Thread: Author of 14th Amendment: ‘Removes All Doubt as to What Persons Are or Are Not Citize

CNSNews.com

The senator who wrote the language in the 14th Amendment said he COULDN'T MAKE IT ANY CLEARER who IS and who ISN'T a citizen...



cnsnews.com

Author of 14th Amendment: ‘Removes All Doubt as to What Persons Are or Are Not Citizens’

118 Comments
1,368 shares

1.9K

Author of 14th Amendment: ‘Removes All Doubt as to What Persons Are or Are Not Citizens’

By Craig Bannister | October 31, 2018 | 3:53 PM EDT

Sen. Jacob Howard (R-Michigan) (Source: U.S. Library of Congress)

Today, debate is raging in Congress over whether or not the 14th Amendment grants automatic citizenship to the children of illegal aliens born on U.S. soil – but, the author of the amendment said its intent couldn’t be clearer.
On May 30, 1866, Sen. Jacob Howard (R-Michigan), the author of the amendment's language, gave a speech on the Senate floor explaining its meaning and declaring that that the amendment “settles the great question” and “removes all doubt” about citizenship:

“It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.”

Sen. Howard even went so far as to say that the amendment’s intent had been so thoroughly discussed that he shouldn’t even have to clarify it:

“I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion.”

What’s more, the amendment is only articulating what is already established law, Sen. Howard said:

“The first amendment to section one, declaring that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.’
“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.”

As for birthright citizenship, Sen. Howard said “foreigners” and “aliens” born on U.S. soil are, “of course,” not citizens:

“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.”

And, yet, today, Democrats led by House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) fiercely insist the 14th amendment grants citizenship to children of illegal aliens born in the U.S., while President Donald Trump, his Republican supporters and constitutional scholar Mark Levin adamantly argue that it does not.
Further muddling the issue, House Speaker Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) recently suggested that the 14th amendment does grant birthright citizenship, while retired Democrat icon Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada) once argued that “no sane country” would do so.

https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-b...tReCitizenship

Yes, that is right. To be a person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States means you have to be a citizen of the United States. Everyone else is subject to the jurisdiction of their home country. That is what subject to jurisdiction means in our language, that's what it's always meant in our language.

TRUMP VIEW – CONSISTENT WITH FRAMERS OF 14TH AMENDMENT
President Trump has the authority to issue a directive to end birthright citizenship.
Those who contend that the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, even if their parents are here illegally, ignore the text and legislative history of the amendment.
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children … not to “all people born in the US.”
Universal birthright citizenship must be stopped because it:
• Attracts illegal immigration
• Rewards and encourages illegal and exploitative immigration.



dailysignal.com

Trump Is Right. Ending Birthright Citizenship Is Constitutional.

Trump Is Right. Ending Birthright Citizenship Is Constitutional.

Hans von Spakovsky / @HvonSpakovsky / November 01, 2018 / 59 Comments



President Donald Trump has vowed to sign an executive order terminating birthright citizenship. (Photo: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters/Newscom)

Commentary By

Hans von Spakovsky @HvonSpakovsky
Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues—including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration, the rule of law and government reform—as a senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies and manager of the think tank’s Election Law Reform Initiative. Read his research.

