I also forgot to link to any case law on this particular matter, so I'll direct your attention to United States vs Wong Kim Ark ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark ) in 1898 which established that a man born in the United States to parents who were not citizens (his parents were both Chinese nationals) was, indeed, a citizen by his birth here. This ruling is particularly germane as it came in challenge to the Chinese Exclusion Act which tried to prevent anyone of Chinese descent from becoming a citizen and trying to keep all the Chinese out. Sound at all familiar?
This ruling was also cited by the Supreme Court, in 1982, to strike down a Texas law that tried to deny undocumented alien children public education within the state. That's over 100 years of case law, with multiple cases citing the precedent and providing the same interpretation of the clause in the 14th amendment. Now I'm not saying that a Roberts court wouldn't overturn that much precedent, but that would be without a doubt an active of extreme judicial activism and as the case law currently stands, the Deal bill is blatantly unconstitutional. Judah On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: > That's quite the reach there Jerry. The American Indian example > specifically denies the automatic citizenship for someone born in the > territory because that person was born on a reservation that was, by > law, a sovereign nation. The subsequent example you provide says > "everyone born in the country except temporary sojourners or > representatives of a foreign government". Are you submitting that the > children of undocumented aliens that are growing up in our country, > attending our schools, are just tourists? Or are they ambassadors? > > This is pretty settled case law, Jerry. You may not like it, but you > are counting on the overturning of a really long line of jurisprudence > in order to justify the interpretation you give to lend credence to > Deal's bill. The phrase "jurisdiction of" is pretty clear. There are, > indeed, people living within the United States who were not subject to > the jurisdiction of our government. American Indians, as you helpfully > provide, who lived on a reservation were one such group. > Representatives of a foreign government, such as Ambassadors and > people living at an Embassy, are another. > > Given that there were clear answers to the meaning of "jurisdiction > of" at the time of the adoption of the 14th amendment and you even > provided quotes referencing those groups who were clearly *not* under > the jurisdiction, I'm having a hard time seeing how you can justify > this as anything other than an assault on the plain meaning of the > Constitution. > > Judah > > On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Jerry Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the >> jurisdiction <http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#JURIS> thereof, >> are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." >> >> I think most of the confusion about the issue comes from the "jurisdiction >> thereof" clause. >> >> The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted on July 9, 1868. >> >> Here is a summary of a case almost 20 years later. >> >> >> In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the Supreme Court denied the >> birthright citizenship claim of an American Indian. The court ruled that >> *being >> born in the territory of the United States is not sufficient for citizenship >> *; those who wish to claim citizenship by birth must be born subject to the >> jurisdiction of the United States. The court's majority held that the >> children of Native Americans were: >> >> "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. >> >> >> Here are some quotes and from and info about some of the framers of the >> Fourteenth Amendment. >> >> Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson >> of Iowa, added on March 1, 1866: We must depend on the general law relating >> to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and >> that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United >> States is a natural-born citizen of such States, *except* that of children >> born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign >> Governments. >> >> Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said *Sec. >> 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes* meant *every human being born within the >> jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any >> foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a >> natural born citizen.* If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law >> rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be >> entirely irrelevant. >> >> >> >> 'How can people say they want to have judges that "uphold the Constitution" >> and then do something to blatantly in the face of the plain wording of that >> very same document?' >> >> Based on the case above and quotes from the framers of the amendment, it >> doesn't seem to be blatantly flying in the face of the amendment, unless you >> count the Constitution as a "living and breathing" document, which I do not. >> >> >> >> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States_of_America#cite_note-1 >> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:317037 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
