Ron DeSantis says he’ll end birthright citizenship as president

I don't know what you mean by "where that thread ended," as it is 35 pages long, & you don't seem to be referring to the last post I currently see there (by Will Readmore). However, my point was just that this is a ridiculous promise, as a Constitutional Amendment would be required to do this. If either you, or the ending place of the thread you'd linked, see things elsewise, you are inexplicably mistaken. Below is the first sentence in the 14th Amendment, which is not in the least bit unclear:

<Google Snip>

Fourteenth Amendment, 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.
https://constitution.congress.gov › ...
Amdt14.S1.1.2 Citizenship Clause Doctrine - Constitution Annotated
<End Snip>

That second part, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," means "under the authority of U.S. law." This excludes only foreign diplomats, foreign armies, and (at that time) Native American Indians.

https://reason.com/volokh/2020/10/2...ect-to-the-jurisdiction-of-the-united-states/


So, there is no apparent "loophole" here, regardless of what Trump or DeSantis might say. Or are they promising to pass a law, that would define any person born in the U.S., without a parent who is a U.S. citizen, as a member of a "foreign army?"

I don't think even this joke of a current Supreme Court, would endorse something that crazy!

 

There are more originalists on the Supreme Court now than there were previously. The drafters of the 14th Amendment have said “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant not having an allegiance to another country or group. Children of illegal immigrants are citizens of the home country of their parents. The 14th Amendment was a summary of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and codified it into our Constitution. It was primarily about giving citizenship to slaves. From an originalist perspective there’s a strong argument that Congress can make a law to end this form of birthright citizenship.

 

Actually, another law already takes care of that concern:

<Snip>
A person born abroad in wedlock to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), if at least one of the parents had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions prior to the person's birth.May 11, 2023
https://travel.state.gov › travel › legal
Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship at Birth by a Child Born Abroad - Travel.gov
<End Snip>

 

You misunderstand the words; under the jurisdiction, simply means subject to the authority of the U.S., so basically includes anyone in the country, other than foreign diplomats (who have diplomatic immunity, from U.S. jurisdiction).

You are wrong about this, as well. The 14th A, clearly states that being born here (as long as you are not the child of foreign diplomats), makes you a citizen. At the time of the Amendment, the main group who those words were meant to address, were the American Indians.

https://reason.com/volokh/2020/10/2...ect-to-the-jurisdiction-of-the-united-states/


All that said, does not mean that I am opposed to considering arguments that this part of the Amendment should now be overwritten, with a new Amendment. I am only stating the fact, that anyone thinking that this is not what the Constitution now clearly mandates, or that there is any other way around that, short of an Amendment, is dreaming.

 

Of course there were citizens before the Fourteenth Amendment. There was a specific, historical reason for clarifying that all people born here, were full fledged citizens-- any idea what it was? Will it help, if I tell you that the 14th is the second of three Amendments which are also called "the Reconstruction Amendments?" How about if I passed along their other name, "the Civil War Amendments?"

The Fourteenth Amendment was meant to guarantee all rights of citizenship to the former slaves (since the 13th Amendment officially abolished slavery). Though the 15th Amendment clarified further, that being citizens meant that black men had the right to vote.

 

Another bogus, Corn Pop argument-- what a surprise. If you read the entirety of the first sentence, of 14A, it bestows citizenship upon all those born here, and who are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. This was specifically included because the Native Americans were, at that time, considered their own nations, not part of our country. Actually, Native Americans who lived off of the reservations, and who were taxed, could become citizens.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/consti...-1924-all-indians-made-united-states-citizens

<Snip>

The Dawes Act in 1887 gave American citizenship to all Native Americans who accepted individual land grants under the provisions of statutes and treaties, and it marked another period where the government aggressively sought to allow other parties to acquire American Indian lands.
<End Snip>


The later, Indian Citizenship Act, to which you refer, did not even confer full rights of citizenship, as it left it up to each state, whether they would allow their Native American citizens to vote, and some states barred them from voting, until 1957!
That is according to the government site below, "Today in history".

https://www.loc.gov/item/today-in-history/june-02/#:~:text=On June 2, 1924, Congress,barred Native Americans from voting.


My first source, the Constitution Center, cites the denying of the vote to Amerindians, only as late as 1948; however this source doesn't pretend that the passing of a law, utterly resolved the matter:

<Snip>
The issue of American Indian birthright citizenship wouldn’t be settled until 1924 when the Indian Citizenship Act conferred citizenship on all American Indians. At the time, 125,000 of an estimated population of 300,000 American Indians weren’t citizens.

The Indian Citizenship Act still didn’t offer full protection of voting rights to Indians. As late as 1948, two states (Arizona and New Mexico) had laws that barred many American Indians from voting, and American Indians faced some of the same barriers as blacks, until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, including Jim Crow-like tactics and poll taxes.
<End Snip>


Interesting as all that is, the point is that this history of Native Americans, has nothing to do with the children of illegal immigrants, born on U.S. soil.

