ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, November 01, 2018

The 14th Amendment lie

Ann Coulter efficiently disposes of it:
As the court has explained again and again and again:

“(N)o one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in (the 13th, 14th and 15th) amendments, lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him.”

That’s why the amendment refers to people who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “and of the state wherein they reside.” For generations, African-Americans were domiciled in this country. The only reason they weren’t citizens was because of slavery, which the country had just fought a Civil War to end.

The 14th Amendment fixed that.

The amendment didn’t even make Indians citizens. Why? Because it was about freed slaves. Sixteen years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court held that an American Indian, John Elk, was not a citizen, despite having been born here.

Instead, Congress had to pass a separate law making Indians citizens, which it did, more than half a century after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. (It’s easy to miss — the law is titled: “THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924.”) Why would such a law be necessary if simply being born in the U.S. was enough to confer citizenship?

Even today, the children of diplomats and foreign ministers are not granted citizenship on the basis of being born here.
Anyone claiming otherwise is either a) ignorant, or as is much more likely the case, lying. Ben Shapiro and any other lawyer attempting to claim that the 14th Amendment establishes birthright citizenship should be disbarred.

Labels: ,

85 Comments:

Blogger The Lab Manager November 01, 2018 7:50 AM  

Heck, any lawyer who supported Hillary or Obama should be disbarred. Even quiet a few Republican ones as well.

It was noticeable the fake news went into overdrive on this after Trump's comments.

Anyway, Trump needs to get with the program of building the wall and kicking out more illegals. Of course, the traitorous fed judges are part of the problem. Ryan needs to be kicked in his nuts if he has any.

Blogger Damelon Brinn November 01, 2018 7:56 AM  

I knew Trump was onto something when the response from the cucks was ridicule, and there wasn't a single cogent argument among them. They couldn't tell you WHY the 14th demands birthright ciitzenship because they've never considered any other possibility. It's an article of their Magic Dirt faith, which requires that the framers believed in it too.

All the actual arguments, pro and con, came from the anti-birthright side, putting forward the arguments against it and playing devil's advocate to test their own position.

I'm not sure it's a slam dunk because of the Supreme Court's ability to find penumbras, but it looks like a pretty solid case to me. It's just never been tested because administrations of both parties have wanted it the wrong way.

Blogger Sherwood family November 01, 2018 7:57 AM  

The fun will be retroactively stripping it from those whose parents entered the country illegally or were not in legal status when the birth occurred. When we do that we will have turned a corner.

Blogger Stilicho November 01, 2018 8:03 AM  

Disbarred? At the least. Anyone promoting anchor baby citizenship should lose their citizenship and be deported. I hear Venezuela is nice. The only reason to support birthright citizenship is to attack and destroy the United States.

Blogger Desdichado November 01, 2018 8:09 AM  

Sherwood family wrote:The fun will be retroactively stripping it from those whose parents entered the country illegally or were not in legal status when the birth occurred. When we do that we will have turned a corner.
Yep. And then dual citizenship. You wanna be a citizen of Israel? Fine, then we're taking your American citizenship from you, and you can go be an Israeli. No problem.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan November 01, 2018 8:12 AM  

Yup "muh Magic Dirt" the ultimate in virtue signaling.

Blogger Alcuin November 01, 2018 8:13 AM  

This is the most significant adjustment of the Overton Window yet. For how many years has opposition to birthright citizenship been confined to supporters of FAIR, NumbersUSA, and Larry Auster? Keep hope alive -- God bless America!

Blogger Sherwood family November 01, 2018 8:14 AM  

Desdichado, you have no idea how I long for the end of dual citizenship. The amount of waking hours I have wasted having to deal with dual citizens in a professional capacity is enormous. It needs to go away. The dual nationals we have in my department is nuts. And the number in the Senate and House is evil.

Blogger Salt November 01, 2018 8:15 AM  

"Dershowitz stated, “I think there are two issues. I think, if a person is born to illegal citizens and lives in the country, there’s nothing you can do. You can’t take away his citizenship. Because he was born in the country and is subject to the jurisdiction of the country. But if a tourist comes to the country and has a baby and then leaves the country with the baby, and for 30 years, has never come back, I don’t think that baby is necessarily a citizen. Because that baby was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That hasn’t been tested.”

So born to an illegal and living here illegally makes one a citizen but being born here to a "tourist" legally here and subsequently leaving isn't necessarily a citizen. Interesting as both, in Alan's words, at the time of their birth were "subject to the jurisdiction of the country". Why wasn't the one who subsequently left not subject to the jurisdiction of the country? It is possibly because their parents owed allegiance to a foreign sovereign?

The man is a loon.

Blogger VFM #7191 November 01, 2018 8:15 AM  

Stilicho wrote:Anyone promoting anchor baby citizenship should lose their citizenship and be deported.

It's treason and should be treated as such (hint, hint). Especially in the case of f****ts like Paul Ryan, who yield great political power.

