BTR1701 <
atropos@mac.com> wrote:
. . .
There's actually significant SCOTUS precedent for the idea that the 14th
Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship does not apply to illegals.
Even if one believes that United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
was rightly decided,
Question
Is a child who was born in the United States to Chinese-citizen
parents who are lawful permanent residents of the United States
a U.S. citizen under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment?
Conclusion
Because Wong was born in the United States and his parents were not
"employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor
of China," the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
automatically makes him a U.S. citizen. Justice Horace Gray
authored the opinion on behalf of a 6-2 majority, in which the
Court established the parameters of the concept known as jus
soli--the citizenship of children born in the United States
to non-citizens. Justice Joseph McKenna took no part in the
consideration or decision of the case.
thereby creating a definitive floor for citizenship within the
Constitution, outside Congress' regulatory power, for kids born to
all immigrants,
You misstated the opinion. It's "born in the United States to
non-citizens", not immigrants. Not every foreign national lawfully or
unlawfully present in the United States has immigrated. Anyone born
in the United states of any foreign national at all, an immigrant, an
illegal alien regardless of intent to immigrate, an intinerant worker
lawfully present to perform farm labor, or a traveller is a natural born
citizen. The only people it does not apply to are those born of diplomats
or others in the foreign service or born of those in some sort of official
civilian or military delegation on United States soil.
The children of Philip and Elizabeth were Americans. It was a plot
point!
there is no way that can apply to people who come here without
the legal consent of the nation.
Huh? THat's not what the Constitution says.
It's absurd to assert that people who are supposed to be off our soil can,
strictly by trespassing on it, achieve the ultimate benefit of citizenship for
their kids.
In immigration law, it's unlawful presense. Piracy isn't copyright
law violation.
The 14th Amendment stipulates two requirements for birthright citizenship:
that the individual be born "in the United States and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof". Let's put aside the debate over what "subject to the
jurisdiction thereof" means.
It's in the conclusion of the opinion. "Subject to" is every
foreign national who is not part of a diplomatic mission or some
official civilian or military delegation or some other official
representative of a foreign state. If Queen Victoria had given birth to
one of her many children whilst on foreign soil, they'd still be UK
subjects as she's literally "the state".
Nobody can unilaterally assert jurisdiction against the collective will
of the nation.
That's handwaiving and not the Constitution. As you tell moviePig
constantly, if you don't like the Constitution, then work to amend it.
But even if the 14th Amendment didn't contain the second condition and
only stipulated that the child must be "born in the United States",
it is beyond settled law that if you are here without consent, it is
quite literally as if you are not present in this country.
Danny and Baez arrest a man for the rape and murder of the appealing
sympathetic college girl seen in the cold open. Erin refuses to indict
because he's illegally present in the United States.
This concept should not only shut down the phony birthright citizenship
debate once and for all, but end this notion that illegals can come
here and demand other benefits or standing in court for specific status
against the will of the political branches of government simply because
they successfully landed on our soil.
You would screw with who has standing in court? That's nothing to do
with legal presence in the United States. If a tort is committed, an
illegal alien can absolutely sue for P.I.
No foreigner or foreign entity can control the destiny of our nation
and force upon us prospectively an outcome for citizenship, judicial
standing, or any other benefit against the will of the president or
Congress. It's obvious that a country can never be forced to issue
citizenship against its will, for if that were the case, it would cease
to be a sovereign country "free from external control", as the term is
defined by Webster's dictionary.
All that is a given. It doesn't make the child of a foreign national not
part of an official foreign mission born on US soil not an American per
the Constitution.
Nobody can dispute that a president has the power to keep out anyone
seeking entry for any reason. As Justice Thomas wrote in his concurrence
in Trump v. Hawaii, "Section 1182(f) does not set forth any judicially
enforceable limits that constrain the president. Nor could it, since
the president has inherent authority to exclude aliens from the country."
Yet I've been asked what happens if, after we close the points of entry,
a caravan sneaks onto our soil between the points of entry. The answer
is simple, because nothing trumps sovereignty. Therefore, for anyone
who breaks into our country without consent or overstays the terms of
his or her entry, it's as if they are physically not present on our
soil. Constitutional rights on our soil, much less the ultimate prize of
citizenship, only apply if you come here with consent. That is deeply
rooted in social compact theory and settled law. As the court said
long ago in United States v. Ju Toy (1905), "a person who comes to the
country illegally is to be regarded as if he had stopped at the limit
of its jurisdiction, although physically he may be within its boundaries".
An employer at a construction site remains subject to industrial hygiene
laws and has violated the law for unsafe working conditions for each
worker seriously injured, even the illegal aliens he hired. They are
certainly regarded as having been present at the job site.
An illegal alien may sign a contract in the United States and expect its
enforcement.
Already as far back as the 1950s, the Supreme Court had already said,
"For over a half century this Court has held that the detention of an
alien in custody pending determination of his admissibility does not
legally constitute an entry though the alien is physically within the
United States." [Leng May Ma v. Barber (1958)]
He's present, the legality of which is at issue. There's no pretense.
This is why the court said in Turner v. Williams (1904) that an
inadmissible alien does not have 1st Amendment rights because "[h]e
does not become one of the people to whom these things are secured by
our Constitution by an attempt to enter forbidden by law."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/194/279/Williams came to the United States as a labor organizer. He was expelled
as an anarchist. His right "peaceably to assemble" was denied. But lets
say he had time to arrange with a publisher to have his remarks printed
up and distributed. Even if he were truly an anarchist in the UK, the
United States Government couldn't prevent publication. He retains his
free press rights.
In the notorious Zadvydas v. Davis case (2001), the court reiterated that any
alien "paroled into the United States pending admissibility" without having
"gained [a] foothold" has "not effected an entry".
The most important case that sheds light on this debate is Kaplan v. Tod
(1925), when the court denied citizenship and relief from deportation to the
daughter of a naturalized citizen who emigrated from Russia.
Ok. I read through that. The daughter wasn't a natural born citizen
under the Constitution.
. . .
Bottom line, it would not be that radical of an interpretation for the
Court to rule that the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship clause
does not apply to illegals. There seems to be substantial SCOTUS precedent
for that position.
That's anti-textualist. You're demanding judicial activism here.
Re: The Old vs The New