8 U.S. Code Section 1401. The following shall be NATIONALS and citizens of the U.S. at birth

a reply to: MotherMayEye

You may be over thinking this. I can tell you as someone that lived and worked in a foreign country that the foreign country didn’t draw that distinction. And, you definitely are subject to US law while in that foreign country and the US has treaties with most countries so those countries definitely acknowledge it.

a reply to: luthier

Evidently before the 1960s the law was not applied to illegals having babies here. qz.com... BOw

He argues that the case for birthright citizenship “is based on a deliberate misreading of the 14th Amendment,” noting that it was intended to resolve the question of citizenship for newly freed slaves. The current interpretation the amendment as providing birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants only took hold in the 1960s, Anton argued. Subsequently, he added in a blog post responding to critics of the editorial, “The American people did not willingly, knowingly, or politically adopt birthright citizenship. They were maneuvered into it by the Left and by the Left-allied judiciary. They’ve never debated it or voted on it. They’ve simply been told that it’s required by the Constitution.”

originally posted by: misskat1
a reply to: luthier

Evidently before the 1960s the law was not applied to illegals having babies here. qz.com... BOw

He argues that the case for birthright citizenship “is based on a deliberate misreading of the 14th Amendment,” noting that it was intended to resolve the question of citizenship for newly freed slaves. The current interpretation the amendment as providing birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants only took hold in the 1960s, Anton argued. Subsequently, he added in a blog post responding to critics of the editorial, “The American people did not willingly, knowingly, or politically adopt birthright citizenship. They were maneuvered into it by the Left and by the Left-allied judiciary. They’ve never debated it or voted on it. They’ve simply been told that it’s required by the Constitution.”

I have read the argument and it's pretty weak.

It also doesn't take into account the meaning of natural law, or the fact that immigration isn't talked about in the constitution only naturalization.

It's also a very disingenuous argument because migrant workers were not the subject of passports and border stops the same way they were....there were not illegals. They came and worked under different agreements throughout our history.

We took in a lot of Mexicans around 1911 for instance

a reply to: whywhynot

I'll dig up where I read that in a bit, I'm not at home ATM.

I'm not overthinking it, I am just contemplating what I have read. I don't profess to have decided for myself that when US citizens are abroad the foreign country considers them US Nationals. It's just something I read.

I'll be sure to keep it in mind with a huge grain of salt then.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

The US nationals in samoa are not us citizens. They are suing using the 14th saying they are in fact citizens.

a reply to: luthier

Hopefully this will be revisited by the courts. And a decision will be reached. I would also be curious how Americans would vote on the issue if they were given the chance. In my opinion its ridiculous that a foreigner can give birth here and their child be given citizenship.

originally posted by: misskat1
a reply to: luthier

Hopefully this will be revisited by the courts. And a decision will be reached. I would also be curious how Americans would vote on the issue if they were given the chance. In my opinion its ridiculous that a foreigner can give birth here and their child be given citizenship.

It is more likely a device to force Congress to work.

If the border security and work Visa programs had been made by Congress this wouldn't even be an issue.

I don't like birthright citizenship, but it will take the proper constitutional process to change, which is where we once again face Congress being useless.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Here is the only Supreme Court case on the subject.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark
www.law.cornell.edu...

That, at the time of his said birth, his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicil and residence therein at said city and county of San Francisco, State aforesaid.

So they were legal permanent residents domiciled in the US, and that conveyed citizenship to their child.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Look at it this way....in my city for a long time now....some foreigners can't immigrate normally...so when wife is 7-8 months pregnant....they get a 3-6 month tourist visa to visit knowing the child will be born here.

That child is then a natural born citizen. NOW the parents can immigrate in, when before, they could not. We've let 1,000's in on that method.

Now? How many "questionable" foreigners...even terrorists...have we let in this way? Natural born child to non-naturalzed visiting foreigners.

I watch it everyday here in Dearborn Mi, where middleasterners come in the dozens daily....you'd be shocked...

ETA: ie: pregnant niece visits aunt Hameida....in a few weeks, drive by the house and you'll see ribbons, balloons etc and "It's a boy/girl!"....the process is then in motion

The only Supreme Court ruling on the 14th suggests those people are not citizens as the parents are not domiciled.

a reply to: misskat1

Actually I believe the foreigners and aliens is specifically targeting diplomats in that sentence. The concept of illegal immigration did not exist at that time.

But Native American children did not attain US citizenship at that time, which means it is NOT as cut and dry as people claim.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I agree

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Here is the only Supreme Court case on the subject.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark
www.law.cornell.edu...

That, at the time of his said birth, his mother and father were domiciled residents of the United States, and had established and enjoyed a permanent domicil and residence therein at said city and county of San Francisco, State aforesaid.

So they were legal permanent residents domiciled in the US, and that conveyed citizenship to their child.

Where are the laws about immigration in the constitution?

It would be nearly impossible to use authority Congress gave itself to declare a person void of the natural law written into the 14th. Undocumented travelers represent a large portion of the us history.

We had nearly open boarders for the first half of the 20th century until the great depression squeezed the employment rate.

originally posted by: luthier
The citizenship clause is pretty cut and dry.


Our founders were trying to create rights given by the creator or natural rights to anybody who came here.

So then all Native Americans were granted birthright citizenship, right?

a reply to: luthier

I am not interested in your opinion since you are a nobody. Same is true for me.

Fact, did the 14th grant citizenship to all Native Americans born here?

a reply to: luthier

I agree and think the term African American is one of the most divisive terms there is. It clearly creates an us and them situation.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: luthier
The citizenship clause is pretty cut and dry.


Our founders were trying to create rights given by the creator or natural rights to anybody who came here.

So then all Native Americans were granted birthright citizenship, right?

They were given their own "sovereignty" like diplomats forced into embassies. They were not "taxed".

a reply to: luthier

So not everyone was granted citizenship after all. Now we have to look at taxation?

So if an illegal is not paying taxes then they don't convey citizenship on their children?

For something so cut and dry it seems really confusing.

a reply to: luthier

I saw that..

a reply to: luthier

If they haven't renounced their citizenship how would they not still be a subject to the jurisdiction of their country? Dont extradition and deporting practices counter that asessment? An American overseas is subject to the laws of the country they reside and American laws as well.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier

So not everyone was granted citizenship after all. Now we have to look at taxation?

So if an illegal is not paying taxes then they don't convey citizenship on their children?

For something so cut and dry it seems really confusing.

Not really they do pay taxes. Property, sales, gasoline etc...

Native Americans had there own laws not subject to us laws..

They also changed this in 1924.