President Donald Trump’s announcement Tuesday that he is preparing an executive order to end birthright citizenship has the left and even some conservatives in an uproar.
But the president is correct when he says that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution does not require universal birthright citizenship.
An executive order by Trump ending birthright citizenship would face a certain court challenge that would wind up in the Supreme Court. But based on my research of this issue over several years, I believe the president’s view is consistent with the view of the framers of the amendment.
Those who claim the 14th Amendment mandates that anyone born in the U.S. is automatically an American citizen are misinterpreting the amendment in a manner inconsistent with the intent of the amendment’s framers.
Universal birthright citizenship attracts illegal immigration. By granting immediate citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of the legal status of the parents, we reward and encourage illegal and exploitative immigration.
Most countries around the world do not provide birthright citizenship. We do so based not upon the requirements of federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. That should be changed.
Many Republicans, Democrats, and independents believe the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.
Contrary to popular belief, the 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all people born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.
Critics of the president’s possible action erroneously claim that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself or herself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal immigrants alike.
But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.
The fact that tourists or illegal immigrants are subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws means that they are subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. and can be prosecuted. But it does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States, as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.
This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power,” would be considered citizens.
The amendment was intended to give citizenship only to those who owed their allegiance to the United States and were subject to its complete jurisdiction. Sen. Lyman Trumbull, R-Ill., a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” meant not owing allegiance to any other country.
Universal birthright citizenship attracts illegal immigration. By granting immediate citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of the legal status of the parents, we reward and encourage illegal and exploitative immigration.
Today many people do not seem to understand the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction—which subjects all foreigners who enter the U.S. to the jurisdiction of our laws—and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the U.S. government as well.
So while a foreign tourist could be prosecuted for violating a criminal statute, he could not be drafted if we had a military draft or otherwise be subject to other requirements imposed on citizens, such as serving on a jury. If a foreign tourist has a baby while in the U.S., her child is a citizen of her home country and owes no political allegiance to the U.S.
In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.
American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to all people born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter the legal status of their parents.
Most legal arguments for universal birthright citizenship point to the Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. But that decision only stands for the very narrow proposition that children born of lawful, permanent residents are U.S. citizens.
The high court decision says nothing about the children of illegal immigrants or the children of tourists, students, and other foreigners only temporarily present in this country being automatically considered U.S. citizens. Those children are considered citizens of the native countries of their parents, just like children born abroad to American parents are considered U.S. citizens, no matter where the children are born.
The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending to the children of legal noncitizens was incorrect, according to the text and legislative history of the amendment. But even under that holding, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal immigrants—only permanent, legal residents.
U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The federal government has erroneously interpreted that statute to provide passports and other benefits to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.
As a result, the president of the United States has the authority to direct federal agencies to act in accordance with the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, and to issue passports and other government documents and benefits only to those individuals whose status as U.S. citizens meets this requirement.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/11/...rR4n93BxekPDro

Great news.



conservativereview.com

Levin and Horowitz: Yes, Trump can end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants with an executive order

Levin and Horowitz: Yes, Trump can end birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants with an executive order

Chris Pandolfo · October 31, 2018


VIPDesignUSA | Getty Images

Tuesday on his radio program, LevinTV host Mark Levin spoke with Conservative Review senior editor Daniel Horowitz about birthright citizenship — and that President Donald Trump is entirely within his rights to interpret and enforce the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
Horowitz told Levin that President Trump has the authority to issue an executive order clarifying how the executive branch will interpret the 14th Amendment concerning the citizenship status of children born in the United States to illegal aliens. He said that those who say otherwise, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., are “constitutionally illiterate.”
“Let’s put this in plain English here,” Horowitz said. “Basically they’re saying, Mark, I could break into your home, kick down the door, drop a kid there, and he has the right to live there for the remainder of his life and there’s not a darn thing you can do about it.”
“The reality is that even if we agree to the notion of birthright citizenship … there is no way you could extrapolate that to people who came here without consent. The key words are ‘consent’ and ‘sovereignty.’ Nothing ever supersedes that. Nobody could unilaterally assert jurisdiction and make it that there’s nothing we can do to stop this,” he continued.

Listen: https://soundcloud.com/conservativereview

At Levin’s request, Horowitz explained how an executive order issued by Trump ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants would not be lawless because the order would be pursuant to law. It is not like Obama’s illegal DACA amnesty, which was an order contrary to law.
“For 130 years there’s an uninterrupted stream of case law, including cases written by the Wong Kim Ark justice, Horace Gray, saying that if you come here without consent and you do not have legal status, it is, in the most literal and physical sense, as if you are standing outside of our boundaries in terms of access to the courts, in terms of rights, in terms of everything,” Horowitz said. This means that the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.
Horowitz made the point that our modern concept of birthright citizenship came about not as the result of a court decision, not by an act of Congress, but by the executive branch’s lax enforcement of immigration law. Levin pointed out that if birthright citizenship is a bureaucratic creation, as the chief of the bureaucracy, President Trump has the right to correct years of extra-constitutional behavior by the executive branch.
“He’s not changing the Constitution by executive order. He’s not reinterpreting the Constitution by executive order. He’s getting the executive branch under control and saying, ‘This is what the 14th Amendment means,'” Levin said.

LevinTV ✔ @LevinTV

Video at the tweet

This Election Is As Important As A Presidential Election, So Vote

No excuse to miss tonight's show, it's free for all! http://bit.ly/2jwlMwW
9:30 PM - Oct 30, 2018

• 483
• 198 people are talking about this

https://www.conservativereview.com/n...QT99YIZoULDDAY

CNSNews.com

"Paul Ryan has NO IDEA WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT," Constitutional Scholar Mark Levin says.



cnsnews.com

Mark Levin Challenges Speaker Ryan: President Trump ‘Is Right’ on Birthright Citizenship

695 Comments
6,324 shares

15K