Blogger Sim1776 November 01, 2018 8:18 AM  

It's a matter of Congressional Record that Jacob Howard, who introduced the 14th Amendment in Congress, explicitly stated that the 14th only applied to former slaves. Native Americans weren't even considered citizens until a much later act of Congress. More of this "Living Document" crap from the usual suspects. Disbarring them would be a kindness that none of them deserve.

Blogger Sherwood family November 01, 2018 8:23 AM  

Technically, if you are a foreign women flying over the U.S. in an airplane, drop a baby en route, and never even actually touch down, that kid can still apply for citizenship if the birth happened in U.S. airspace. Totally bonkers, of course, but that is how it has been treated. Dershowitz is one of those a rootless cosmopolitan types whose views never seem to be too much to the benefit of the country in which he lives.

Blogger Peaceful Poster November 01, 2018 8:24 AM  

The 14th Amendment was a mistake. Freed slaves should not have been given citizenship, but rather a free ride back to their homeland.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan November 01, 2018 8:26 AM  

Well old Dersh is trying to salvage that scam, but that ain't gonna work, from what I remember it is a huge scam on the southern border to jump across, deliver baby apply for the bennies and move back and live in Mexico on the cheap all the while fleecing the American taxpayers.

Some small ramshackle village in Israel is missing its idiot lawyer.

Blogger Sherwood family November 01, 2018 8:37 AM  

One of the huge issues in the U.S. is the total complicity of all levels of the Federal,State, and local bureaucracies when it comes to allowing illegals to game the system.

If public schools, for example, refused to admit any child in their districts who was out of status/illegal it would save the taxpayer huge amounts of money and would dry up much of the incentive to bring kids to the U.S. illegally.

If every hospital required citizenship documentation before treating anything but emergency cases that would be huge. If every hospital that was treating an emergency case documented citizenship or lack thereof and reported illegals to ICE for pick up after treatment, that would also be huge.

If every routine traffic stop required people to show evidence of their legal status in cases where there was any suspicion they might be foreign then it would be huge. Round them up and send them home.

People cry about the idea of "papers, please" happening in the U.S. but without some effort in that direction we are screwed.

Blogger Azimus November 01, 2018 8:41 AM  

I think this idea is a good feint in terms of news-cycle-management, and it certainly quenched the conversation on Pittsburgh and to some extend the Guatemalan Column, but I wonder what % of Americans are ready for this? The vast majority of Americans want the wall, which is a measure whose implementation would make revoking automatic birth citizenship a redundancy, significantly cutting the number of anchor births in the US. I might be projecting my own misgivings about the idea, I confess that.

Blogger OGRE November 01, 2018 8:44 AM  

The beautiful thing here is how Trump, just by signaling an intent to issue such an executive order, has the Dems strongly defending the anchor baby phenomenon mere days before an election. While at the same time there are hordes of migrants mustering in Mexico for an invasion. Its absolutely brilliant.

And he has Graham and other Reps pushing for legislation to do the same thing, which would be ideal. An EO is good but another president could simply undo it. An act of congress is much harder to undo (e.g. obamacare). And more importantly it is much harder to strike down in the courts given the standards of review applied. Theres a presumption of constitutionality to acts of congress, and the courts must interpret such acts to be consistent with constitutional law to the extent possible. And since theres no fundamental right at issue so that strict scrutiny wouldn't apply, and because its a matter in which Congress already has broad constitutional authority, it would be exceedingly difficult to get it struck down.

Blogger Damelon Brinn November 01, 2018 8:45 AM  

"But if a tourist comes to the country and has a baby and then leaves the country with the baby, and for 30 years, has never come back, I don’t think that baby is necessarily a citizen."

This is remarkably vague for a lawyer claiming to be making a constitutional argument. What if the tourist keeps the baby in the US for a year before leaving? What if the tourist takes the baby away, but then comes back for a visit every five years? He's fogging it up with variables taking place after the birth, but that's never been part of the equation at all. How could it be, when that would mean you'd have to wait 30 years to determine a baby's citizenship? Either a baby born on US soil is a citizen regardless of circumstances, or he isn't.

Blogger Jeff aka Orville November 01, 2018 8:47 AM  

To my recollection this is the first wide-spread conversation about the birthright issue in at least thirty, if not forty years. Everybody is talking about it on local radio, though of course most of the radio hosts are taking the stupid side of the argument.

This is arguably one of the most important moves the GE has made to date. I hope he follows it through to the end.

Blogger David Ray Milton November 01, 2018 8:50 AM  

@Peaceful Poster

Everyone would have been better off if that scenario occurred. That was actually the position that everyone held, including Lincoln (and I believe the Republican Party as a whole), to send the freed slaves back to Africa or to colonize a portion of Central America.

A lesson to us might be that failing to act = inevitable capitulation.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan November 01, 2018 8:52 AM  

Dersh is of a protected class trying to cleave off another protected class just enough to keep him in the 51% majority looting class that is how the D party operates.

No true conservative would even think of trying to divide that coalition.

