Birthright Citizenship and Amendment XIV by JEWELSTAITEFAN

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Birthright Citizenship and Amendment XIV

POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Friday, November 2, 2018 15:22
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1452
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, November 2, 2018 6:35 AM

There has been some discussion lately of this subject, and the points and positions are a bit muddy.
Largely it seems due to the confusion between Layman's terms, casual language, and Law terms or Legal Language.

Quote:
U.S. Constitution

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

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.

One part of the confusion is the phrase "citizen of the United States" or "Citizen of the United States" and the breakdown of apparently the 5 Classes or Subclasses of "citizens" or "Citizens" under Law. As used in Section 1.
First Class Citizens. This is the Citizens defined in The Constitution, and the only class specified by that phrase. The Constitution recognized these Citizens, but did not grant nor confer any Citizenship. Only The States granted Citizenship, under jurisdiction set forth by the Constitution of each State. The Federal Government could not supersede the Governance of Citizenship above the States. I understand that all of this Class were Whites. I infer that these must also be all Men, although I have not seen that clearly stated.

Second Class (not actually named so, but separated for clarity in this discussion).
After Ratification of The Constitution, the Federal Government expanded, outside of the acceptance of more Colonies/Nations as States into the Union. These Federal Territories and Lands were not States, and persons residing there could not be Citizens without a State existing to confer Citizenship upon them, so with the Federal Government as their Steward these born became Federal citizens, granted not from The Constitution but from Congressional procedures. These did not include persons of Foreign Allegiance, not subject to the jurisdiction. These did not include Indians Not Taxed. These Federal citizens did not have full Rights as Original Citizens until they created a State, which then granted them Citizenship under the State Constitution, and then the Union of States accepted that State into the Union. Then they fell under the Original Citizen definition. This seems to include persons born in District of Columbia.

Third Class (again, not actually named that).
This is a new class created with the 14th Amendment, in collaboration with the Civil Rights Act of 1866. This class consisted of persons who had been in Slavery and therefore without Citizenship because the State Constitution where they resided did not grant it to them, so the Federal Government granted them Federal Citizenship, which only conferred 3 Rights upon them, not all of the Rights of the Original Citizens empowered by The Constitution. None of the citizens of this definition held any current or past Citizenship of any Foreign Governments, no Allegiance to a Foreign Jurisdiction.

Another point of confusion is the meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in Section 1.
One position is that this was intended by the Authors of the Amendment to mean what it said, that they did not have Allegiance to a different, foreign jurisdiction, they did not have Citizenship elsewhere (like ducking back out to their own Country following birthing).
Another position is that this Amendment was created in a vacuum, even predating The Constitution, plus also not during the period of Emancipation and Ending Slavery.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2018 6:47 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
There has been some discussion lately of this subject, and the points and positions are a bit muddy.
Largely it seems due to the confusion between Layman's terms, casual language, and Law terms or Legal Language.

One part of the confusion is the phrase "citizen of the United States" or "Citizen of the United States" and the breakdown of apparently the 5 Classes or Subclasses of "citizens" or "Citizens" under Law. As used in Section 1.

Another point of confusion is the meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in Section 1.
One position is that this was intended by the Authors of the Amendment to mean what it said, that they did not have Allegiance to a different, foreign jurisdiction, they did not have Citizenship elsewhere (like ducking back out to their own Country following birthing).
Another position is that this Amendment was created in a vacuum, even predating The Constitution, plus also not during the period of Emancipation and Ending Slavery.

Immigration is an animating topic for President Donald Trump, and a vocabulary-expanding one for most Americans. Phrases like chain migration, anchor baby and migrant caravan have entered popular parlance under his watch. This week added “birthright citizenship”. Mr Trump told Axios, an American news outfit, that he is looking to end the right—now 150 years old—by executive order. His proposal would deny citizenship to the American-born children of unauthorised immigrants and possibly to foreigners in the country on non-permanent visas. The suggestion set cable news and social media aflame, and drew instant backlash from legal experts. That he would attempt such a thing should come as little surprise. Mr Trump trotted out the idea while campaigning in 2015. More recently, Michael Anton, a Trump acolyte and former White House official, argued in its favour in the Washington Post. Others are taking up the charge. Lindsey Graham, a Republican senator, says that he will write legislation to “deal” with birthright citizenship, calling it a “magnet for illegal immigration”. What is the fuss about?

The concept of birthright citizenship is straightforward: those born in America are citizens, even if their parents are not. The principle, known as jus soli, or right of the soil, comes from English common law. It was established in England in the early 17th century and then later exported to the colonies. It no longer holds in the United Kingdom, where at least one parent must be a citizen for a child to enjoy the right. But it persists in some Commonwealth countries—including in Canada, Jamaica and Pakistan—as well as in nearly every country in Latin America. (This is news to Mr Trump, who said, wrongly, that America is the only country to allow such a scheme.) In America, its history is tied up with race and slavery. The constitution outlined no criteria for citizenship, so an amendment enshrined the principle in 1868, cementing the legal status of former slaves, who had been denied citizenship until then. Lawmakers understood its broader sweep at the time. Would it “have the effect of naturalising the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?” asked one senator in 1866. “Undoubtedly,” answered another.

The 14th Amendment made a few exceptions. Excluded from citizenship were the American-born children of foreign diplomats, members of an occupying army, or Indians under tribal government, since these groups were “not subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. A few legal scholars have fixated on this clause; they see the children of unauthorised immigrants as another exception. They reason that their parents have no demonstrated political allegiance to America, nor has their presence in the country been sanctioned by other citizens. The Supreme Court upheld the principle of birthright citizenship in 1898. But it did not tackle the status of the children of unauthorised immigrants: the Chinese parents of the defendant in that case, a cook named Wong Kim Ark, were in America legally. The anti-birthright crowd spots an opening.

