Thread: Political Pressures Put Immigration Overhaul In Doubt

Yeah, please, Crocket,

I've exhausted my knowledge on the subject and this is what the politicians don't want us to talk about...and it's key to how many illegals are actually going to end up being here with high birth rates!

They are re-populating New Orleans as we speak!

I'll third that!! Crocket.

Well, here's an excerpt from an article on the discussion of intent by the legislators back in 1866:

In the 1866 Senate ratification debate, the Citizenship Clause’s proponent, Jacob Howard of Michigan, said it was, "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 and national law, a citizen of the United States. … 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."

James Doolittle of Wisconsin queried Howard’s language, but not because he favored birthright citizenship. Instead he wanted it clear that Indians were excluded because they owed allegiance to their tribes. The Citizenship Clause’s drafters were careful to exclude Indians —deep-rooted in this land— from U.S. citizenship because they were not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. It is inconceivable that they would countenance citizenship for Yaser Esam Hamdi just because he was born in Baton Rouge.

Pennsylvania’s Edgar Cowan discussed citizenship’s limits. "If a traveler comes here from Ethiopia, from Australia, or from Great Britain, … he has a right to the protection of the laws, but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of the word."

Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a key drafter of the 14th Amendment, explained the jurisdiction requirement. "The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ … What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

Maryland’s Reverdy Johnson, the only Democrat in this Reconstruction-era debate, gave Trumbull bipartisan support. "Now all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign Power … shall be considered as citizens of the United States." Johnson emphasized that the jurisdiction requirement meant the same as the phrase "not subject to any foreign Power" in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, passed by the same Congress that ratified the 14th Amendment. The import of the jurisdiction requirement, affirmed by its drafters’ expressed intent, is that after dealing with the special case of freedmen the Citizenship Clause confers birthright citizenship only on citizens’ children.

source

Another good discussion of the Senate debate prior to acceptance of the verbiage of Amendment XIV may be found here

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."

Wow! I wonder how anyone can argue with this! It would require a change in the law! Or am I just naive???

Originally Posted by olivermyboy

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."

Wow! I wonder how anyone can argue with this! It would require a change in the law! Or am I just naive???

When anyone finds the answer to this 64,000 dollar question, PLEASE let me in on it

I've been scratching my head for years over this.

Originally Posted by olivermyboy

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."

Wow! I wonder how anyone can argue with this! It would require a change in the law! Or am I just naive???

It would require a change in the law UNLESS there has already been a change in the government. Note that most federal courts, for example, will no longer recognize any cite prior to 1937. Our entire legal system was overhauled in the Judiciary Act of 1937 and the Judicial Procedure Reform Act. We granted no authority to Congress to change our legal system, so how under what authority did the overhaul come about?

It seems so easy reading this. But why does everyone sound so sure of what they are talking about!! Is it just because someone said so and nobody has checked, that does not seem probable, Two many lawers out there working on this illegal immigration thing.

Originally Posted by SOSADFORUS

It seems so easy reading this. But why does everyone sound so sure of what they are talking about!! Is it just because someone said so and nobody has checked, that does not seem probable, Two many lawers out there working on this illegal immigration thing.

Well, you have to separate true constitutional law from the colorable law that arises under the aegis of "public policy."

A nice little explanatory article can be found here.

Originally Posted by olivermyboy

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."

Wow! I wonder how anyone can argue with this! It would require a change in the law! Or am I just naive???

Guess what, there IS NO LAW granting birthright citizenship to illegal babies. It is a federal POLICY in what is called the Code of Federal Regulations. The code says anyone born in the United States and under the jurisdiction thereof is a US citizen. The code conviently leaves out the above and also one Senators remarks that the parents have to be "under the COMPLETE jurisdiction" of the US. Leaving these Senator's comments out of the code has allowed the US Citizenship to be granted to aliens, foreigners, and those under the partial jurisdiction of the US.

But ignoring the Senator's comments which I am told are a part of the 14th Amendment also means the code is Unconstitutional, and all the illegal babies who received US Citizenship under it are actually not US Citizens!

In other words a good case could be made to revoke the Citizenship of anchor babies. The question is will our current Globalist Supreme Court rule in our favor, or will they invent some arcane rule against us?