ratification.
I agree completely; dicta is not unimportant, but the issue rubs both ways. The Left is taking comments in dicta in Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy and INS v. Rios-Penada to "prove" their case that birthright citizenship is seen by the court as extending to the children of illegal aliens. They reference Plyler v. Doe to prove that the children of illegal immigrants are entitled to all the the "equal protection of the laws" as citizen children. I'm giving a presentation on this topic tomorrow night to the Republican Committee of Norfolk. I'll send you my slides if you'd like.
Sure, I'd love to see them.
What are your thoughts regarding children born to parents legally in the United States but who were not citizens of the United States at the time? Although the legal immigrant parents may subsequently have become US citizens, how do we regard their children born here while they had not yet earned citizenship? Those children were never asked for their allegiance and were, up until now considered US citizens by the US government. Not at all disputing the flagrant abuse of birthright citizenship and the clear need to more carefully create policies to prevent such abuse but I would submit that if we fail to very carefully consider and implement any revised policy, we will have shot ourselves in the foot.
You must be referring to green-card holders. I'd think that the same criteria applies to them as well. THEY ARE NOT U.S. CITIZENS, their presence is conditional....how can their children be anything other than what's called anchor babies?
Well, that’s interesting. Because that’s me. Born in Seattle 1961. Registered for Selective Service, voted Republican nearly my entire life (in blue states I might add), follower of Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior, serving in my Republican district as a party officer, lifelong anticommunist, member of the John Birch Society. Shall I be deported? If so where?
Did you hatch from an egg? You were born in Seattle.....to illegals? Or to American citizens? If you were born to illegals here and they stayed....do you think that was right? You've apparently spent your whole life here and seem to have become "one of us." I would not nitpick about that.....just saying....come here lawfully and become an American or come here illegally--which no country likes. Honesty and integrity go a long way.
The first sentence of my initial remark above addressed this question you raised. My parents were always legally here as noncitizens at first but subsequently naturalized citizens. I was born in the United States before they became naturalized citizens.
My passport has always listed me as a citizen of the United States which one may presume reflects the view that at least the government considers me a citizen. Mr. Martin referenced the Wong Kim Ark case of 1898 in response to my initial remark above which makes these distinctions clear.
If one or both of your parents were here legally, and not on a tourist visa or as a diplomat, you're a citizen. Full stop.
Illegal aliens obviously have a legal status significantly south of "tourist visa" or "diplomat".
If you're a legal resident of the United States, your child born here is a citizen. That's the Wong Kim Ark case (1898).
Thank you for that reference. It seems the threshold for considering children born to noncitizen residents of the United States is whether the noncitizen parents were here legally as authorized nonresidents or illegal migrants with no legal status. It may not seem an important delineation to make but it is, lest we stumble and falter when we cannot afford to fail with our nation’s sovereignty under attack without and within.
It is an extremely important distinction that no one on the left is willing to even consider. I debated a Yale Law professor on this topic yesterday. Nice woman, very smart, but genuinely believes that everyone on Earth is entitled to come here (she literally used the word "entitled"), and to gain all rights and privileges of citizenship simply by physical location. The mind just boggles.
Noncitizen residents are not legal citizens.....so how can their children be citizens? That sounds a lot like the anchor baby ploy. Can you further explain that?
Great article?
The whole "anchor baby" thing just frustrates me. Even if you were wrong about the meaning of the 14th (My opinion, fwiw: you're not wrong), that would only apply to the child, not to the illegally-present parent(s).
The notion we should give any preference to such violators of our laws, instead of holding that they shouldn't be just at the end of the list, but have an absolute prohibition against ever immigrating, flabbergasts me.
This seems to be a simple matter that is entirely within Congress's purview. Let's have some legislation stating that.
Completely agree.