Blogger Damelon Brinn November 01, 2018 8:53 AM  

I wonder what % of Americans are ready for this?

First thing a web search turned up was a CBS poll from 2010 that showed Americans evenly divided on it. Setting aside the question of bias in the poll, that was before you were allowed to talk about immigration at all in polite company. Now we've been talking openly about it for a couple years, and Americans have had 8 more years of dealing with the invasion. I'd bet there's a strong majority for ending it now, which is probably why my search didn't turn up any polls more recent than 2010 on the first page.

Blogger Hausman November 01, 2018 8:53 AM  

Ann is usually smarter than this. J
Elk v Wilins is a bad example. From Infogalactic....

"John Elk, a Winnebago Indian born on an Indian Reservatiom..." [Emphasis mine]

Blogger Chris Lutz November 01, 2018 8:53 AM  

Sherwood family wrote:Technically, if you are a foreign women flying over the U.S. in an airplane, drop a baby en route, and never even actually touch down, that kid can still apply for citizenship if the birth happened in U.S. airspace. Totally bonkers, of course, but that is how it has been treated. Dershowitz is one of those a rootless cosmopolitan types whose views never seem to be too much to the benefit of the country in which he lives.

My understanding is that US law actually covers this contingency, similar to being on a ship within territorial waters, and the child is not a citizen.

Blogger Sherwood family November 01, 2018 8:59 AM  

Could be I am mistaken but my understanding was that within 12 miles of shore, i.e. territorial waters, or in U.S. airspace any birth is equal to birth on land. Should check my FAM references to be sure.

Blogger Lurker November 01, 2018 9:09 AM  

"Ryan needs to be kicked in his nuts if he has any..."

He doesn't. What a traitorous piece of Shit that guy is, can't believe he's X gen, the boomers taught him well. He's the John McCain of X gen politicians.

Blogger Unknown November 01, 2018 9:15 AM  

If it was applied retrospectively and included offspring,the poisonous fruit of the poisonous immigrant,how many current 'citizens' would that represent ?And what would the electoral implications be?

Blogger camcleat November 01, 2018 9:19 AM  

There's always a tell that manipulation is afoot. From the Dersh quote:

"a person is born to illegal citizens and lives in the country, there’s nothing you can do."

They can't be illegal aliens in this country and citizens at the same time. Those two terms are mutually exclusive.

Blogger 1100 November 01, 2018 9:20 AM  

I am not a lawyer, but the thought occurs to me that Indians would be born into an Indian Nation which is not the same nation as the U.S.A.

Blogger K G November 01, 2018 9:22 AM  

Is Shapiro seriously claiming the 14th protects illegal aliens?

Blogger Richard Holmes November 01, 2018 9:23 AM  

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. (First sentence of the 14th amendment)

I think I need a little more clarification. Wouldn't this sentence mean that any person born in this country and within that particular state this person would be a citizen? They are subject to the jurisdictions of that state would they not? The argument could be made that as the child reaches 18 then the parents of said child would and should be deported but the child could stay as a citizen?

But the child would be still be a citizen?

Blogger freddie_mac November 01, 2018 9:24 AM  

@27 Unknown
If it was applied retrospectively and included offspring ... how many current 'citizens' would that represent?

And how many would get nervous and leave if there's even a whiff of enforcement like that?

IMHO, our immigration problems are not precisely because of bad or loose laws (tho there is some of that) so much as an unwillingness to *enforce existing laws*.

Blogger freddie_mac November 01, 2018 9:28 AM  

@31 Richard Holmes

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

This is the important part that many people ignore. If your parents are subject to the jurisdiction of Country X, then they're not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. So, a child born to a woman who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US means the child is not either. Think about children born to ambassadors -- they're subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, not the country where the birth occurred.

Blogger Miguel November 01, 2018 9:40 AM  

It will be an easy win for the Don.

Blogger Johnny November 01, 2018 9:45 AM  

Just getting into how lawyers play around with stuff, a person was injured. On the way to the hospital the ambulance passed through a different legal district. Venue shopping for the liability lawsuit, the lawyer filed the lawsuit in the area the the ambulance drove through. I am no lawyer, but I doubt that would hold up under an appeal, but the other side settled so it never really got tested.

In the end big government seldom rises above being a scam, and because of big gov we got too much of this sort of stuff going on.

Blogger Johnny November 01, 2018 9:48 AM  

>>and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...

One way of thinking about this is to ask, can the legally be drafted into the US Army. If not then they are not really subject to the jurisdiction. Hey, they are a foreigner residing in our country.

Blogger Johnny November 01, 2018 9:50 AM  

@9 "Dershowitz stated, “I think there are two issues. I think, if a person is born to illegal citizens and lives in the country, there’s nothing you can do...

Dershowits is just letting us know he has divided loyalites, that is all. The "magic dirt" only half worked with him.

Blogger BassmanCO November 01, 2018 10:01 AM  

Hausman wrote:Ann is usually smarter than this. J

Elk v Wilins is a bad example. From Infogalactic....

"John Elk, a Winnebago Indian born on an Indian Reservatiom..." [Emphasis mine]


So you are saying the reservations are countries of their own and the US Government has no jurisdiction there? Come on. They aren't Vatican City. They are still within the United States of America. The fact that they later made a law to make Native Americans citizens just reinforces this.

Blogger BigBandTenor November 01, 2018 10:03 AM  

Original case was decided based on "natural born citizen" and english common law. Interesting read, status of illegal aliens still unclear and arguable. Dissent is scathing.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3381955771263111765&q=United+States+v.+Wong+Kim+Ark&hl=en&as_sdt=40000006&as_vis=1
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3381955771263111765&q=United+States+v.+Wong+Kim+Ark&hl=en&as_sdt=40000006&as_vis=1

Blogger John Calla November 01, 2018 10:14 AM  

@33

I think that's the question that needs to be resolved. Surely if an illegal alien commits a crime here they would be charged and prosecuted under American law. They don't have diplomatic immunity like ambassadors and such.

Blogger Franz Lyonheart November 01, 2018 10:17 AM  

Freed slaves should not have been given citizenship, but rather a free ride back to their homeland.

Where they likely would have been enslaved again. Most Americans today forget the fact that the cross-Atlantic slave traders simply purchased slaves from their African owners (ca. 3/4 of all slaves brought to the American colonies / states).

Or where they would have enslaved the local population in reverse - as is the basis of the Liberian economy.

Blogger Damelon Brinn November 01, 2018 10:19 AM  

They are subject to the jurisdictions of that state would they not?

No. Being subject to things like local laws is not the same as being subject to the jurisdiction thereof. If my wife and I are traveling in France, we have to obey the traffic laws and could be arrested if we don't. But as US citizens we're still under the jurisdiction of the US, which is why we can call the embassy to get us out of trouble. Other examples people have given are that illegals can't be drafted, and the children of diplomats born here aren't citizens. The US doesn't claim jurisdiction over them. Giving citizenship to newborns of illegals is the *exception* to the way "subject to the jurisdiction" has been applied.

Blogger Damelon Brinn November 01, 2018 10:23 AM  

The fact that they later made a law to make Native Americans citizens just reinforces this.

Asking because I don't know: why was that law necessary, if being born within the US already made them citizens?

Blogger rumpole5 November 01, 2018 10:26 AM  

If a person is born in the USA and lives here continuously to adulthood fully engaged in and shaped by traditional American institutions, then he should be allowed a path some sort of citizenship (maybe non voting?) on declaring allegiance to the US constitution and specifically renouncing allegiance to any non American power. This would not include adherents to Islam because that is an inherently anti American belief system and also a foreign power.

Blogger Ariadne Umbrella November 01, 2018 10:28 AM  

#38, Indian Reservations have their own laws, b/c they are different sovereignties. That's how they have casinos, fireworks and cigarettes, when the state surrounding them does not.

Blogger Didas Kalos November 01, 2018 10:30 AM  

#MillStoneBabies LOL What a hoot that Ann Coulter is!

Blogger Harry Goldblatt MD November 01, 2018 10:32 AM  

I think, if a person is born to illegal citizens and lives in the country, there’s nothing you can do. You can’t take away his citizenship. Because he was born in the country and is subject to the jurisdiction of the country.

What kind of circular reasoning is this?! Dershowitz is a joke.

Blogger Damelon Brinn November 01, 2018 10:35 AM  

then he should be allowed a path some sort of citizenship

Let's end birthright citizenship, build the Wall, and eliminate the guest worker scams and most of the "paths to citizenship" that already exist before we start thinking up more paths.

Blogger Nate November 01, 2018 10:43 AM  

Shapiro hates the truth about the 14th because he does in fact have other allegiances besides the United States.

Blogger Jay November 01, 2018 10:54 AM  

@41
They have to go back! What Africans do to other Africans in Africa is no matter for Americans in the USA. Things you don't like happening in one country is not an argument for everyone there to come to another country which is absent those conditions. Slavery is not condemned in the Bible, but the poor treatment of slaves is condemned.

Blogger Richard Holmes November 01, 2018 11:05 AM  

This is the important part that many people ignore. If your parents are subject to the jurisdiction of Country X, then they're not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. So, a child born to a woman who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US means the child is not either. Think about children born to ambassadors -- they're subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, not the country where the birth occurred. - Freddie_Mac

Good point. But aren't people even if here illegal subject to the laws of this land? I mean we prosecute illegals who commit crimes and all. Or am I taking the meaning of "subject" wrong?

Blogger Cary November 01, 2018 11:06 AM  

Sadly but not surprisingly, many of the civ nats were quick to defend the status quo. For example Schlicter immediately stated on Twitter that he thought the 14th granted citizenship but he was open to the argument. When challenged by others to read up on it, he referenced court briefs and waiting to see the case.

