The 14th Amendment, Interpreted Poorly

A good deal of the national (and State) wealth is devoted to health and education of children who are citizens of the USA.

Thus, when the definition of "citizen" comes up in connection with "anchor babies," the usual suspects haul out the 14th Amendment (and SCOTUS decisions about its meaning) and make it perfectly clear that we are simply required to do what we do--after all, the babies were born in the USA.

Well, maybe.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (as proposed in 1866 and ratified in 1868) reads, “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.” It explicitly referred to children born to U.S. citizens and those born to aliens lawfully in the U.S.

Why did the amendment’s sponsors insist on adding, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”?
For insight, consider the words of Sen. Jacob Howard, co-author of the amendment’s citizenship clause. In 1866, he wrote that the amendment “will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, or who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States...”

By extension, then, it is fair to conclude that, in addition to the children of those legally in the U.S. under the above exclusion, this would apply to the children of those illegally in the U.S. —until the Supreme Court took up the question of the rights of illegal aliens to taxpayer services in 1982. In Plyler v. Doe, the judicial activists concluded that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.”

But Plyler v. Doe is historically and legally inaccurate. In the context of original intent, children born to those who have entered the U.S. illegally—those who are not citizens—are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” One would hope, in the course of the current debate about immigration, that Congress and the courts would actually pay homage to the plain language of our Constitution.

Not much chance of that, though, especially when it’s not politically expedient.

Meanwhile, 12-20 million illegal aliens in the U.S. have hundreds of thousands of children, who are extended birthright citizenship—at an annual cost to taxpayers of between six and ten billion dollars.

On top of that, the “economic benefit” argument for “guest workers” is suffering a significant trade deficit. On average, the households of illegal aliens are paying about $9,000 in various taxes, and receiving about $30,000 in benefits—direct benefits, social services, public services and population based services like education.

For what it's worth, the Usual Suspects discount the language of Sen. Howard, because he was writing at the time of the "Yellow Peril" and was (by some accounts) covering his political ass. In addition, the Usual Suspects argue that the "subject to" phrase means to include all State jurisdictions--that is, that one cannot claim citizenship in (say) Nevada, and commit a crime in Florida, and use the Nevada citizenship to escape prosecution. (Or something like that.)

Well, OK.

But the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" can just as easily mean just what it says, and to conclude that a newborn infant is "subject" while his/her parents are flagrantly violating the Immigration Law is a bit of a stretch. It also implies that the infant can consciously make the decision to "be subject" to the jurisdiction thereof.

Not likely that's the case, either.

Of course, since I'm not versed in Legal Art -ification, what is obvious from common sense and plain language is not necessarily a "good" interpretation. After all, the Supremes are....smarter, no?

HT: Patriot Post email even date.