It looks likely to close. Limiting birthright citizenship would undermine over a century’s worth of legal consensus. Even James Ho, acknowledged to be among the most conservative federal judges that Mr Trump has appointed, has disagreed with his premise. And elsewhere the court has ruled that unauthorised immigrants fall under the jurisdiction of the United States, since they must obey the country’s laws. National allegiance is not what matters, in legal terms, when determining jurisdiction. Whether Mr Trump could enact his proposal by executive order is another question. Again, the answer is probably no, as the change would require a constitutional amendment. With the midterm elections next week, many see a political stunt by the president—an effort to rile up his base and stoke the anti-immigrant flame. Cynicism over civics, then.

www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/11/02/what-is-birthright
-citizenship

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2018 7:19 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Largely it seems due to the confusion between . . .

One part of the confusion is the phrase . . .

Another point of confusion is the meaning of . . .

So much confusion, but Trump is not confused. He could clear up everyone's confusion by writing an Executive Order that reads "Birthright Citizenship is not in the Constitution. - signed Donald J Trump"

How long does it take for Trump's staff to type that up? It could be done today. I'm sure most Republican voters would be happy for Trump to remove the confusion about Birthright Citizenship before the 2018 election. Democrats would be pleased, too, if Trump made his position clear, rather than confusing before November 6th.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2018 8:32 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The answer to this question (Can Trump write an EO changing the interpretation of the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") will only come when a carefully-written EO goes to the Supreme Court for a decision.

According to some legal scholars, most notably the Dean of Chapman University's School of Law, John Eastman, it is entirely possible. Maybe Trump should get him to write the EO.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2018 9:20 AM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:

According to some legal scholars, most notably the Dean of Chapman University's School of Law, John Eastman, it is entirely possible. Maybe Trump should get him to write the EO.

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

Why make it more complicated than "Birthright Citizenship is not in the Constitution. - signed Donald J Trump" ?

That executive order will be accepted by the Supreme Court now that there are 5 Conservative Republicans on it. And it is easy for voters to understand. Trump should write this Executive order today, so that voters know that Trump has solved this problem.

About your "legal scholar", Signym: Chapman is a private, Christian university located in Orange, California and is a branch of the Republican Party.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2018 10:41 AM

CAPTAINCRUNCH

... stay crunchy...

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
About your "legal scholar", Signym: Chapman is a private, Christian university located in Orange, California and is a branch of the Republican Party.

Thanks for the confirmation, second. I confess I knew he was hinky the moment I saw the name of the "university" and the fact that Siggy posted it.

Siggy - your posts have become covered with sh*t lately.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2018 1:16 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
The answer to this question (Can Trump write an EO changing the interpretation of the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof") will only come when a carefully-written EO goes to the Supreme Court for a decision.

According to some legal scholars, most notably the Dean of Chapman University's School of Law, John Eastman, it is entirely possible. Maybe Trump should get him to write the EO.

Why should Trump stoop to the Directives of second? When has Trump ever performed writing of his own, other than social media?
Your proposal to have a scholar compose it makes vastly more sense, likely why it is over the heads of Trolls.

Do you know which portion of the Amendment Eastman would pursue Legal Authority through, or both? It looks like you think Jurisdiction phrase.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2018 2:26 PM

SECOND

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Why should Trump stoop to the Directives of second? When has Trump ever performed writing of his own, other than social media?
Your proposal to have a scholar compose it makes vastly more sense, likely why it is over the heads of Trolls.

Do you know which portion of the Amendment Eastman would pursue Legal Authority through, or both? It looks like you think Jurisdiction phrase.

If Trump does not get the wording perfect on his first attempt, today, at writing an Executive Order to end Birthright Citizenship, he can write another tomorrow. Thousands of anchor babies are being born today, and Trump needs to act now, not wait until after the election. Can't you understand that this is a Crisis, JewelStaiteFan?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2018 2:38 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Why should Trump stoop to the Directives of second? When has Trump ever performed writing of his own, other than social media?
Your proposal to have a scholar compose it makes vastly more sense, likely why it is over the heads of Trolls.

Do you know which portion of the Amendment Eastman would pursue Legal Authority through, or both? It looks like you think Jurisdiction phrase.
If Trump does not get the wording perfect on his first attempt, today, at writing an Executive Order to end Birthright Citizenship, he can write another tomorrow. Thousands of anchor babies are being born today, and Trump needs to act now, not wait until after the election. Can't you understand that this is a Crisis, JewelStaiteFan?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby

Anchor Babies were a crisis in the early 1980s.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 2, 2018 3:22 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Why should Trump stoop to the Directives of second? When has Trump ever performed writing of his own, other than social media?
Your proposal to have a scholar compose it makes vastly more sense, likely why it is over the heads of Trolls.

Do you know which portion of the Amendment Eastman would pursue Legal Authority through, or both? It looks like you think Jurisdiction phrase.
If Trump does not get the wording perfect on his first attempt, today, at writing an Executive Order to end Birthright Citizenship, he can write another tomorrow. Thousands of anchor babies are being born today, and Trump needs to act now, not wait until after the election. Can't you understand that this is a Crisis, JewelStaiteFan?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby

Anchor Babies were a crisis in the early 1980s.

Yup. I suspect some of the original anchor babies already have a slight dusting of the temples.

If he's going to write an EO, it can wait till November 7th.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE