Trump Wants to Ban Birthright Citizenship

and then there's this

https://qz.com/1447349/an-1898-us-supreme-court-case-confirmed-birthright-citizenship/

 

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens..."

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

 

But in the Wong Kim Ark case, birthright citizenship DID include "foreigners, aliens".

Legislative intent is kind of a tricky doctrine. The most obvious thing to do is to look at what the various Senators and Congressmen said at the time they proposed the amendment and that is something lawyers commonly do. But it's wrong. Here's why: Assume that just 30 senators (or whatever) voted to present the amendment to the States for ratification. Well, you can easily have 30 different understandings of what the amendment actually means. Ditto the House. And you must multiply that confusion by the State legislators who voted to ratify the amendment once it was presented to them.

So, as a matter of substantive law, it doesn't matter what Sen Turnbull thought or Congressman Smith wrote. A court might be interested to hear what these people said because their arguments might make enough sense to guide the court in arriving at its decision but there's nothing binding about these comments. There can't be.

When lawyers talk about legislative intent, what we usually mean is a sort of "constructive intent" that is divined from the text and any commentary that the legislature included in its bill. That's what "purpose" sections are for. In the absence of such explicit instructions, the court will look for an understanding that is consistent with the plain provisions of the statute and sometimes the history of whatever evil the act was intended to cure. As I say, it's tricky and you don't even get there if you can arrive at an interpretation that makes sense on its face.

 

Thanks ...

 

And the text of the opinion is available from amazon for $44.87 new and $37.76 used (paperback). www.amazo.com/s/ref=nb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=wong+kim+ark. Put it on my amazon wishlist.

 

I think it is funny how the same people who once argued that Obama's executive orders were unconstitutional now think it is okay for Trump to abolish jus soli citizenship by executive order.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

 

Thanks. Saves this po' boy a little money.

 

I have a silly question. Do we have any idea what the original author of the 14th meant? There has to be something he wrote to give insight into this. I doubt he wanted it used to allow people to sneak in and have babies or immigrate illegally and the have a child. Common sense would tell us that much. I'm sure his writings are floating around.....

That all said this is an article from 2015 that interesting

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/08/birthright-citizenship-not-mandated-by-constitution/

 

Yes, if simply being born here would do it then there would be no purpose to the 'jurisdiction' clause.

 

From what I've read, back then being subject to (King's) jurisdiction in English common law explicitly included everyone, except diplomats in service of another Sovereign and soldiers of an invading army. Children of diplomats are not US citizens to this day.
In any case, it's an invented moral panic. I believe it also betrays real motivation of immigrant bashers. They do not actually mind undocumented migrants; they oppose them gaining legal status (and cease being officially second rate) - no matter how legitimately.

 

The U.S. was not under English law.

The newborn are not subject to laws. That jurisdiction refers to the parents.

I don't know who you think is bashing immigrants. Probably no one as you throw in such comments in attempt to smear who you can't argue against.

My father was an immigrant.

I'm from NYC which has seen a constant stream of immigrants, legal and illegal. As with the southern border states, illegals were mostly ignored in NYC for as long as their numbers were small.

Do you include me in your "immigrant bashers?" If not then who?

 

Authors of the Constitution (and amendments) had nothing but English common law to base their work on, and expression "subject to jurisdiction" was not exactly unknown. It's hard to argue the words in 14th meant anything other than what they always meant. The fact that you do not like the implications now is not a good argument. I have no personal beef in this btw: my daughters were born in Canada, and their jus soli birthright to citizenship of same is questioned by no one.

yeah well, anyone who tries to scapegoat nation's problems on immigrants is an immigrant basher. Which includes practically every Trumpservative in US nowadays, and a good portion of "conservatives" here in Canada and worldwide. And yes, I do include you. Immigrant background is irrelevant here: I know many, many first generation immigrant immigrant bashers, in delusional belief that the sentiment would exclude them. By virtue of skin hue, some measure of success, efforts to "integrate" or by trying to blend in by spewing Trumpservative dogma.
Also, judging by things like "shithole" comments and policies that target legal immigration Trump admin openly pursues, pretence that the concern is about "illegals" wears increasingly thin.