Feedback Box:
Birthright Idiotship
Should babies of "illegal aliens" born here be counted as citizens?
and, while we're at it, does the Constitution answer this:
May we enslave "illegals"?
The answer depends on how we should define "jurisdiction" in the 14th Amendment
according, some say, to what one Senator in 1866 meant by one sentence
CONTENTS:
Part 1: Costs to citizens of ending birthright citizenship
Part 2: The actual case for enslaving illegals by a talk show host
Part 3: Presidential candidates on the record
Part 4: Ending Birthright Citizenship with a law: 14th Amendment, Senator Howard, Congressman King
Part 5: A very thorough analysis from a 1997 Congressional Subcommittee hearing on Immigration
Part 1: COSTS TO CITIZENS OF ENDING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP
Half the Republican presidential candidates want you to have to hire an immigration lawyer when you have a baby,
to prove you are a citizen, if you don't want your baby to be an "illegal", subject to immediate deportation the day of birth.
It doesn't matter if your ancestors sailed on the Mayflower. In fact, it doesn't matter if your ancestors greeted the Mayflower.
If Birthright Citizenship (being a citizen by being born here) ends you will have to
fill out the same applications that citizens do now when they have their babies abroad. The current filing fee: $600, not counting the cost
of the lawyer to fill out the application, whom you will need because the laws governing citizenship by descent
are as complicated as centuries of legalism have been able to make them. Neither does that count the cost of your lawyer to fight for
you in court, if bureaucrats booboo.
Forget IT jobs. Forget Science, Technology, Engineering, or Math college majors. Send your kids to law school to be immigration lawyers,
if you want your kids to get rich after Birthright Citizenship ends. Legislation proposed so far to end it has not provided any simpler
way to verify status, or any way for babies born in the U.S. to remain in the U.S., whose parents had any problems with immigration
bureaucrats. The 4 million babies born in the U.S. every year will all need very good immigration attorneys.
Lots of possibilities have been proposed for what Congress should make you have to prove to get to keep your baby in the U.S.
Both parents can't be checked, if mom doesn't know where dad is, or who he is. Abandoned babies will have to be deported.
But to where?
Basically half our Republican presidential candidates want voters to suffer what they have allowed upon America's immigrants, in fulfillment
of Luke 6:38 which promises/warns that the opportunities we allow others is the measure of opportunities that will be allowed to ourselves.
Give, and it shall be given unto you: ...For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again. Luke 6:38
THE LOGIC OF BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP: THE COSTS SAVED. The logic behind citizenship determined by the location
of birth may be that a child's country of birth is an indication of how
the child will be raised. If a child grows up in the U.S., he will understand
the culture, politics, and language of the U.S, and will not need any special
education to be able to participate in its economy and politics. Only quotas
have turned U.S. Citizenship into a privilege only available to a lucky
few. Before the "first federal restrictive immigration law"
was enacted in 1875 - the Page Act, it was treated as a natural
right for everyone in the world, and the naturalization process was only
a benefit offered so that immigrants who grew up in other cultures, who
did not understand the language or the political process, could become equipped
to fully exercise their voting rights as citizens. Of course noncitizen parents
aren't as fully involved in the U.S. culture as citizen parents, but noncitizen
parents who know enough about our culture, to be here when their children
are born, will know enough to raise their children with the capacity to
exercise their rights as citizens without special training. Obviously this logic does not explain every case, since
there will be many children born here of citizens, who are less equipped
to exercise citizenship rights, than many noncitizens born elsewhere! But
as a general rule our practice (and indeed the world's practice) serves
this logical purpose. Determination of citizenship has to be simplistic,
or the process of proving citizenship would be a nightmare. This reason alone is strong enough, in my view,
to justify our continued support for this centuries-old practice. About 4 million babies are born in the U.S. every year. Currently, in Iowa, a certified birth certificate costs $10. The current filing fee for the
USCIS to check the citizenship of parents, when their babies are born abroad, is $600. That would total $2.4 billion, not counting attorney fees to file
the forms, or to defend you in court when bureaucrats booboo. Senator John McCain spent huge sums fighting off lawsuits saying he was ineligible to
run for president because he was born in Panama to citizen parents. Citizenship by descent rather than being born here is governed by centuries of
complicated laws that frequently change. All this uncertainty and expense is avoided by Birthright Citizenship.
Who could be citizens without it? "Some say that the clause should be changed
so that a baby's parents must be U.S. citizens or lawful permanent
residents (green card holders) at the time of the child's birth. Some
want to allow U.S. citizenship for the U.S.-born children of active-
duty military personnel (even if those parents have no legal status).
Yet others would allow citizenship for the U.S.-born children of
long-term legal residents such as refugees or asylees, or for children
who would be stateless if they were not accorded birthright citizenship. Under some proposed rules, the children of unauthorized
immigrants could still claim U.S. citizenship, but the children of
lawfully present temporary workers could not; under the language
of the proposed state compact, for example, the U.S.-born children
of unauthorized immigrants would be U.S. citizens if their parents
failed to claim any foreign citizenship for them. Others assert that
one parent must be in the United States with the consent of the U.S.
government, so that the children of two unauthorized immigrants
should be excluded from birthright citizenship. Still others argue
that the parents must owe undivided loyalty to the United States;
they would deny citizenship to the children of individuals who hold
any sort of foreign citizenship, including those holding dual U.S.
and foreign citizenship. (Dual citizenship is held by millions of
Americans, so this latter interpretation would potentially affect the
largest group of American-born children, potentially causing the loss
of U.S. citizenship, for example, to the children of Americans who
have one Irish grandparent and therefore hold dual citizenship in
Ireland and the United States.)"(Is Birthright Citizenship
Good for America? by Margaret Stock,
Cato Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1, Winter 2012, p. 147)
If today's Birthright Citizenship laws are changed, there are no other ways our laws would allow babies to stay here legally when
there is any problem documenting their parents. The bills offered so far to end Birthright Citizenship make no such provision. The babies would
be subject to immediate deportation. But to where?
Even when bureaucrats don't booboo, they take years to process simple forms, during which the status of non-citizen parents continually
changes. Because of that the bureaucratic Hell which half our Republican presidential candidates wish upon citizens would still be greater
for legal residents. Many factors can cause a legal resident to drop
"out of status" from time to time during the two or three decades it might take to acquire "lawful permanent residence", which is
not particularly "permanent". These fluctuations
in status are not very predictable, since some of them depend on how many months or years it will take a bureaucrat to process a form. Likewise the
birth date of a baby is not very predictable. Therefore it can be difficult for parents who are here legally to guess whether they will be "legal"
on the day their baby is born. In fact that knowledge might not come until some time after the baby is born.
Cato Institute immigration attorney Margaret Stock
: "Bottom line: if a state birth certificate
is no longer proof that
someone is a citizen, then some government bureaucracy is going to
have to make that decision. Currently it is decided between the DHS, Department of State, and Federal Judges. They disagree all the time. The State
Department will issue a passport, and the DHS will say they don’t think that person is a citizen. Sometimes the DHS and Dept of State say the person is
not a citizen, but the person gets a federal judge to say they are.
"Also, the citizenship status of parents will be a moving target, in that since federal laws will continually change, just like our tax code, regarding
what evidence is necessary or how long parents had to live here, etc. Every American born will have to wait months for judgment. No SSN, no passport
will be issued, before it is decided. No government assistance will be availabl for months. There is going to eventually be a national birth registry to
resolve the conflicting rulings of agencies. And of course that will have errors too. A national ID is inevitable." Part 2: THE ACTUAL CASE FOR ENSLAVING "ILLEGALS" Jan Mickelson, Des Moines radio talk show host, who is the primary radio "gatekeeper" for presidential candidates wooing Republicans in advance of
Iowa's "first in the nation" caucuses, doesn't stop at saying Congress can end Birthright Citizenship without disturbing the Constitution. He
says
we can also enslave undocumented immigrants, and put them to work building The Wall. He made this statement on
August 17, 2015. On August 21 when the Des Moines Register attacked him for it,
he stood by his proposal with a seriousness indicating he was not at all joking or making some kind of "point".
I have written for years that if Mickelson can succeed in getting our nation to redefine "jurisdiction" from the 14th Amendment's "birthright citizenship"
clause, so that not all babies born here will be citizens, that redefinition would also gut the clause that ended slavery by saying everyone under
the "jurisdiction" of our laws must have the "equal protection" of our laws. I am quite sure Mickelson has seen at least one of my articles about that.
(Besides emailing him recent articles, over a decade ago, when I was a guest on his show over a decade ago, he told me about the 1997 immigration
subcommittee hearing that was the source of his theory, and after I had analyzed it I sent this article to him - this is updated but is mostly the same.
I don't have audio of that show but here is audio of a 2007
show.) I
had expected and hoped that fact would sober readers into thinking "well, we sure don't want to return to slavery! So if slavery will be made constitutional by
tampering with the definition of 'jurisdiction', maybe we should let the word continue to mean what it has for centuries." I did not expect that
alerting Mickelson to the possibility of this danger would only excite him.
The U.S. Code enacted by Congress, which recognizes the
citizenship of babies born on U.S. soil, (8 U.S.C. 1401), would be relatively
easy to change. All Congress would have to do would be to pass a law repealing
it. The 14th Amendment, which says the same thing, would be a little more
difficult to change. It would require a Constitutional Amendment. At least
that is the unanimous opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, in a line of cases Plyler v.
Doe, 1982. Even if the Court is wrong, it will be quite a challenge
to stop awarding citizenship to babies born here, as long as the Court unanimously
believes that would violate the 14th Amendment. Steve King
makes
the case that the Supreme Court has not ruled on Birthright Citizenship. To whatever extent that may be, he does not address
Plyler v. Doe, 1982,
which may not address Birthright Citizenship, but it emphatically rules that undocumented immigrants and their children are under the "jurisdiction"
of our laws, which is a stake in the heart of King's legal argument that their babies are not. And Plyler did it by
quoting the same authors
of the Amendment that King quotes.
Is any of this what we want? Which presidential candidates want this? What would be the effect of an end to our 4 centuries of Birthright Citizenship? What else would happen if we even
could end it? And if we indeed can end it, how would we accomplish it? Would we have to change the Constitution, as all courts say and as
virtually all other authorites say? Or can it be done by merely passing a law, as Donald Trump,
Iowa Congressman Steve
King, and Des Moines radio talk
show host Jan Mickelson say? These
are the questions this article will address.
This article won't even go into the economic foot-shooting of driving away workers we desperately need to save our economy, other than to
include this postcard which I have been passing out to presidential candidates:
Part 3: PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ON THE RECORD Should babies of "illegal aliens" born here be
counted as citizens? Trump wrote a thesis on it. He says his
"very good lawyers" can end it without messing with a
Constitutional Amendment.
Walker said
initially said "Yeah, to me it's about enforcing the laws in this country. And I've been very clear, I think you enforce the laws, and I think it's important
to send a message that we're going to enforce the laws, no matter how people come here we're going to enforce the laws." What a strange answer
to "should birthright citizenship be ended?" considering that "birthright citizenship" is the law of the land, enshrined in the 14th Amendment
and in the U.S. Code, in the opinion of every judge who has ruled on it. Fortunately he backtracked
later, saying that enforcing existing laws and "addressing the root problems" of illegal immigration would "end the birthright citizenship problem."
"We have to enforce the laws, keep people from coming here illegally, enforce e-verify to stop the jobs magnet, and by addressing the root problems we
will end the birthright-citizenship problem."
Read more:
Carson said "I know the 14th Amendment has been brought up recently, about anchor babies-and it doesn't make any sense to me that people could
come in here, have a baby and that baby becomes an American citizen. There are many countries in the world where they simply have
recognized that and don't allow that to occur."
Bobby Jindal, who says in his speeches that he was 3 months in his mother's womb
when she came here on a student visa, got in over his head when he tweeted: "We need to end
birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants." One response: "A baby born on US soil is *by definition* not an illegal immigrant. Can you at least
try to be coherent in your malevolence?" 8:11 AM - 20 Aug 2015 - Detailscdogzilla @cdogzilla Another response: "aren't you only able
to run for president as a result of being a birth-right citizen to immigrant parents?..."would you sacrifice your citizenship status to commit to this
opinion?" Teresa Rusin @TeresaRusin Aug 18 Another: "except for in your case ... Just the "Jindal exception" we'll call it"
myopinion @RightonCarl Aug 18 8:59 am "That means you would be deported, Bobby! Hahaha! You're an anchor baby." Marlen S. Bodden
@marlenbodden Aug 18 11:07 AM
Actually the candidates aren't talking about depriving babies of legal immigrants of birthright citizenship; just the babies of
undocumented immigrants. However, their support is a quote from 14th Amendment manager Senator Howard, that is made to say birthright citizenship is not for
"foreigners - aliens", without any distinction between those who came legally vs illegally, since in 1868 it was impossible to come here illegally because there
was no law against coming here. In other words, by the only authority cited by anyone for thinking Birthright Citizenship is not required by our Constitution
for babies of "illegals", it should not be allowed for babies of legal immigrants either, by which legal theory Bobby Jindal was never a citizen
and is ineligible to be governor, much less President.
Rick Santorum said "Other enticements to illegal immigration,
such as birthright citizenship, should be ended. Only children born on American soil
where at least one parent is a citizen or resident aliens is automatically a U.S. citizen. Of developed countries other than the United States,
only Canada has birthright citizenship. And existing laws should simply be enforced." (That is, of course, the U.S. Code and the 14th
Amendment mandating Birthright Citizenship.)The grammar is choppy: he would allow Birthright Citizenship "where at least one parent is a citizen or
resident aliens". Can one parent (singular) be "resident alients" (plural)? A "
resident alien" is anyone who has lived here for a portion of the last 3 years, whether they are documented or not. We may guess that he meant to say
Birthright Citizenship should be only for babies with at least one citizen parent, or where both parents are legal "resident aliens". However,
if that is what Santorum meant, Jindal would not be a citizen under that standard either; since his parents were here on student visas, through which Green Cards are
unavailable; and having a green card is the only other test of whether
you are a "resident alien". (However, Jindal's office
said his mother came as a "permanent resident" - with a "green card" - not as a student, even though she came here to study.)
Rand Paul
actually cosponsored a Constitutional Amendment to end Birthright Citizenship in 2011!
Ted Cruz told host Michael Medved he is still against Birthright Citizenship.
He told Meghan Kelley
that great constitutional scholars are on both sides of whether ending it will take a Constitutional Amendment or just a law, so
we should pursue both approaches. But Cruz refused to answer whether he supported what would be the most direct consequence of his policy. Kelley asked
"If you had a husband and wife who were illegal immigrants, and they had two children here who are American citizens, would you deport all of them?
Would you deport the American citizen children?...What would President Cruz do? American citizen children, of two illegal immigrants,
who are born here, the children, do they get deported under a President Cruz?" Cruz said that is a question for future discussion, but meanwhile we need
to pursue what we can do with bipartisan agreement. (Unfortunately there was confusion in Kelley's question which may have accounted for Cruz not answering.
The context indicates Kelley's scenario was after Birthright Citizenship is repealed, does Cruz really want to deport children who, under current law,
are citizens? In that case Cruz should have been glad to answer, since that is exactly the consequence of his push against Birthright Citizenship. But
Kelley's question did not specify "after BC ends", so it could be taken as asking if now, does he hate children so much that he would even like to deport
those whom our laws classify as citizens? Were that Kelley's question, Cruz would be right to put it off for a future discussion.)
Chris Christie said "all this stuff needs to be reexamined in light of current circumstances.
....While that may have made some sense at some point in our history, right now we need to re-look at all that. And looked at with respect to the rule of law.
And maybe I look at this as a prosecutor...." Ditto what I said about Walker: how can "rule of law" be invoked as an argument that the
Constitution has been wrong? Or, how can it be argued that the Constitution is a threat to the "rule of law"? Or, in a national debate where "rule of law" is
invoked as an argument to enforce existing law no matter how dumb, where fixing it would apparently undermine "rule of law", how does Birthright Citizenship
escape this straitjacket?
Lindsey Graham has long opposed Birthright Citizenship. "I've always been for reforming that. As part of a process, I would like to take that
incentive off the table to come here illegally....I'm for immigration reform. I'm for the 11 million. Having non-criminals having a chance to live
here all their lives and becoming citizens. I want to break the inducements that lead to illegal immigration - I just think the whole concept is
inconsistent with a rational immigration system because it entices people."
That's nine of the 17 Republican presidential candidates who are against it!
That leaves Bush, Rubio, Kasich, Fiorina, Perry, Huckabee, Gilmore, and Pataki. Of these 8, x didn't say it was a bad idea but only that it was
so hard that we should prioritize easier things: Kasich, Fiorina, and Perry.
Kasich: In 2010 he supported
repeal but now says "we have bigger fish to fry frankly in my opinion, than that issue and that's getting the wall
done; making sure that if people violated the law who are here that they are punished for it. But if you've been law-abiding, we're gonna welcome
you to a path of legalization. You will pay a fine, there will be a penalty, it'll take time but I think that's the right way to go."
Fiorina: "It would take passing a constitutional amendment to get that changed. It's part of our 14th Amendment. So honestly, I think we should put
all of our energies, all of our political will into finally getting the border secured and fixing the legal immigration."
Perry: "I'll let the legal beagles and the lawyers have the conversation about what happens if you did away with the 14th Amendment but, I mean,
I have to live with reality and reality is that it takes, at best, years, probably decades, to deal with that 14th Amendment issue - I don't have
that much time, I don't think America has that much time, I think we need to be securing the borders and get the borders secure the 14th amendment
things seems inconsequential."
Bush appealed to respect for constitutional rights. Pataki appealed to common decency towards children. Gilmore made the strongest statement, declaring
the threat to freedom for all of us from such talk. Rubio and Huckabee simply said they were against it.
Bush: "That's a constitutional right. Mr. Trump can
say he's for this because people are frustrated that it's abused. We ought to fix the
problem rather than take away rights that are constitutionally endowed."
Rubio:
"I'm open to doing things that prevent people who deliberately come to the U.S. for purposes of taking advantage of the 14th Amendment, but I'm not in
favor of repealing it." Some of Trump's ideas "have merit, but the majority of it is really not a workable plan that could ever pass Congress."
Huckabee: "(the Supreme Court had decided "in
three different centuries" that birth in the United States assured one U.S. citizenship. Asked specifically whether he would favor repealing parts of the
14th Amendment, Huckabee replied: "I don't think that's even possible." "Would you favor it?" pressed NPR's host Tom Ashbrook. "No," said Huckabee. "Let me
tell you what I would favor. I would favor having controlled borders... but that's where the federal government has miserably and hopelessly failed us."
Gilmore: (while immigration
is a) "national security issue that requires tough action," repealing the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be "a dangerous step that undermines
American liberty....every person born in this country has a right to citizenship" and repealing the 14th Amendment would "set our nation back....
Trump, Paul, Walker, others who support ending birthright citizenship are wrong."
Pataki: "I don't support
amending the Constitution to kick out kids who were born here."
(My thanks to Politico for most of these
links.)
Part 4: ENDING BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP WITH A LAW: 14TH AMENDMENT, SENATOR HOWARD, CONGRESSMAN KING Trump-King-Mickelson think Birthright Citizenship can be ended without stripping it from the Constitution. That hope rests on their spin on a quote
from one of the Senators who helped write the 14th Amendment: Senator Jacob Howard. Here is the Birthright Citizenship section of the 14th Amendment:
Senator Howard explained, in 1866:
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits
of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners (aliens) who belong to the families of ambassadors or
foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. - Senator Jacob Howard, 1866
CONGRESSMAN KING'S REASONING. The families of ambassadors are not under the jurisdiction of our laws. If an ambassador or his family member commits a crime, our courts
can't prosecute them; the most we do is deport them. Although this fact was part of the discussion in 1866, Congressman King doesn't explain this in his
article about
how to end Birthright Citizenship just by passing a law. King quotes Howard, but is so far from attributing Howard's exception for families of
ambassadors to their exemption from the jurisdiction of our laws, that King writes,
"By its own terms, the language in the amendment precludes the notion of universal automatic birthright citizenship. It would have been quite
simple for the language to exclude 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' to accomplish the goal of bestowing citizenship on any child born in the
United States no matter the status of their parents. The 14th Amendment's addition of a jurisdictional requirement to the territorial requirement,
however, denies any interpretation that birth alone grants citizenship." - Congressman Steve King
King writes as if he had never heard of ambassador family exemptions, or as if it never occurred to him that those exemptions were sufficient,
all by themselves, to explain the need to list both "born or naturalized" and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as requirements for citizenship. King writes
as if there must be some further explanation, which he then proceeds to invent. What he invents is a conveniently vague criteria: one cannot be a citizen,
though born here, if one's parents have "divided political loyalties". What does that mean? or rather, what is the limit to what that might mean? Does it mean
if someone is otherwise a patriotic, law abiding citizen, but votes Democrat? Or could it mean if mom votes Democrat and dad votes Republican? (Noncitizens
can't vote, but King figures they do anyway.) Here King resumes from the preceding quote:
"Counter to this logic, proponents of universal automatic birthright citizenship claim that those born in the United States necessarily are subject
to the jurisdiction of the country. However, this renders the language 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' superfluous. Why would the drafters of
the 14th Amendment include this qualifier at all if it was met simply by virtue of being born in the United States? [Uh, maybe to make an
exception for ambassadors' families?] The legislative history outlined
below will make clear that the addition of 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' was designed specifically to make sure the people granted citizenship
did not have divided political loyalties."- Congressman Steve King
There is another category of people who lived in 1866 and were born within U.S. borders and yet were exempt from the jurisdiction of U.S. laws: "Indians",
we called them until about 1970 or so; "Native Americans", for you young 'ins born after that. Most of them had their own independent nations with their own
separate laws. U.S. police couldn't come into Indian territory and arrest an Indian for any reason. King talks about them later, but does not explain that the
reason they were not counted as under U.S. "jurisdiction" is that they were exempt from U.S. laws. Instead of pointing out that obvious, simple difference, he
says the difference is that the Indians "maintained their tribal relations", whatever that means. Since he doesn't say what he thinks that means, we have license
to guess he means that the Indians visited home, or went to dances, or sent liquor home. By which precedent King would deprive babies born here of
citizenship if their parents weren't "assimilated" enough, whatever that might mean.
"Senator Howard also made clear that simply being born in the U.S. was not enough to be a citizen when he opposed an
amendment to specifically exclude Native Americans from the Citizenship Clause. He said, 'Indians born within the limits of the United States and
who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.' Notice the
reasoning deployed, Native Americans maintain their tribal relations so they are not 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' Senator Edgar Cowan said,
'It is perfectly clear that the mere fact that a man is born in the country has not heretofore entitled him to the right to exercise political power.'"
The 1866 quotes King cites indeed make "maintain their tribal relations" a litmus test of "jurisdiction", but King doesn't tell us about
Howard's following sentence which amplifies what he means by the phrase. Howard
says "They [Indians] are regarded, and always have been
in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations." That is the kind of "relations" that Indians "maintained" which was relevant to
whether Indians were under the "jurisdiction" of U.S. laws. King also quotes 1866 Congressman as
talking about "complete jurisdiction", and "not owing allegience to anybody else", and "not subject to some foreign power". While any foreigner lives on
U.S. soil, he is completely subject to U.S. law, and is not liable to the laws of his homeland for anything he does . He doesn't even have to pay taxes to
his home land for earnings here; U.S. citizens abroad have to pay taxes on their earnings there, to the U.S., but we may be the only nation that does that.
There is a difference between "owing allegiance" and "having allegiance" which escapes King. It is like the obedience to our laws "owed"
by everyone, but not given by criminals. Criminals don't escape the jurisdiction of our laws over them by disobeying them! Yet King
quotes Trumball saying "not owing allegiance to anybody else [to any other nation]"
is what he means by "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"; and upon that basis King concludes that "those granted citizenship [must] have complete
allegiance to the United States." Obviously, to King, this would exclude "illegals", since "Logic dictates that illegal immigrants in defiance of the jurisdiction
of the United States and citizens of foreign powers are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as required by the 14th Amendment."
Apparently the first attempt to end Birthright Citizenship by just passing a law was in a 1985 book:
"Yale scholars Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith (1985) published Citizenship without Consent, a book in which they argued that America should move away from
its historic birthright citizenship rule. Schuck and Smith said that a rule of "citizenship by consent" - the opposite of a rule that confers citizenship
automatically on children born within American territory - was a more appropriate rule for the modern American polity. Although they acknowledged that
the American birthright citizenship rule was familiar, easy to apply, and more inclusive than a consensual rule, they argued that it was "anomalous as
a key constitutive element of a liberal political system" because an individual's citizenship was determined by the location of his or her birth, and
not by the consent of the individual and the society in which he or she sought citizenship (Schuck and Smith 1985: 90). They further argued that
the Fourteenth Amendment phrase 'subject to the jurisdiction' could be reinterpreted by congressional statute or by the U.S. Supreme Court to adopt
the consent theory and thereby exclude the children of unauthorized immigrants from U.S. citizenship. The arguments raised by Schuck and Smith were
later seized upon by others, and have today become a centerpiece in current immigration debates. Most recently, Republican presidential candidates
Tim Pawlenty and Herman Cain attempted to distinguish themselves from other candidates for their party's presidential nomination by expressing support
for a change in the birthright citizenship rule. They are not alone in their assessment that proposals to change the Citizenship Clause are worthy of
support. Such arguments have now become commonplace in some conservative circles." (Is Birthright Citizenship
Good for America? by Margaret Stock,
Cato Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1, Winter 2012, p. 141)
Part 5: A VERY THOROUGH ANALYSIS FROM A 1997 CONGRESSIONAL IMMIGRATION SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING Here again is that single sentence of Senator Howard in 1866:
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits
of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners (aliens) who belong to the families of ambassadors or
foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. - Senator Jacob Howard, 1866
Trump-King-Mickelson say Howard's statement about what the 14th Amendment means trumps what the 14th Amendment says, because
his statement expresses the "original intent" of the Amendment, by which we ought always to interpret the Constitution. But how do you suppose
they get out of what Howard said the opposite of what he wrote? Again, here is the clause from the 14th Amendment that he wrote:
How do they read "foreigners (aliens)
who belong to the families of ambassadors" to mean "illegal immigrants" who do not, so far as I know, belong to the families of ambassadors?
It helps their reading to use a little different punctuation. They write "foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors". Their logic gets
a little spotty at this point, but I get the impression that with this punctuation they think Howard is describing three separate categories of people
who are not under U.S. jurisdiction: (1) foreigners, (2) aliens, and (3) who belong to the families of ambassadors. Than they take that word "aliens" and put the
word "illegal" in front of it. They only add that "illegal" to help poor Senator Howard out, who had never heard of an "illegal alien", since it would be another
14 years before the first U.S. law made it "illegal" for anyone to come here. (The Chinese Exclusion Act, which made any Chinese immigration at all illegal
for the next 60 years.)
It is still quite a stretch, since (1) "foreigners" and "aliens" do not describe two separate categories but share the same definition; (2)
"who belong to the families of ambassadors" needs a noun to modify or it doesn't identify anyone; and (3) the only noun available for it to modify is "Foreigners",
or in other words, "aliens". Which leaves only one possible category of people that Howard could possibly have meant, not three. And that group of people are
families of ambassadors: no one else.
Now perhaps you are wondering why Trump-King-Mickelson changed the punctuation? Well, actually they didn't. I did. I cheated. The punctuation they cite
is the way it is printed in the Congressional record.
So why did I change it? To make it a little more clear. Confusing punctuation or grammar is the playground of revisionists, in the same way that obscure
Bible verses are the playground of cults. (When you build some weird theology on a verse that most struggle to explain, it is harder for others to prove
you are wrong.) But as I have shown, not even the punctuation
of the Congressional Record can justify the interpretation of Trump-King-Mickelson. But a little confusion makes it possible to read what isn't there
if you are determined enough to read it, just as blurring an image makes it easier to imagine you see what isn't there.
Keep in mind that there was no punctuation in the original. It was a transcript. It was all taken down in shorthand. Transcribers don't go up to Congressmen
and ask them, "Excuse me, I didn't hear whether you put a comma there or a parenthesis?" We would have no confusion
about this today if only transcribers in 1866 had known about Victor Borge's "Phonetic Punctuation".
Bible students know it's the same with New Testament Greek. And not
only did Greek then have no punctuation at all, they didn't even put a space between words! And it was all caps! These are conveniences inserted by translators
which it pays to remember sometimes when a translator's guess proves confusing.
Here is a simple description of how Birthright Citizenship works today according to another Congressman in 1866. This sounds like pretty much the
opposite of Howard's statement as spun by Trump-King-Mickelson, though without that spin this sounds like it could have been said by Howard himself: "Every person born within
the United States,
its Territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all
the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."
That's a quote from Representative Wilson, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee. I don't think Trump-King-Mickelson quote it.
Wilson was quoting William Rawle, whose constitutional law treatise was one of the most widely
respected authorities of the time. Wilson was explaining part of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which, he said, wasn't anything new but was
"merely declaratory of what the law now is." Nor was the 14th Amendment intended to contradict what the Civil Rights Act said about Birthright Citizenship,
since the two were passed by the same Congress, and there was an expressed intent to establish the principles of the Civil Rights Act
into the Constitution itself:
Senator Conness: "The proposition
before us ... relates ... to the children
begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare
that they shall be citizens. We have
declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision
in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so." Notice Wilson uses the phrase "Natural Born Citizen". That is the same phrase the Constitution uses to define who is eligible to run for President.
Not only is everyone born here a citizen, no matter who his parents were or what they did, but he is eligible to become president.
How tragically wrong Senator Howard was when he concluded his argument for his Birthright Citizenship clause in the the 14th Amendment by promising:
It settles the great
question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great
desideratum [thing desired] in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country. - Senator Jacob Howard, 1866
Obviously Senator Howard had never met Trump-King-Mickelson.
Pam
Slater, on the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, told a 1997 Congressional
hearing, "we in San Diego County have been exposed, by our local news
media, to scenes of expectant mothers in labor circling hospital parking
lots in their cars, waiting until the last possible minute to enter the
hospital. The child is delivered soon after the mother is admitted, denying
authorities the chance to deport the mother." The mother then receives
free hospital care, and the baby recieves a birth certificate as a U.S.
Citizen, and a Social Security number qualifying him for welfare." "No!" shout many Americans. "That is a loophole
we need to close! Those babies have no right to be citizens! They have no
right to receive the welfare for which citizenship makes them eligible!
They are here illegally and should be deported!" But the same laws, which "illegals" are accused
of breaking, say their babies are U.S. Citizens, and have said it
for a lot longer than any Undocumented Lawyer has ever said their being here is "illegal".
Our laws say they should not be deported, and they are eligible
for basic welfare such as milk and food stamps. Like it or not, that's the
law of the land. Is our reverence for the Rule of Law suspect, when we treat
as sacred the laws which say unauthorized immigrants are here illegally,
but undermine as straight from Hell the laws which say their babies born here
are U.S. Citizens? On June 25, 1997, that was the issue before the hearing
of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary
in the House of Representatives. HR 7 was debated, which would have stripped
babies born to unauthorized immigrants of any right to U.S. citizenship.
One of the unanswered questions at the hearing was what
would then be done with them, since they would mostly be stateless, since it is
questionable whether any other nation would receive them as citizens either?
One Congressman proposed arbitrarily assigning to the baby citizenship of
another country, which would solve the problem of what to enter on the USCIS
form, but not the problem that, what if the country assigned to receive
them as citizens doesn't want to give them the rights of citizenship?
Another unanswered question: if the babies are not U.S. Citizens, and therefore
should be deported, to what country would we deport them? And how would we sneak them into a country that refuses them?
Should we go to war against countries that refuse them, or that shoot down our airplanes which attempt to airdrop deportees into their forests? Congresswoman Lofgren expressed some of these concerns: "One result [of not granting citizenship to babies
born here to unauthorized immigrants] would be that many American-born,
would-be citizens, would instead be rendered ''stateless,'' citizens of
no country. Many countries do not automatically ascribe citizenship based
on parental citizenship. For instance, the child of
an American born overseas can obtain derivative citizenship through its
parents, but only if she returns to claim it within a set period of time. Therefore,
a child born here to foreign parents could very conceivably be without a
country, as would all of his or her descendants if he or she did not marry
a citizen. These people would have
nowhere else to go, and would be forced to remain here, hoping to avoid
detection by the government. With policies such as these we could be creating
perpetual generations of stateless, undocumented aliens. I do not see how
this constructively addresses the illegal immigration problem." "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." -- from the 14th
Amendment to the Constitution, passed by Congress June 13, 1866, ratified
July 9, 1868. Upon our definition of the word "jurisdiction"
hangs the fate of millions of babies born here to unauthorized immigrants.
The "Send 'em South" folks believe "jurisdiction" means
"loyalty", and since "illegals" prove their "disloyalty"
by violating our laws by coming here, they are not under U.S. "jurisdiction",
so therefore their babies born here are not U.S. citizens. What the "Send 'em South" folks will not tell
you is that their redefinition of "jurisdiction" also removes from
unauthorized immigrants the "equal protection of the laws", which the 14th Amendment says must be given to everyone under the
"jurisdiction" of our laws, which
is the only thing in the Constitution keeping us from enslaving them! If "jurisdiction" really means
"loyalty", then there is
nothing in the Constitution to keep us
from solving the "problem" of "illegal aliens" by simply
turning them into slaves! Why don't we just do that, and get some use out
of them? As Mickelson says, we can make them build our Wall. The 13th Amendment outlaws slavery for
innocent people, but allows it as "punishment for crime", and
"illegal aliens" are guilty of a crime! Here
is the 13th Amendment, passed by Congress January 31, 1865, and ratified
December 6, 1865, one year after the Civil War ended: "Neither slavery
nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States,
or any place subject to their jurisdiction." In fact, the huge loophole the South found in the 13th Amendment was to simply enact laws which no one could obey, which applied
only to Blacks, making them all "criminals", which made enslaving them "constitutitional" again! The 14th Amendment was enacted to close that
loophole by giving everyone under our laws the equal protection of our laws.
The 14th Amendment prohibits states from
depriving "persons" of liberty, but only "without due process
of law". As long as an "illegal alien"
has been properly convicted in a court of law of violating our laws by being
here, we may deprive him of his liberty. The 14th Amendment guarantees "equal
protection of the laws", but only to those under U.S. "jurisdiction".
The 14th Amendment doesn't let any state "deny
to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws",
but if "jurisdiction" means "loyalty", and if "illegal
aliens" prove their disloyalty by coming here against our laws, then
they are not under U.S. "jurisdiction" and the Constitution does
not give them "equal protection of our laws. Therefore, absolutely nothing in the Constitution prohibits
us from enslaving "illegal aliens" and putting them to good use.
That is, if "jurisdiction" means "loyalty". However if Americans allow "jurisdiction" to mean the same thing it has for centuries, then Birthright Citizenship opponents aren't the only ones
due for a lecture on their violation of "Rule of Law". Just about everyone else is, too. Because just about everyone else declines to question the
quotas which deprive immigrants in general of "equal protection of the laws". There is nothing about our immigration laws that
gives immigrants under our laws "equal protection" with the citizens under our laws, or even with each other. When two immigrants make the exact same application and have
the exact same qualifications, but one is not allowed to come because of a quota, that is not the "equal protection" which our Constitution requires.
We don't call it "freedom of religion" if quotas allow only 10% of citizens to attend the church of their choice. We still called it "slavery" when
10% of Blacks in the South were lucky enough to become free. We should not call it "liberty" when our quotas allow 10% of immigrants to come legally, and 90% are
classified as "illegals" without regard to any of their qualifications or actions. (See a
legal brief making these arguments.)
But no one on either side of the 1997 Congressional
Hearing debate made the connection between the effect of our defintion of
"jurisdiction" on citizenship for babies born here to unauthorized
immigrants, and the effect on "equal protection of the laws" for
their parents. No one but me, that I know of, brought that up before August 17, 2015, when Jan Mickelson came out in favor of slavery.
So the remainder of this article, reporting on the 1997 hearing, will report only on the arguments
surrounding how to define "jurisdiction" in the context of
citizenship for babies. "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." Does that sound to you like babies born here to "illegal
aliens" (unauthorized immigrants) are citizens, or not? Are those babies
"subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.? The Supreme Court has consistently said they are. In fact,
the Court says not only the babies, but the unauthorized immigrants themselves,
are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. That point was not
even controversial within the Court in 1982; all 9 justices unanimously
agreed that is a fact. (Plyler v. Doe). "Jurisdiction" Defined. For
those of us who don't work the word "jurisdiction" into a sentence
every day, first we will see what dictionaries say about the word, and then
we will see how the "Ship 'em South" movement defines it. Remember
that the purpose of all this is to understand whether unauthorized immigrants
are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Here's what the dictionary says about it: "sphere
of authority, or territorial range of authority". "Authority"
means "the power or right to enforce obedience to commands." To say the U.S. has jurisdiction over all within its borders
is to say U.S. law enforcement can arrest anyone on U.S. soil for violating
U.S. laws. To say parents have jurisdiction over their children is to say
that parents can punish their children when they disobey. From Black's Law Dictionary (4th Edition, 1968): "It
is the authority by which courts...decide cases." It is "the legal
right by which judges exercise their authority." "It is the authority,
capacity, power or right to act." "It is the power conferred by
the Constitution or by law." "'Jurisdiction of the person' is
power to subject parties in a particular case to decisions and rulings made
in such case." Examples of jurisdiction (As
the word is traditionally defined). We don't have jurisdiction over our
neighbors' children, so long as they remain in their own homes. But when
they come into our homes, we have limited jurisdiction to punish them for
violating our rules. We can't punish them as freely as we punish our own
children, but we can punish them at least enough to restrain them from harming
us. However, governments are unrestrained in punishing citizens of other
countries who are on our own soil. The only difference is that when our
government punishes foreign criminals, deportation may become part of the
punishment. When foreigners wind up in our jails, or Americans wind up in
foreign jails, especially prominent or innocent individuals sometimes stir
international attention and their fate is negotiated by governments. But
that is the exception. You do not want to wind up in a foreign jail. Cities, through their local police, have jurisdiction to
punish violations of city laws within their city limits. States have jurisdiction
to punish violations of state laws that occur within the state; but they
have no jurisdiction to enforce city ordinances. However, county courts
have jurisdiction over violations of both city and state laws. Federal courts
have no jurisdiction over city and state laws. Federal marshals have jurisdiction
to arrest people for violations of federal laws, but no jurisdiction to
arrest anyone for local or state law violations. Pastors have jurisdiction
to manage conflicts within their churches, but not within other churches.
Employers have jurisdiction to lay down rules for their employees, but when
an employee quits, the employer loses jurisdiction over him. Examples of people in the U.S. who are exempt from U.S.
jurisdiction. A small number of foreigners are
exempt from our laws while they are here. Ambassadors from other countries
have "immunity" from most laws, and even if they commit felonies,
they will not go to jail but only be deported. Ambassadors to the United
Nations in New York are notorious about, for example, parking anywhere they
like, not minding overtime parking tickets. (In New York parking tickets
are big business.) Because ambassadors from other countries, and their families,
are not subject to the jurisdiction, or authority of the U.S., their babies
born here are not citizens, according to the 14th Amendment. The American Council for Immigration Reform explained,
at the 1997 hearing, that "the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
(23 UST 3229) empowers the President to declare a diplomat persona non grata
(Article 9). Article 31 of that treaty, while establishing the diplomat's
'immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State', does not
exempt the diplomat from that state's 'civil and administrative jurisdiction'
in the case of private ownership of real property, or private actions as
an 'executor, administrator, heir or legatee,' or in a 'professional or
commercial activity.' That's a lot of 'jurisdiction thereof' but surely
not the kind the framers of the 14th were thinking of." Congresswoman Lofgren explained it this way at the 1997
hearing: "...if you are here without
legal documentation and you steal something, you're subject to the jurisdiction
of the laws of the United States for purposes of criminal prosecution. If
you're a diplomat and you steal something, you are not." She acknowledges, next, the wide gap between her definition
of "jurisdiction" and that of Congressman Bilbray: "And the
cases, I think, are very clear that that is the distinction made in the
14th amendment. I know Mr. Bilbray disagrees, but I think the cases are
abundantly clear." Native Americans have "immunity"
from many of our laws, while they remain on their own land -- their reservations.
A notorious example of their exemption from our laws is their freedom to
build gambling casinos on their reservations without waiting for approval
from the legislature of the state they are in. Residents of reservations
likewise do not pay the taxes the rest of us do, unless they work off their
reservations. Thus the 1866 Civil Rights Act which anticipated the 1868
14th Amendment added an exception for "all Indians not taxed".
Native American babies were not citizens of the U.S. Senator Doolittle tried to amend the 14th Amendment with the same phrase: "excluding Indians not taxed." But Senator Howard
objected to the redundancy, saying,
"I hope that amendment to the amendment will not be adopted. Indians born with the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal
relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are regarded, and always have been
in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations."
(In 1868, Indian lands really were independent nations,
more so than now. They were able to defend themselves with their armies,
exclusively administer their own justice within their territories, and negotiate
formal treaties with the U.S. As this gradually changed, Congress, in 1924,
gave the rights of U.S. citizenship to all their babies, but not because
anyone thought the 14th Amendment required it.) Controversy remains today over what this says about babies
of unauthorized immigrants. Congressman
King says today:
"in 1884, the Supreme Court addressed a claim of citizenship
in Elk v. Wilkins. The Court held that John Elk did not meet the jurisdiction requirement of the 14th Amendment because he was a member
of an Indian tribe at birth. The Court said that even though Elk was born in the U.S. he did not meet the 'subject to the jurisdiction
thereof' requirement because that required that he 'not merely be subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the
United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction.'"
King minimizes the fact that as a tribe member in Indian territory, his parents were not subject to U.S. political jurisdiction hardly at all, if at all.
In 1997 the American Council for Immigration Reform, arguing against Birthright Citizenship, talked about the same case. It
told the 1997 hearing, "In a precedent, powerfully argued and never
overturned, the Court ruled that" Elk, born on Indian land but who
later lived with non-Indians, and who now wanted to vote, was not automatically
a U.S. Citizen even though he was born on land which later turned into the
state of Nebraska. He still had to go through the naturalization process
and meet its requirements. "Naturalization, the Court further asserted,
meant not only formal renunciation of his old allegiance but 'acceptance
by the United States of that renunciation....' In effect they ruled that
the citizenship of a child at birth depended on the allegiances of the parents.
Though Elk's parents had far greater claims than any illegal alien (try
deporting an American Indian), their allegiance to their tribe meant that
their child was not born a U.S. citizen." The theory that "the citizenship of a child at birth depended on the...acceptance by the United States of" some manner of "renunciation" that
occurred at birth is ominously like this summary of the reasoning of the infamous Dred Scott decision in which the Supreme Court established slavery "forever":
"In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court held that mere birth on U.S. soil was not enough to confer U.S. citizenship; one also had to show that
the political community had consented to one's presence." (Is Birthright Citizenship
Good for America? by Margaret Stock,
Cato Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1, Winter 2012, p. 141)
Notice how this interpretation makes much of "the
allegiences of the parents", which the Court said nothing about,
as this interpretation admits by saying "in effect they ruled".
This is part of a theory that "jurisdiction" is, not authority
over you, but your "loyalty" to authority! (More about that later.) But
to the Court, and in the traditional view of the relationship of "allegience"
and "jurisdiction", allegience in your heart is not something
which any government has the capacity or business to judge. On the contrary,
when the Court says "allegience is owed", it means if you take
treasonous actions towards the authority over the land upon which you live,
that authority may punish you. What kind of theory makes a child a citizen or a noncitizen
based on the political preferences of his parents?! The Supreme Court case that ruled on Elk's right to vote
was Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884). The American Council for Immigration
Reform's interpretation of the case was countered at the 1997 hearing by
Dawn E. Johnson, acting assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel,
U.S. Department of Justice: Indians born within the territorial limits
of the United States, members of, and owing immediate allegiance to, one
of the Indian tribes (an alien, though dependent, power), although in
a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the
United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' within the meaning
of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of
subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government,
or the children born within the United States, of ambassadors or other public
ministers of foreign nations." She attacked the view that "jurisdiction" means,
not the power which an authority has over you, but your loyalty to the authority: "Wilkins cannot be interpreted
to mean that children born in the United States of aliens are not 'subject
to the jurisdiction' of the United States because their parents may owe
some allegiance to their own country of birth. Indeed, were the contrary
to be true, [if partial allegience to another country prevented a U.S. citizen
from being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.], dual nationality would
be prohibited. Legal and illegal aliens alike simply enjoy no jurisdictional
immunities from any laws of the United States as long as they are not
part of the diplomatic personnel of a foreign country, and neither do their
children. The denial of citizenship to tribal Indians was later corrected
by statute." Foreigners who bear children on a foreign ship in a U.S. harbor aren't citizens, either, U.S. laws have no authority
on board a foreign ship, even if the ship is docked at a U.S. port. They
might as well be born in a foreign country. Alien enemies who invade our
land and, while occupying our land, have babies, would not receive citizenship
for their babies according to the 14th Amendment, because neither they nor
their babies are subject to the jurisdiction of our laws! Of course this
hasn't happened yet, but theoretically, if it did, we wouldn't want the
children raised by our invaders voting for our leaders! When you hear people describe unauthorized immigrants as
"invaders", part of their reason for this terminology is to justify
their interpretation of the 14th Amendment as not regarding babies born
here to unauthorized immigrants as "subject to the jurisdiction"
of the U.S.! However, unarmed, unorganized unauthorized immigrants are a
whole lot more vulnerable to arrest and punishment for violating our laws,
than armed, organized invading armies would be! These are the same four exceptions to automatic citizenship
by birth listed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). The Court
did not describe any other exceptions, than these four (although "Send
'em South" folks offer an argument for why the Court might have added
a fifth category for "illegal aliens", had that issue been squarely
before the court). The four exceptions make sense, don't they? Not only
have these exceptions been the law of the U.S. and England for the past
500 years, (well, for almost 400 years they have affected Native Americans), but aren't they
common sense? Do you think the reasons, which exempt these groups,
apply to unauthorized immigrants? Do you think unauthorized immigrants are
not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.? If they aren't subject to the
jurisdiction of the U.S., how is it that the USCIS can arrest and deport
them? But that's if you think "jurisdiction" means the right or
power to enforce obedience to commands. But if you think "jurisdiction"
means one's loyalty to authority, and you argue that unauthorized immigrants
must not have very much loyal to U.S. laws since they violate U.S. laws
by coming here, then tell me what country does have this kind of
"jurisdiction" over them? Can you say they are "loyal"
to Mexico, when they risk all to come live in the U.S., leaving their homeland
behind? Surely no one can question their loyalty to all the hope and equal
opportunity that America represents, except for its laws that give them
no access to that "equal opportunity" because of an arbitrary
quota figure that lets only a tiny fraction of applicants in. Surely no
one can question that their sacrificial determination to grab a share of
the American Dream exceeds that of most U.S. citizens. Dawn Johnsen, assistant attorney general, DOJ, put it in
perspective this way: JURISDICTION. "Most important for our purposes today is the phrase
'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. Because H.R. 7 seeks to deny citizenship
to certain children born in the United States by defining this jurisdictional
phrase to exclude those born to parents who are not themselves citizens
or permanent resident aliens, such a bill would be flatly unconstitutional. Congressman Bilbray, of course,
is right when he says that we must interpret all words in the Constitution
to have meaning. So the question is,
what is the meaning of that phrase ''subject to the jurisdiction thereof?'' "We know the answer to that question from the legislative
history of the 14th amendment and from governing Supreme Court case law.
The 14th amendment's use of 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' does nothing
more than incorporate four well-defined exceptions to the rule of American
birthright citizenship. Three of those exceptions are as old as the common
law rule itself. By common law, children born to foreign diplomats, on foreign
ships, and to any occupying forces were consistently deemed not fully subject
to the sovereign and, therefore, not citizens by birth. "The final exception captured by this phrase, in some
sense related to the others, was that of children born to American Indians
who were recognized as owing direct allegiance to the tribes of which they
were members. Individuals in these four categories were deemed to have varying
claims of exemption from the rules governing the American polity and, therefore,
were excluded from the rule of automatic citizenship. "Aliens, in contrast, whether temporary
or permanent, legal or illegal, do not enjoy any comparable claim of not
being subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States. To the contrary,
as the Supreme Court said in Wong Kim Ark, and I quote: ''It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to
the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides ... [and]
owes obedience to the laws of that government and may be punished for treason,
or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.'' As Wong
Kim Ark further explains, the alien's, ''allegiance to the United States
is direct and immediate and, although ... continuing only so long as he
remains with in our territory, is yet ... strong enough to make a natural
subject, for if he has issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject.''
Congressman King
thinks
this precedent is irrelevant to Birthright Citizenship! He reasons,
"Proponents of birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants point to the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case. However, that case dealt with a
man that was born to parents that were legally and permanently domiciled in the United States at the time of his birth. In that case,
there was more expansive language used on birthright citizenship, but it was neither the holding of the case nor does it operate as
binding precedent on the Court or as the law of the land."
(The "holding of the case" is the short list of conclusions upon which the ruling was based, found at the beginning of a ruling.) I don't suppose
much of any case before 1900 would be treated as "binding precedent" by today's court! But when the Court says something can "hardly be denied", which King
denies because its acknowledgment destroys his entire argument, that certainly isn't a case in King's favor! What Wong Kim Ark said "can hardly be denied - that an
alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides..." was emphatically affirmed in 1982 by
Plyler v. Doe, a case King does not mention.
King "argues from silence" that because a 2004 case was silent about Birthright Citizenship where it would have certainly been interesting to
say something about it, that therefore the Supreme Court no longer supports Birthright Citizenship. King writes,
"While some have discussed birthright citizenship as if it is settled law that any person born in the U.S. is a citizen, the Supreme Court has
never ruled as such. In the famous 2004 Supreme Court case, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Taliban fighter Yaser Esam Hamdi was discovered to have been born
in the United States to parents that were subjects of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Even though he was born in the United States, the Court never
called him a citizen and the Court made no declaration in that case that anyone born on American soil was automatically a citizen."
Cato Institute attorney Margaret Stock has a different spin on the case: "...legal scholar John Eastman (2008) argued in an amicus
brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court that a change in the Court's
interpretation of the Citizenship Clause could retroactively take away
the U.S. citizenship of Yaser Hamdi, a U.S.-born citizen who was
captured fighting against American forces on the battlefield in
Afghanistan. He argued that the Court could punish Hamdi by reinterpreting the Citizenship Clause to take away Hamdi's birthright
citizenship, because Hamdi was born in the United States to parents
who held temporary work visas at the time of his birth (Eastman
2008: 957-58). Eastman's proposed new interpretation, however,
would have taken away not only the U.S. citizenship of Yaser Hamdi,
but also the citizenship of millions of other Americans born under
similar circumstances (including some of the U.S. military personnel
who captured Hamdi). Unsurprisingly, the U.S. Supreme Court
ignored Eastman's invitation. (Is Birthright Citizenship
Good for America? by Margaret Stock,
Cato Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1, Winter 2012, p. 144) Stock mentioned another modern case not addressed by King: "in
Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Rios-Pineda (1985), the Court stated that a child born on U.S. soil to
an unauthorized immigrant parent is a U.S. citizen from birth." (P. 143)
Getting back to Dawn Johnson's analysis of Wong Kim Ark, she concluded in 1997,
"Thus, in determining whether one
is ''subject to the jurisdiction'' of the United States for purposes of
the 14th amendment, the relevant question is whether that person owes
obedience to the United States, not, as some have suggested, whether the
person or his or her parents in fact obeyed or violated U.S. law.
"The Supreme Court's exhaustive analysis
in Wong Kim Ark makes clear that the only exceptions to the constitutional
rule of birthright citizenship are the three common law exceptions and,
the ''single additional exception,'' of children of members of Indian tribes.
The 14th amendment guarantees U.S. citizenship to all other children born
in the United States." The Controversy: Senator Howard's Ambiguous Grammar. Against all this weight of centuries of tradition, and
consistent Supreme Court precedent from 1898 through the present, come opponents
who turn to the statements of one of the authors of the 14th Amendment made
during debate. They point out that if an author of the Amendment interpreted
it differently than the Supreme Court, we should justly become suspicious
of Supreme Court precedent, and look more closely at the Amendment for the
possibility of another interpretation. Those who discuss these things are very selective in what
they want to remember of Senator Howard's reasoning. Our whole controversy
rests on a single paragraph from the past. Seldom do "Send 'em South"
folks quote other Congressmen, or even anything else Howard said. For example, it was left to Congressman Watt, at the 1997
hearing, to quote Senator Conness, one of Howard's contemporaries. Here
is the quote, with Congressman Watt's introduction to it: "For hundreds of years, our nation has subscribed
to the common law precept of jus soli, which recognizes that citizenship
is based on the place where a person is born. This rule was accepted as
the law for our new democracy and ultimately codified in the Fourteenth
Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. These congressional actions
were in response to an anomalous and infamous Supreme Court decision, Dred
Scott, which denied citizenship rights to freed slaves. "In 1866, during Senate debate on the Fourteenth Amendment,
one legislator, Senator Conness, proclaimed, ''I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of
all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated
as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other
citizens of the United States.'" A little more history came to the 1997 hearing from Dawn
Johnsen, Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ: "The Civil Rights Act of 1866 provides: '[A]ll persons
born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding
Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.'
During the debates on the 1866 Act,
the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Representative Wilson, stated that the provision defining citizenship is 'merely declaratory
of what the law now is.' He cited, among other authorities, a quotation
from William Rawle, whose constitutional law treatise was one of the most
widely respected antebellum works: 'Every
person born within the United States, its Territories or districts, whether
the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen in the sense
of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining
to that capacity.'" Still more history from Dawn Johnsen: The framers intended
the amendment to resolve not only the status of African Americans and their
descendants, but that of members of other alien groups as well. This is reflected in the exchange between Senators Trumbull and
Conness, supporters of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act
of 1866, and Senator Cowan, a strong opponent of both. Senator Cowan expressed his reluctance to amend the Constitution
in such a way as would ''tie the hands'' of the Pacific states ''so as to
prevent them from [later] dealing with [the Chinese] as in their wisdom
they see fit.'' The supporters of the citizenship clause responded by confirming
their intent to constitutionalize the U.S. citizenship of children born
in the United States to alien parents: "Senator Cowan.... 'I am really desirous
to have a legal definition of 'citizenship of the United States.' What does
it mean? ... Is the child of the Chinese
immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a gypsy born in Pennsylvania
a citizen?' "Senator Conness.... 'The proposition
before us ... relates ... to the children
begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare
that they shall be citizens. We have
declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision
in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so.'" Even Howard's single paragraph by no means makes a clear
case for reversing the Supreme Court. Here it is; read it, and see if you
can find, in it, evidence of whether Howard meant babies born here, of unauthorized
immigrants, should receive citizenship: "[E]very person born within the limits [borders] of
the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural
law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course,
include persons born in the United States who are foreigners,
aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited
to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class
of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all
doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This
has long been a great desideratum [something needed
and wanted] in the jurisprudence and legislation
of this country." (For the record, here is another Howard quote made much
less of: "The word 'jurisdiction,' as here employed, ought to be construed
so as to imply full and complete jurisdiction
on the part of the United States, coextensive in all
respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised
by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to
say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen
of the United States.") Notice, in the first quote, "who are" is confusing grammar. He must have meant to say "This will
not...include (baby) persons born here to the families of
ambassadors...." The issue before us is whether babies born here are
foreigners. What does it explain, to say "all the babies born here
are citizens -- not foreigners -- except the babies who are foreigners"? Howard no doubt means not just babies, but also those adults
who were born here but who, when they were babies, were (past
tense) members of foreign ambassadors' families. But his grammar doesn't
precisely say that, either. He speaks in present tense of those who "are" members of foreign
ambassadors' families, who were here in the U.S. when they were born. In
other words, this grammar literally says that if someone is born in the
U.S. to citizens, but then grows up and marries a foreign ambassador's daughter,
he would lose his citizenship! Obviously this is not what Howard meant,
so we just need to acknowledge that he was human, that his words are not
the Bible, so if he did not absolutely precisely conjugate his verbs, that's
OK. We can still go about our lives, and keep our country free. We don't
have to make Texas and California go into the slavery business just because
Senator Howard accidentally used present tense when he should have used
past tense. The Congressional Record includes word-for-word transcriptions
of everything said during debate in Congress, from the time our Constitution
was ratified, and even before then. But the punctuation is added by the
transcribers, who do not go to the Congressmen afterwards and ask them,
"is this where you put the semicolon? And did you say a comma here,
or a parenthesis?" Therefore it is perfectly legitimate for me to change the
punctuation in the above paragraph in a way that I think would make it clearer
to modern readers. I have also replaced "who are" with "to":
"[E]very person born within the limits [borders] of
the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural
law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course,
include persons born in the United States to foreigners [aliens] who belong
to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government
of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. To make it just a little clearer, here is the same statement
with a few extra words trimmed: "Everyone born here, who is subject to our laws, is
a citizen. This doesn't include babies born here to non-citizen families
of foreign ambassadors who have immunity from our laws." Here is how opponents of automatic citizenship for babies
of unauthorized immigrants born here apparently read Howard's statement,
based on their quotes which follow (italics show what they assume Howard
meant): "Every person born [in] the
United States, and loyal to their laws is...a citizen...This loyalty
to our laws will not, of course, be felt in the hearts of persons
born in the United States who are (1) foreigners (since foreigners still
owe allegience to their homelands), or (2) illegal aliens
(who obviously aren't loyal to our laws because they break them by coming
here; of course I've never heard of illegal aliens because they won't be
invented for another 7 years, but I'm just thinking ahead), or
(3) who belong to the families of ambassadors (who aren't loyal to our
laws but to the nation which sent them) or (4) who belong to the
families of foreign ministers...." Did you notice all the changes? Change #1: That's right, "Send
'em South" folks think "jurisdiction" means, not the power
and right of authority to enforce obedience to its commands, but the loyalty
in the hearts of those subject to authority. They think our government should
get into the business of judging us for our loyalty to it in our hearts.
(I know you don't believe me, so quotes follow.) Does this kind of thinking
sound an eensy familiar? Isn't it what we call a "reign of terror"?
God alone can accurately weigh the intentions of hearts. Governments can
barely judge physical actions. We should not invite governments to
play God. They are the human institution most willing to try, and least
qualified to succeed. Redefining "jurisdiction" as "charisma". Our laws don't force anybody to behave, the thinking goes. We
obey our laws because our laws have charisma. Just reading them fills
us with loyalty and admiration for them. "Jurisdiction" simply
means "charisma". So reasoned, apparently, Congressman Bilbray June 25, 1997,
at the hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims of the Committee
on the Judiciary in the House of Representatives. Here are excerpts from
the transcript: "Mr. BILBRAY. Well, I think the Wong Kim Ark and the
Supreme Court ruling really made it clear that it's not just the ground
-- that there has to be an allegiance and obedience tied to it. And I think
the quote that I'd like to refer to, it says that the locality of a man's
birth -- it was saying that the person's birthright, in theory at least,
depends not upon the locality of the man's birth, but upon his being born
within the jurisdiction and allegiance
of the King of England. And it might be, the fact is,
it might occasionally happen that a person was born within the domain and without being born under the allegiance."
Observation #1: We can be "born within the jurisdiction"
of a government, but not "within the allegience" of the government?
What does THAT mean?!! Observation #2: Do you see how sloppy Bilbray's grammar
is? Mine was that sloppy too, and so was Jan Mickelson's, when he allowed
me to be a guest on his show March 11. (Well, maybe it wasn't THAT bad.)
My point? That neither of us three are God. But Congressman Bilbray seems
to think Mr. Howard is God, and not a mere Congressman like himself whose
grammar, especially when spoken and transcribed word for word, isn't perfect.
Bilbray wants to use every "jot and tittle" of a single paragraph
of Howard's lengthy testimony and debate, to overturn a century and a half
of Supreme Court consensus. What if Mr. Howard simply said a couple of words
different than he meant? Observation #3: What's the point, anyway? Is anyone alleging
the mothers who careen across the border as their contractions begin, still
have any allegience to Mexico? If they did, explain their willingness to
risk their lives for a dangerous border crossing while 9 months' pregnant?
The unauthorized immigrants who still have allegience to Mexico, and thus
who will eventually return voluntarily, aren't the ones who concern anybody,
anyway! I hate to take too much time for this but readers who think
they see in Howard's words what Bilbray thought he saw, will think I just
wasn't listening if I cut poor Mr. Bilbray off before he is finished. So
here he goes again: "Now, that was based -- that was our Supreme Court
ruling. Now, what it was based on was the Calvin case, which was 1608, which
ruled that Calvin was a citizen because his parents owed allegiance, could
be tried for treason. And the way they -- this is how the British said it
in 1608 and I wish we were as poetic. It says, 'neither the climate nor
the soil, but the loyalty and the obedience that make the subject born.'" Can you tell the difference between allegience,
and the King's belief that he is owed allegience? Calvin's "parents
owed allegience, could be tried for treason." That terminology doesn't
mean they actually were loyal to the King, beyond what was necessary to
avoid torture. But here goes Bilbray again: "So I think that it's quite clear that when we get
into it -- is that, when you get into that, is the cases were based on you must serve loyalty. And
I would ask any member here, is there
an obligation of loyalty to an illegal alien? You must "serve loyalty"? "...an
obligation of loyalty to an illegal alien?" Has Bilbray ever read a
transcript of his own talking? If he has, was he able to figure out what
he meant? Shouldn't that be a clue to him that just because someone is a
Congressman, that doesn't mean every single word that comes out of his mouth
is exactly what he meant -- not to mention cause for reinterpreting the
Constitution? But Bilbray isn't finished: "I would ask my colleagues who oppose this legislation,
what would be your reaction if the Federal Government tried an illegal alien
for treason? I think we all agree that illegal
aliens bear no responsibility of loyalty. They do not, they could not, and
should not be tried for treason. Based on the British
common law, as reinforced by the Wong Kim Ark, that [sic] if the parents cannot
be tried for treason, then the parents have no obligation; thus, the children
have no automatic citizenship right. That is the major determining factor.
Let me point out that legal immigrants can be tried for treason, do have [sic]
obligation to serve their country while they are temporarily in the country."
Clever reasoning, but a strange point for a Congressman
to make who has been quoting Wong Kim Ark, since that case says unauthorized
immigrants can be tried for treason! Dawn E. Johnsen, acting assistant
Attorney General, office of legal counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, testified
later, directly quoting the case: "'It can hardly be denied that an
alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country
in which he resides ... [and] owes obedience to the laws of that government
and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject
might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.' As Wong Kim Ark further explains, the alien's, 'allegiance to the
United States is direct and immediate and, although ... continuing only
so long as he remains with in our territory, is yet ... strong enough to
make a natural subject, for if he has issue [children] here, that issue
is a natural-born subject.'" Nevertheless, one has to agree with Bilbray that something
is illogical about trying an unauthorized immigrant for treason. It would
be hypocritical for a government which does everything it can to delegitimize
unauthorized immigrants even being here, to turn around and prosecute them
for not honoring their connection to this land, either. In other words,
a government which betrays an immigrant's right to coexist, to breathe our
air, would be hypocritical to expect any loyalty in return. But Bilbray
has more we should know: "Mr. BILBRAY. 'Subject to the jurisdiction thereof'
has two conditioning clauses. One, the laws must apply; second, loyalty
needs to be required. .... you cannot break the nexus between obligation
and rights, responsibilities and rights." How can anyone say unauthorized immigrants have no loyalty
to the U.S.? They are just as loyal as our government will allow them! In
fact, quite a bit more so! They have little loyalty to any other government!
Or, I should say again, those who do, who will return, aren't the concern
of anyone anyway. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
(MALDEF) put the issue this way: "Proponents of limiting birthright
citizenship illogically and wrongfully suggest that undocumented persons
are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States as that phrase
appears in the Fourteenth Amendment. In Wong Kim Ark, the Court determined
that the phrase ''subject to the jurisdiction'' was coextensive and synonymous
with 'within the jurisdiction' of any state....Unlike diplomats from foreign countries, all immigrants whether
here lawfully or not must follow the laws of the jurisdiction where they
live. If this were not so, an undocumented immigrant could feel free to
speed, steal, or even murder with no legal consequences. At
the same time, when accused as criminals, persons who are undocumented are
accorded constitutional protections...More recently than the Wong Kim Ark decision, redefining ''jurisdiction''
to preclude conferral of constitutional rights has not survived Supreme
Court scrutiny... In Plyler v. Doe,
appellants argued that a state affords protection only to persons within
its jurisdiction. They argued that persons who have entered the United States
illegally are not ''within its jurisdiction,'' even if that person is within
a state's boundaries and subject to its laws. The Court held that ''neither
our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting
construction of the phrase 'within its jurisdiction.' '' Rather, the Court
held that jurisdiction, as commonly understood, applies to all those within
the boundaries of a State. Dawn Johnsen, assistant attorney general, described Congressman
Bilbray's coup de'etat on reason as a "novel reinterpretation",
though she did not name Bilbray but rather a book that develops the same
theme (The book: Peter H. Schuck & Rogers M. Smith, Citizenship Without
Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Polity (1985): "Arguing against this great weight of authority, Professors
Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith argue for a novel 'reinterpretation' of the
citizenship clause to implement the contrary view that birthright citizenship
may be modified by a simple act of legislation.(see footnote 15) Briefly, the authors recommend replacing the 'ascriptive'
approach to citizenship -- which determines citizenship by an objective
circumstance, such as place of birth or citizenship of parents, with a 'consensual'
approach -- which makes political membership a product of mutual consent
by the polity and the individual. The authors argue
that the Fourteenth Amendment may be reinterpreted to allow Congress to
deny citizenship to children of illegal aliens by legislation (as opposed
to constitutional amendment). As support,
the authors attempt to show that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment
intended the reference to 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States
to replace the existing ascriptive common law principle with one of express
mutual consent. Schuck and Smith are proposing
a change in the law, not a plausible reinterpretation of the Constitution.
Their theory would require repudiation of the language of the Constitution
itself, the clear statements of the framers' intent, and the universal understanding
of 19th and 20th century courts. Indeed, the authors themselves concede
that there is no judicial precedent in support of their theory." Change #2: Howard is talking about parents, not babies. "Send 'em South" theorists read into this that
Howard is not talking about babies but about their parents in this second sentence, who are born
within the "jurisdiction" of the U.S., meaning within U.S. borders
and not in homes immune from U.S. laws. Howard is saying, they explain, that the hearts of parents,
not the geographical birthplace of babies, determines whether a baby will
be born a citizen. At least I hope they don't mean that it is the
allegience for its government in the heart of the baby that will
determine whether he will be a citizen! Howard is saying, they explain, that parents who are "illegal
aliens" are not under the "jurisdiction" of the U.S., so
their babies born here aren't, either. They apparently think "this"
refers to "this jurisdiction". But if that is what Howard meant,
his grammar was even sloppier. Because then he should have said "This
jurisdiction will not, of course, be over foreigners...." Of course they don't parse this grammar as thoroughly as
I am doing so; a certain amount of guessing is required to imagine how human
beings reach opposite interpretations from reading the same thing. Have I guessed wrong? Parsing, or analyzing grammar, is
an attempt to identify the cause of disagreement in the hope of clarifying
and resolving it. All we know for sure is that we disagree. As Congressman
Lofgren said: .... I know that the Congressman and
I have had an opportunity to discuss this in the past and we simply disagree....Brian
and I have had an opportunity to talk about this issue privately, as well
as in public -- we have a disagreement over the substance of where we should
go.... Change #3: the exceptions grew from
two to four! "Foreigners" is no longer another way of saying "aliens",
but is a separate category! And it is no longer "foreigners (or, "aliens")
who belong to the families of ambassadors [and other] ministers" but
"foreigners", "aliens", and "who belong to the
families of ambassadors", and "who belong to the families of ministers"! Could anyone actually divide this description of a single
group of people into four distinct groups? Yes. A comment after a PatriotPost article
August 26, 2015 by "TonysTake" said "Take note of the requirement in the middle of the quote "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Now, what do you
suppose that meant? Well we don't have to wonder because the author of that line (know as "the citizenship clause") has explained himself. This was
written by Sen. Jacob M. Howard, who clarified its meaning plainly as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866: There are FOUR classes of
people to whom this clause does not apply. "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong
to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Foreigners Aliens Families of Ambassadors Families of Foreign Ministers. Got it now? Good."
Just for reference, remember the Court's four exceptions: families of ambassadors, children of invading armies, Indians who are citizens of their own
nations, and babies born on foreign ships in our ports.
So was TonysTake the first to expand Senator Howard's single category into four? No. That was also the view of Edward J. Erler, Professor
of Political Science, California State university at San Bernardino, in
a "prepared statement" to the 1997 hearing: "Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship
clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, defined who would fall within the 'jurisdiction
of the United States'....Clearly, the author of the citizenship clause intended
to count 'foreigners,' 'aliens,' and those born to 'ambassadors or foreign
ministers' as outside the 'jurisdiction of the United States.' ...That statement
by the author of the citizenship clause, I think, is indisputable and I
think that it is clear." ....Senator Howard knew, as his reference
to natural law indicates, that the republican basis for citizenship is consent." Oops, watch out. Here he goes with the theory that "jurisdiction"
means "loyalty", where anyone subject to U.S. jurisdiction voluntarily
must have "consented" to obey U.S. laws because of his "loyalty"
to them. We are so enraptured with the IRS that we are loyal to our
tax forms, and that is the only reason we have to pay taxes. If we hated the IRS, then the IRS would have no "jurisdiction" over us. The professor
continues: "This is the natural law principle of the Declaration
of Independence that proclaims that legitimate governments derive 'their
just powers from the consent of the governed.'" Wow! Those are such grand phrases You need to see a larger chunk of Professor Erler's reasoning.
He wrote an article, "Immigration and Citizenship", which Jan
Mickelson sent me after having me as a guest on his show. Erler begins with the incredible premise that no individual
can be governed without his consent! "Consent of the governed"
and "no taxation without representation" were popular phrases
describing why the colonists wanted to break away from King George and create
political freedom. But until Mr. Erler's debut on the stage of reason, it
has been accepted that the "consent of the governed" does not
have to be unanimous, but only a majority is needed to enact a law which
then is binding upon all. "Social compact" is another phrase describing
"the consent of the governed", but it only means the majority
of the population occupying a given parcel of land have agreed to the laws
which will be binding upon not only themselves but also upon the unwilling, presumably criminal
minority. From Erler's remarkable assumption, he proceeds to deduce
that the consent of "the whole people", which apparently means to him
the unanimous consent of every American, is required before any immigrant
may be legitimately accepted as a citizen! To this paste he stirs in the principle that "there
can be no contract that binds someone who has not been party to the contract".
This principle is common sense, so long as we define "contract"
in the usual way, as "an agreement between two or more people to meet
requirements (beyond the laws of the land which are already binding upon
them) which are enforceable by law." But Erler thinks a "contract"
of government can have no legitimate authority to enforce a single law until
every last criminal on the land agrees to obey it! From there his grand conclusion is only a baby step away:
"Any reasonable person would have to agree that 'Within the jurisdiction
of the United States' means [only] those who are in the geographical limits
of the country legally..." Now here he is, Erler Uncensored (though appropriately
introduced): "But perhaps just as revealing is the fact that Howard
refers both to 'natural law' and 'national law.' As Howard surely knew,
citizenship based on natural law meant that no person could be governed--or
become a citizen--without his consent. This was the natural law principle
of the Declaration of Independence that proclaimed that legitimate governments
derive 'their just powers from the consent of the governed.' "It is certainly true that just government requires the unanimous consent of each and every
individual who is to be governed, whether that consent
is given explicitly or tacitly. The foundation of community based on the
consent of the governed is the social contract. The common understanding
of these foundations was expressed in the Massachusetts Bill of Rights (1780):
"'The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration
of government, is to secure the existence of the body-politic, to protect
it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying
in safety and tranquillity their natural rights...and whenever these great
objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government....
The body-politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals; it
is a social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen
and each citizen with the whole people that all shall be governed by certain
laws for the common good. It is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing
a constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making
laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation and a faithful execution
of them; that every man may, at all times, find his security in them.' "Thus, the social contract requires reciprocal consent.
Not only must the individual consent
to be governed, but he must also be accepted by the
community as a whole. If all persons born within the geographical limits
of the United States are to be counted citizens--even those whose parents
are in the United States illegally--then this would be tantamount to the conferral of citizenship without the consent
of 'the whole people.' "Natural Law and Citizens. But if the natural law
requirements of citizenship mean anything, it must surely mean that consent
must be reciprocal--allegiance on the part of those who seek to become citizens
and the consent of the nation. Any contract requires at least two parties; there can be no contract that binds someone who
has not been party to the contract. Any reasonable person would have to
agree that 'Within the jurisdiction of the United States' means [only] those
who are in the geographical limits of the country legally--that
is with the permission of the United States. Indeed, on at least one occasion
the Supreme Court rightly noted that the jurisdiction requirement of the
Fourteenth Amendment embodied 'the principle that no one can become a citizen
of a nation without its consent.' The jurisdiction clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, as Howard noted, is the 'national law' confirming or codifying
the 'natural law.'" Mr. Erler's reasoning was partially addressed, at the 1997
hearing, by Acting Assistant Attorney General Dawn E. Johnsen: "In describing the discrete
classes of persons excluded by the common law, Senator Howard noted that
the citizenship clause would 'not, of course, include persons born in the
United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of
ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United
States.' Id. This statement has erroneously
been taken by some to indicate that Senator Howard intended to exclude all
children born to 'foreigners' and 'aliens.' See Societal
and Legal Issues Surrounding Children Born in the United States to Illegal
Alien Parents: Joint Hearings on H.R. 705 et al. Before the Subcomm. on
Immigration and Claims and the Subcomm. on the Constitution of the House
Comm. on the Judiciary, 104th Cong. 115, 116 (1995) (prepared statement of Edward J. Erler, Professor
of Political Science, California State University). This serious misreading of the transcription of Senator Howard's
oral statement is squarely contradicted by the remainder of the debates
and the Supreme Court's holding in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.
649 (1898). Without a doubt, Senator Howard was referring to the traditional
common law exception of persons who are both foreigners or aliens and belong
to the families of accredited ambassadors or foreign ministers." If Senator Howard did mean that "aliens"
and "foreigners" were two separate categories, how would we be
able to tell which category to put any given person in, since the two words
mean the same thing? "Alien" is defined in my dictionary as "a
foreigner. A foreign-born resident of another country who has not become
a naturalized citizen." "Foreigner" is defined as "a
person from another country, thought of as an outsider; alien." Senator Howard is just using the redundancy to underline
his meaning, not to imply a second category whose identity we are invited
to guess. When the grammar of someone's oral defense of his written statement
invites any speculation at all, but the grammar of the written statement
does not, we should be content with the plain meaning of the written statement
(in this case, the 14th Amendment) without looking in Mr. Howard's debate
notes for excuses to change the plain grammar of the Constitution. Change #4: "aliens" is changed to "illegal
aliens". I haven't found any articles which plainly
interpret the word "aliens", in Howard's statement, as "illegal
aliens". But a lot of persuasion on issues like this is accomplished
by putting explosive words near each other, without accepting responsibility
for the chemical reactions which naturally result. When "aliens"
and "foreigners" are alleged to be separate categories -- even
though dictionaries treat the two words as synonyms, and the subject is
"illegal aliens", I expect many readers to assume Howard means
the two distinct categories of foreigners must be: "foreigners who
are here legally" and "illegal aliens". Feedback Box This web site is part
of Uncle Ed.'s search for truth. God didn't make any man able to find the
truth by himself. Proverbs 15:22 says only in a "multitude of counsellors"
are purposes established. And counsel can come from anybody: 2 Chronicles
35:20-24 says God can speak even through your generation's representative
of Antichrist! (Isaiah 30 for perspective.) So if you see errors
here, and you don't warn poor Uncle Ed.,, their continued presence here
will be your fault! (Ezekiel 3:18-20) (If you don't want your email address posted when we post your
comments or criticism, SAY SO!) Join our FORUM on any article posted here. The discussion board set up at http://x.saltshaker.us/forums
is designed for you to respond to any article
on this website. (Or start a discussion on your own topic.) To respond to
any article on this website, just copy enough of the beginning of the article
to let everybody know to what you are responding, along with the url of
the and then have at it. If your comment would be
appropriate inserted in one of my articles, email your comment to
me, with a little of the text on either side of where you think it should
be inserted, and I'll try to post it there, along with any response I may
have (to which you are invited to respond further.) Would you like us to
email new articles or forum "threads" to you? Let us know!
Presidential Candidates on the record
"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."- 14th Amendment
Reaching for a Rationale
A record shortcut for imagining how to end Birthright Citizenship without stripping it from the Constitution is a plan
by Paul Dowling. He notes the "enabling legislation" in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to enforce,
by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." He appears to think this gives Congress
power to enforce provisions contrary to this article!
"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."- 14th AmendmentThe 1997 Congressional Hearing on Birthright Citizenship
that it almost makes
Mr. Erler sound rational!
But be careful. Our police receive their legitimate
authority
from the consent of the majority of those governed,
not
upon the consent of each and every criminal
who violates the laws
established by the majority!