 

No, it would require an amendment. The constitution is clear. Law can control the process for naturalization but not citizenship by birth.

 

Well if you know a SCOTUS ruling that was NOT addressed in the other thread please let us know.

 

Needs to happen would remove an obvious incentive for pregnant woman to make the trek with cartels.

 

The reason I posted that link was because we just had this discussion and there didn't seem to be any reason to rehash the exact same arguments over and over again. However, it seems like everyone wants to do exactly that. My position is the same as it was in that thread:

 

I think the constitution is clear that it can.

 

Read what you wrote. Illegal immigrants are also considered members of another nation. Once again you make the point against yourself clearly citing the originalist perspective and you don’t even realize you’ve done it. So expected, yet still so funny.

 

In the mid 1800s to early 1900s, children of WHITE immigrants were considered citizens, even though their parents couldn’t even apply for citizenship until they’d been here two years. They were still citizens of Poland, Ukraine, Germany, etc.

As I’ve said already, the reason for the word “born,” was included so that ALL children of immigrants enjoyed the same rights as white children of immigrants.

 

Then why does the 14th mention both the naturalized and those born here?

You leftist seem to think the founders stuttered a lot.

 

I’m more Libertarian than anything resembling R or D, but thanks for playing, “she disagrees with me so she must be one of them.” Yes, I’m rolling my eyes.

Now for the vocabulary lesson. A naturalized citizen was NOT born here. A born-here citizen WAS born here. I hope this helps.

 

"No kidding?", Green Man says as he rolls his eyes.

Then why did you say ,

It's not there were no citizens before the 14th amendment and it's not that there are not clues in the constitution as to how citizenship is determined, and there was a definition of citizenship in the 1778 constitution, but you won't find it on the Internet.

It is that you are clinging to the 14th as the only source of citizenship like the leftists cling to their false sense of moral superiority.

 

I guess you didn’t read the history I posted. It’s in there. I’m not going to re-find it for you.

I’ll remind you that you asked for the difference between born and naturalized.

 

I'm not seeing it, where did I ask that?

I'll remind you that there were citizens before the 14th amendment. In fact there were two kinds of citizens prior to the 14th amendment. These are Natural Citizens, and Citizens of the United States.

One is a citizen by right, the other by statute.

 

Both are mentioned because they are both types of citizens. If you're born here, you're a citizen, likewise if you're naturalized.

 

The Supreme Court ruled in 1872, "That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."

From an originalist standpoint, there is plenty of evidence that the 14th Amendment did not automatically provide benefits to children of foreigners born within the United States. Naturalization is a matter left to Congress, and if the 14th Amendment did not mean what we believe to mean today in regard to birthright citizenship, then the originalists could find that Congress can change the rules of naturalization to exclude the children of illegal immigrants. There's a lot of history that needs to be dissected, but for an originalist, a modern interpretation would be ignored for the meaning it had when it was ratified. What it meant in the early 1900s wouldn't necessarily be relevant.

 

By that logic, I’m here illegally because my great great grandparents had their kids after they got to America, but before they were citizens. Logic fail. The US considers me a citizen, and I got it by being born, here, descended from people who were not citizens when they had kids.

 

The conversation is about changing the law to end birthright citizenship and whether or not it could be legal without a Constitutional amendment. But, that's a fun story about yourself, despite not being relevant in the least. Logic fail.

 

Oh? I was using your logic that children born to non citizens had some loyalty to other countries, so they aren’t citizens.

Yes, if we want to end birthright citizenship, we need to remove the part of the constitution that guarantees birthright citizenship. Lol. This is pretty simple stuff, really. Any laws that violate any part of the constitution are, well, unconstitutional.

 

I used the word "allegiance" because that is the word used by Congress and the Supreme Court at the time meant to describe someone who was a citizen to another nation or crown. It was also used to during Reconstruction and elsewhere.

You don't need to "remove" anything if it was later "interpreted" to mean something against its original intent. All it would take is an act of Congress and a determination of the federal courts to affirm the law. We are seeing that a lot lately.

Contextualists believe the Constitution and the law means whatever the judge's modern opinion of what it should mean. Originalists try to figure out the original intent of a law and apply that leaving any changes of meaning to Congress. And, if the courts made mistakes they will often correct those mistakes.

When the 14th Amendment was ratified it wasn't clear cut that it meant anyone physically born within our territory was automatically a citizen. In fact, it didn't mean that at all. But, there's no perfect precedent to pull from on the issue of children of illegal immigrants.

 

Yes, you are sadly correct. “Be secure in their persons or papers,” used to mean just that. Now it means, “all your things are available to the feds whenever they choose.”

So, I stand corrected. Citizen means whatever politicians decide it means. Perhaps we can change it to mean only straight white Christians.