Conservatism is such a dead end. He just accepts the liberal frame and has no urgency to push back. I get that he may have never really looked into it, but how about taking a few minutes to research and read the basics noted in the Coulter column before supporting the left. This stuff is not hard to find or even understand in this case.

This is why we got Trump and why the alt-right is inevitable.

Blogger DonReynolds November 01, 2018 11:07 AM  

Any American citizen "aiding and abetting" the invaders should receive a blindfold and a cigarette. They are Quislings, regardless of their most sincere motivations.

Blogger John Regan November 01, 2018 11:11 AM  

Well, there's this:

14A

Blogger MJ Meyers November 01, 2018 11:13 AM  

Let's consult the library of Congress and see what the writers of said amendment intended [*1 and 2].

"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 [*1]." ... "The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens. That means, “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof. What do we mean by subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Not owing allegiance to anybody else [*2]."

The language was meant to prevent southern states from ensuring slaves were not deemed non-citizens by their respective states (in addition to matters like ensuring blacks had the right to bear arms), not to ensure anyone born on American soil got automatic citizenship. Were the offspring of native Americans who gave birth off a reservation considered citizens then in the 19th century? If this were so, why did it take an act in 1924 to make native Americans citizens?

In other words, the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" applied to ex-slaves, because ex-slaves did not have a foreign jurisdiction governing them like Mexico, Honduras, or a sovereign native tribe. The phrase was inserted mid sentence to specifically to limit its implications.

Of course, the left loves to argue how the Second Amendment merely means the government has the right to arm itself. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." A clause preceding a command could modify the scope of the command or be a justification for the command. If I state, "Protection from monsoons being necessary to a dry people, the right to carry an umbrella shall not be infringed," does that mean, absent a monsoon, I have no right to carry an umbrella, or does it mean because monsoons are dangerous, we want to ensure everyone can carry an umbrella at any time? Which is the more reasonable interpretation?

If you can lift 10 lbs, you're lying if you tell me you can't lift 5. Any leftist that applies the "modifying" logic to the second amendment but doesn't do the same for the 14th for "birth right" citizenship, isn't being honest.

[*1] http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11
[*2] http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14

Blogger Mister Excitement November 01, 2018 11:30 AM  

It's been over 200 years since the Founding, and we still haven't figured out a clear definition of "citizen" and the specific requirements for citizenship.

It is for this reason and many others that the Constitution has failed.

Vox made that statement on a Darkstream a few weeks ago. He also said the Founding Fathers failed, as Ben Franklin suspected they would.

No other intellectual, commentator, politician, or pundit has made a statement that bold, and obvious, about the current state of the US.

We all know the Constitution has failed, just nobody had the guts to say it.

Blogger CarpeOro November 01, 2018 11:37 AM  

@38
From what I recall of the history of relations and treaties between various tribes and the US, to a large extent they have been at different times. The relationship has pretty much been whatever the US wanted to impose on them at whatever time and justifications have been created for whatever relationship dynamic was wanted by those running the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Member of the tribe, American citizen. Able to own land (on or off the reservation), or not. Flux has been the hallmark of the status of the tribes, not stability.

Blogger Mister Excitement November 01, 2018 11:38 AM  

"The 14th Amendment was a mistake. Freed slaves should not have been given citizenship, but rather a free ride back to their homeland"

@13 This x 1000.

One of the dumbest decisions in world history was to keep the freed slaves here.

The US had an entire nation of people enslaved, then freed them and had them live among the native population. Utter lunacy.

It's why people in the South were staunch Democrats for the next century. They remember what the self righteous Republicans did to them.

The relationship between Whites and Blacks in the United States has been toxic and dysfunctional from the beginning.

Blogger Lew Rand November 01, 2018 11:46 AM  

Go watch the video by Molyneux. He brings up a couple of Senators that were arguing a the time the 14th was actually in Congress.

They clarify the concept of 'jurisdiction' to mean full authority over the parents, not just locational authority. Meaning no other country has any jurisdiction over the persons in question.

One would hope if it makes it to the Supreme Court the government can quote the Congressional Record from the time when the 14th was actually being considered.

Blogger Damelon Brinn November 01, 2018 12:11 PM  

how about taking a few minutes to research

This. I don't blame anyone for being clueless about it. I was. We were all taught that it was cut-and-dried. From a right-wing viewpoint, it looked like one of those bad ideas that snuck into an Amendment, or unfortunate wording that SCOTUS took the wrong way. I was surprised to find out it's never been tested.

But I didn't claim to know. If you're going to run to social media and tell your thousands of followers that Trump is off his meds on this, at least familiarize yourself a bit first, so you're not such an obvious establishment hack.

Blogger Johnny November 01, 2018 12:21 PM  

>>Freed slaves should not have been given citizenship, but rather a free ride back to their homeland.

>>Where they likely would have been enslaved again.

If was all workable if we had wanted to do it. Liberia was formed to take in ex US slaves.

A peculiar thing about slavery in the old south was that it paid to raise a new generation. In most places that was not true and slaves were commonly produced by kidnapping or as war captives. Had we wanted to displace the ex slave population, the easy way of doing it would be to make raising a new generation an expense to the slave holder, but do allow them to retain the use of existing adults. That would minimize the cost to the slave holders and thus make the whole thing more doable.

Lots of schemes come easily to mind. Have every new slave be set free by, say, ten years old. Thus no return in raising them. Or perhaps by such and such a date, the slave holder would be required to bare the expense of repatriating any youthful slave to Liberia. Or whatever. It could have been done.

Blogger MrNiceguy November 01, 2018 12:29 PM  

Because at the time, they were considered to be citizens of their tribal government, and thus under that jurisdiction. Automatically granting citizenship to Native Americans would have been violating the sovereignty of their tribal government.

Blogger MrNiceguy November 01, 2018 12:48 PM  

From the commentary I've heard, nobody can even point to a moment when birthright citizenship actually became the policy. We can point to a Supreme Court decision granting citizenship to children of lawful residents, and a law passed by Congress for Native Americans, but birthright citizenship for everyone? As far as anyone can tell, the federal bureaucracy started doing it some time in the 60's, without any court decision, law, or executive order directing them to do so.

Blogger Bobiojimbo November 01, 2018 12:59 PM  

Molynuex has a video on this as well, it goes into some more detail. Coulter did a fine summation above.

Blogger RC November 01, 2018 1:01 PM  

We could stop a lot of this silliness if the IRS would start chasing down all these Chinese and other "citizens" to demand payment of income taxes. Never been to the States except for your birth pal? Too bad. Either renounce or pay for the privilege the rest of your days.

Their parents are giving them a gift all right. One that never stops giving.

Blogger justaguy November 01, 2018 1:05 PM  

What I find remarkable is while people quote that 29 other countries have birth-right citizenship, they never name those countries. Germany just changes to some semblance (requiring legal residence) in 2000. Before that, multi-generational immigrants were still Turkish, not German.

Blogger Were-Puppy November 01, 2018 1:30 PM  

@27 Unknown
If it was applied retrospectively and included offspring,the poisonous fruit of the poisonous immigrant,how many current 'citizens' would that represent ?And what would the electoral implications be?
---

not only that, but imagine the #ChainDeport that would happen by getting rid of their endless aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, etc as well.

Blogger DonReynolds November 01, 2018 1:56 PM  

Richard Holmes wrote:This is the important part that many people ignore. If your parents are subject to the jurisdiction of Country X, then they're not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. - Freddie_Mac

Good point. But aren't people even if here illegal subject to the laws of this land? I mean we prosecute illegals who commit crimes and all. Or am I taking the meaning of "subject" wrong?


Think about your own situation for a moment. Suppose YOU were in a foreign country. It does not matter which one....Japan, Germany, UK, Italy, India. When you buy a sweater in London and pay a 30 percent (VAT) sales tax, does that make you a British citizen? Of course not. Suppose you were arrested for some local crime by the police....because you ARE subject to the local laws. Does that change your citizenship? Of course not. What if there was a mix-up at the Customs counter at the airport, or you overstayed your visa, or you were accused of rape or shoplifting? What are you going to do...your first opportunity? You will contact the American consulate or embassy for help getting out of the mess. What if you were in the country illegally? Same deal.

In the USA there is a Mexican Consulate in all fifty states, and more than one in some states, because citizens are not left to the tender mercies of local laws and customs in foreign countries by any nation. That is not the only function of consulates and embassies, but Mexico is the only country that has one in every state of the US.

Blogger Othello November 01, 2018 2:22 PM  

Respectfully disagree. Did the 10 commandments fail, or did the nation of Israel fail to live up to them?

Blogger Othello November 01, 2018 2:26 PM  

This. The electorate would shrink by the millions. And the balance of power would shift back to families and away from childless narcissists.

Blogger DonReynolds November 01, 2018 2:51 PM  

justaguy wrote:What I find remarkable is while people quote that 29 other countries have birth-right citizenship, they never name those countries. Germany just changes to some semblance (requiring legal residence) in 2000. Before that, multi-generational immigrants were still Turkish, not German.

I trust NumbersUSA on the subject of birthright citizenship.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/issues/birthright-citizenship/nations-granting-birthright-citizenship.html

The USA and Canada are the only First World countries in the world that have birthright citizenship, and we could quibble over whether Canada is still First World or an independent country.

It is only recently that Canada got permission from the British government to amend their own constitution, if they ever need to, and the Queen of England is still on all the Canadian money.

Blogger Jack Amok November 01, 2018 2:52 PM  

One of the huge issues in the U.S. is the total complicity of all levels of the Federal,State, and local bureaucracies when it comes to allowing illegals to game the system.
...
People cry about the idea of "papers, please" happening in the U.S. but without some effort in that direction we are screwed.


And it's shocking in comparison to what people who are here legally have to do through. We have engineering offices around the world, including one in Kyiv. Given the political situation there, we figured it would be good to transfer some of their knowledge to other offices, so I have a couple of guys on L1 visas working for me (and one of their wives on an L2). Our lawyers messed up the renewal process, which has all sorts of "papers, please" involved, and takes months when everything goes smoothly.

When it didn't, these guys had to fly back to Ukraine for two weeks to do their renewal there and the wife on L2 had to wait (without working) for three months to get her renewal processed. One of the families has kids in school and almost had to pull them out of school in the middle of the year (well, that probably would have been a good thing for them, but still obnoxious).

So I have absolutely no problem with making public officials verify the status of someone who doesn't look or speak like an American. We already do it for people following the rules, we damn well can do it for people who don't.

Blogger John Best November 01, 2018 3:04 PM  

The globalist attempts to wipe out the Ulster-Scottish in the Southern state has caused so much damage and bleed shed, the African slaves should have been given their own reservations and left alone.

Blogger Centurion Revolt November 01, 2018 6:09 PM  

Lincoln was a moderate liberal for his time. The Radical Republicans to his left never had any intentiob of deporting the former slaves. They saw an opportunity to seize power in the south, and they took it. And we've been paying for it ever since.

Blogger Dirk Manly November 02, 2018 3:29 AM  

@2

"I'm not sure it's a slam dunk because of the Supreme Court's ability to find penumbras, but it looks like a pretty solid case to me. It's just never been tested because administrations of both parties have wanted it the wrong way."

Trump should put out the word -- any Supreme Court justice seeking out "penumbras" or "emanations" on behalf of foreigners will be arrested for treason, tried, and HANGED.

Blogger Dirk Manly November 02, 2018 3:33 AM  

@3

"The fun will be retroactively stripping it from those whose parents entered the country illegally or were not in legal status when the birth occurred. When we do that we will have turned a corner."

No, the fun will begin even sooner

IMMIGRATION: Lady, you gotta go back!
Mother: But my baby citizen!
IMMIGRATION: Well then, your baby can stay. I don't know how it's going to feed itself, change it's own clothes, and all that, but you are welcome to say goodbye to your citizen baby.
Or you can take your baby with you. But YOU GOTTA GO BACK!
Mother: Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Where TV camera! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Blogger Dirk Manly November 02, 2018 3:35 AM  

@4

"Anyone promoting anchor baby citizenship should lose their citizenship and be deported. I hear Venezuela is nice. The only reason to support birthright citizenship is to attack and destroy the United States."

It will be hilarious when Trump starts referring to these traitors BY NAME.

You think the press is upset about being called Fake News.... they're gonna go bonkers when they start being labelled as something that is absolutely obvious to %70 of the country.

Blogger Dirk Manly November 02, 2018 3:57 AM  

@5

"Yep. And then dual citizenship. You wanna be a citizen of Israel? Fine, then we're taking your American citizenship from you, and you can go be an Israeli. No problem."

Your citizenship to Isreal cannot be revoked, by reasons of race? "Next Year in Iseal!" has come, my friend. You profess to not have enough wealth to get to Isreal? I'm sure that some sort of Jewish Refugee Agency can finance your flight. After all, they have enough money to move central African goys and Middle East Arabs all the way to Sweden.... Sholom!

You can send postcards to the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem.

(Clue for the clueless: Shalom means both hello AND goodbye!)

Blogger Dirk Manly November 02, 2018 5:27 AM  

@62

"Because at the time, they were considered to be citizens of their tribal government, and thus under that jurisdiction. Automatically granting citizenship to Native Americans would have been violating the sovereignty of their tribal government."

And how is that different from violating the sovereignty of Guatemala when a squatemalean woman comes here, squats out a kid, and claims that her future ghetto-dwelling gang-member is a U.S. citizen.

Blogger Dirk Manly November 02, 2018 5:50 AM  

@12

"

Technically, if you are a foreign women flying over the U.S. in an airplane, drop a baby en route, and never even actually touch down, that kid can still apply for citizenship if the birth happened in U.S. airspace. Totally bonkers, of course, but that is how it has been treated. Dershowitz is one of those a rootless cosmopolitan types whose views never seem to be too much to the benefit of the country in which he lives."

That is a myth.

I once travelled to Alaska. We flew to LAX, and caught another plane to the international terminal at Vancouver's airport. From the Air Terminal, we were taken by bus to the (sea) port, where we boarded a Holland America cruise ship (registry, The Netherlands).

We never passed through either of Canadian Customs, nor Canadian Passport Control. Our guide through that phase told us that this was all set up (by direct, controlled transportation from one port of entry, to another port for exit, that we were not legally entering Canada. Two Canadian law enforcement people (didn't bother to check if they were local or federal -- I was 17 at the time) stood guard at the bus doors, just to make sure nobody had jumped into our crowd as a way to get into Canada without going through inspection by Customs, and Passport Control, and Immigration.

Once on board the ship, it was explained to us that while in Canadian Waters, we were subject to Canadian law (so the Casino would not be open). Once we got outside of the 12-mile limit, we would be under the law of the Ship's registry (The Netherlands). Once we entered U.S. Waters, we would be under U.S. and Alaskan law, and the Casino would be closed again.

Understandably, leaving Vancouver and every other port, the ship headed directly out from the coastline, and then made a turn to travel parallel to the coast, outside the 12-mile limit; nearing every port of call, the ship would sail along, outside of the 12-mile limit, and then turn when opposite the port, and make a run in on a course perpendicular with the coast line. Gotta keep that Casino open as long as possible.

Also, the legal age of serving beverages to teenagers fluctuated throughout the trip. 18 when we were in the vacinity of Vancouver. Dropped precipitously when we go into international waters. Then jumped up to 20 or 21 whenever we were going into, docked at, or leaving an Alaskan port (except for the time while travelling up the Inner Passage, which is all Alaskan/US Waters.


Now, if a plane is flying from Canada to Mexico, or vice versa, the pregnant woman on the plane has never LEGALLY entered the United States. While in the air, and at sea, the legal jurisdiction is that of the country where the ship is registered.

Blogger RusticFederalist November 02, 2018 9:38 AM  

Peaceful Poster wrote:The 14th Amendment was a mistake. Freed slaves should not have been given citizenship, but rather a free ride back to their homeland.

Do not presume ignorance, when malevolence can answer for a motive.

The Fourteenth Amendment, was not a mistake, it was a political weapon used by Carpetbagger Republicans and supported by the SJWs of that time.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Charles_Sumner
Sumner repeatedly tried to remove the word "white" from naturalization laws. He introduced bills to that effect in 1868 and 1869, but neither came to a vote. On July 2, 1870, Sumner moved to amend a pending bill in a way that would strike the word "white" wherever in all Congressional acts pertaining to naturalization of immigrants. On July 4, 1870, he said: "Senators undertake to disturb us ...by reminding us of the possibility of large numbers swarming from China; but the answer to all this is very obvious and very simple. If the Chinese come here, they will come for citizenship or merely for labor. If they come for citizenship, then in this desire do they give a pledge of loyalty to our institutions; and where is the peril in such vows? They are peaceful and industrious; how can their citizenship be the occasion of solicitude?" He accused legislators promoting anti-Chinese legislation of betraying the principles of the Declaration of Independence: "Worse than any heathen or pagan abroad are those in our midst who are false to our institutions."

Blogger Avalanche November 02, 2018 9:43 AM  

@9 "The man is a loon."

Oh come one: (((Dershowitz))) is NOT a loon. (He's a clever lying weasel, and that insults weasels!) Dershowitz is doing as he has always done -- working toward the interest of (((HIS PEOPLE))) well-above the interests of Americans!

Blogger Avalanche November 02, 2018 9:59 AM  

@44 "If a person is born in the USA and lives here continuously to adulthood fully engaged in and shaped by traditional American institutions, then he should be allowed a path some sort of citizenship (maybe non voting?)"

No. (Flat-out no. If someone sneaks into your house and manages to live there unnoticed for... what, a year? Should they then get to become part of your family; will you, nil you?!) If a person goes to boarding school and lives there till adulthood -- that boarding school does NOT thus become his home where he can live and suck welfare forever!

I've been trying to find a way to meme the idea that all these foreigners (legal or other) come to the U.S. to participate in our system; to (well, theoretically) LEARN about how we created such a magnificent place are coming to boarding school -- NOT to their (and their mothers and their brothers and their sisters and their aunts!) future home forever.

Then, just as after graduating from boarding school, they must GO AWAY, out into the world, to make their own ways... preferably (if impossibly, but not our problem!) by instituting the education in our nations ways they gained in OUR school, back in their OWN homes. You don't live out your damned LIFE in boarding school.

I would ALSO limit 'enrollment' into Boarding School United States to citizens from our nation; but apparently, I'm mean.

Blogger RusticFederalist November 02, 2018 10:05 AM  

DonReynolds wrote:
The USA and Canada are the only First World countries in the world that have birthright citizenship, and we could quibble over whether Canada is still First World or an independent country.

It is only recently that Canada got permission from the British government to amend their own constitution, if they ever need to, and the Queen of England is still on all the Canadian money.


Canada's immigration policy will eventually mean hundreds of thousands of Indians and/or Chinese illegally streaming across America's northern border. Canada is an abused child recklessly acting out as a teenager, and America is the charitable neighbor enabling this behavior by giving him money for food. America should adopt a sensible immigration policy (wall and repatriation), and it must embargo whichever Canadian communities do not accept republicanism and adjoin themselves to the measures of the United States (such as immigration law, international trade, and the Bill of Rights).
CANADA DELENDA EST

https://infogalactic.com/info/Articles_of_Confederation
https://infogalactic.com/info/Canadian_Agreement

Blogger Dirk Manly November 02, 2018 5:32 PM  

You are so right.

And Hamas and Hezbollah OPENLY go from door to door collecting money. And they have been doing this since the 1990's, and the Canadian government does absolutely nothing about it.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts