We started a discussion of the 14th Amendment which has become lengthy. I'm happy to confess that the nuance of Federal Court decisions is not part of my education. At the same time, I'm not the only person who argues that the 14th has been perverted by the Courts.
Here's a snitch of it:
To the question..."how could you [deport an anchor-baby] if that anchor-baby is NOT "subject to the [US Government], I responded:
It should be adjudicated as trespassing.
Because it IS trespass; they are un-invited, and have no legitimate reason for being in the US.
(One could also infer that the reason for being in the US is specifically IL-licit: to establish "anchorship," in cases where the mother is an illegal.)
It seems to me that the Constitution and the Amendments thereto were written for the benefit of US citizens; an interpretation of the 14th which derogates from US citizens (dollar cost) to benefit non-citizens (the mother and, arguably the child) is anomalic, no?
...firmly escorting Moms and babies OUT of the country will eventually have the effect of minimizing that traffic.
So to that response, Illusory ripostes:
I don't think it would be possible to hold a newborn infant liable for trespassing, at least criminally. They couldn't possibly have formed the intent. According to the law, at least.
The mother, yes, but we're talking about the babies here. Certainly the mother could be deported, but I doubt too many immigration judges would be so inclined.
OK. I wasn't clear. The MOM (and the baby) get escorted out. By the way, since the USGov't (by Illusory's argument and by definition) does not have "jurisdiction" over the illegal-immigrant Mom, then how can the US Gov't deport mommy (and all those other people)?
Illusory also points to the 800-pound canary: Immigration Judges.
You can't deport the baby, it's a citizen. Besides, where are you going to deport a person born in the U.S. to?
May contention is that the baby is (or should not be) a citizen. And any actual, real-life mother who fails to take her baby along with her on deportation, is a walking oxymoron.
It seems to me that the Constitution and the Amendments thereto were written for the benefit of US citizens ...It doesn't say that, though. There are only a few instances where the benefits accrue only to citizens - voting, for example.
You mean that SCOTUS is not capable of inferring Common Sense?
The rest of it is all "persons" and "we the people" (notwithstanding the current president's extraordinary claim to "my government").
Ummmmnnn.....at the time, "we the people" were residents--and actually, were NOT citizens. So maybe the Framers were actually writing a World Citizens' Constitution. Please.....
Surely you don't think the Bill of Rights, where most of the "benefits" reside, applies only to U.S. citizens.
Actually, yes. That's what I mean. Other countries may copy the BoR, I suppose.
[A]n interpretation of the 14th which derogates from US citizens (dollar cost) to benefit non-citizens (the mother and, arguably the child) is anomalic, no?
No, considering non-citizens work here too, pay taxes, etc., etc. So that dollar cost isn't borne exclusively by citizens.
OK. Predominantly paid by US citizens.
By the same token, I suppose a non-citizen could complain about their tax dollars being used to support social welfare programs that benefit citizens (including the anchor babies).
And well they should!
[F]irmly escorting Moms and babies OUT of the country will eventually have the effect of minimizing that traffic.
But, as I suggested above, deporting the baby would be a de facto acknowledgment of jurisdiction over it and, therefore, citizenship.
Nope. If that's the case, then NO "illegals" could be deported.
I don't see any way around it, short of amending the Constitution.
Perhaps a SCOTUS-change is easier.
This stuff, by the way, is being replayed (mutatis mutandis) in another case, wherein a Federal Court has determined that "the military cannot detain people who have legal residence in the US for crimes committed here, even if those crimes include acting as a foreign agent in service to an enemy at war" should get Federal Court hearings rather than military confinement.
CQ's comment applies to both cases:
As often remarked, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
And I hold that the mis-interpretation of the 14th, while not "suicide," forces US citizens to drink tainted water, at the very least.
By the way, since the USGov't (by Illusory's argument and by definition) does not have "jurisdiction" over the illegal-immigrant Mom, then how can the US Gov't deport mommy (and all those other people)?
ReplyDeleteGood grief, Dad, that isn't what I said at all. Clearly the feds have jurisdiction over aliens unlawfully present in the country. I literally diagrammed the conjunctive requirements of the Citizenship Clause for you.
And it does not follow that the Citizenship Clause confers citizenship on anchor baby's mom (at least not immediately, as the Clause confers immediate citizenship on baby. Mom may succeed at future naturalization, but not because the Citizenship Clause grants it to her).
But the feds may certainly deport pregnant mom prior to the birth mentioned in the first element of the Citizenship Clause.
You mean that SCOTUS is not capable of inferring Common Sense?
Occasionally, yes, but my point is that the oft-stated and practically revered conservative judicial philosophy of “strict constructionism” does not allow such inferences, especially in the case of the Citizenship Clause where the plain meaning, it seems to me, is as plain as the cute little button nose on an anchor baby's face.
They may also deport the Mom AFTER the birth, even though she may also have a "cute little button nose," just like the baby.
ReplyDeleteAnd if I was not clear, I know that the Mom does not get citizenship.
You argue that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means one thing for the baby and an entirely different thing for the mother--only by accident of geography (which, of course, is not accidental at all.)
But that's precisely the argument: it is an irrational reading which grants citizenship to anyone by virtue of "birthplace" rather than intent.
(That happens to be another flaw in the "Z" proposal--since many of those granted the "Z" have no intention of becoming citizens, they are de facto no different from the ancient Romans' untermensch; able to work, but not able to participate--a situation mirrored in present-day Germany.)
Lacking a declaration of "intent" from the child, the "intent" of the mother must be given weight. The Courts read a severability here which is unsustainable from a common-sense perspective.
They may also deport the Mom AFTER the birth, even though she may also have a "cute little button nose," just like the baby.
ReplyDeleteYessir.
You argue that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means one thing for the baby and an entirely different thing for the mother--only by accident of geography (which, of course, is not accidental at all.)
Not exactly. I argue that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means citizenship if and only if the other half of the conjunction, “person born in the U.S.,” is also satisfied.
Mom is not a person born in the U.S.; therefore the other half of the conjunction is not relevant to her situation.
Rather, Congress's jurisdiction over mom derives from Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 4, which empowers the legislature to establish the contours of naturalization, and, I would argue, Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 18, which gives it (and, by extension, the executive branch) the police power to deport her.
But that's precisely the argument: it is an irrational reading which grants citizenship to anyone by virtue of "birthplace" rather than intent.
Well, it's been a feature of the common law (jus soli) since time out of mind. So I disagree that it's irrational.
Lacking a declaration of "intent" from the child, the "intent" of the mother must be given weight. The Courts read a severability here which is unsustainable from a common-sense perspective.
It's an interesting theory. I shall ponder it some.
I argue that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means citizenship if and only if the other half of the conjunction, "person born in the U.S.," is also satisfied.
ReplyDeleteSorry, this is dreadful phrasing on my part.
All I mean is that the jurisdiction mentioned in the Citizenship Clause does not apply to anyone other than those born in the U.S.
The issue seems to lie with the word “jurisdiction” and the point I want to make is that there can be multiple authorities with valid jurisdiction over an individual. The typical United States hierarchy goes municipal, county, state, federal. There are also areas of split jurisdiction as (via Law.com) “Jurisdiction in the courts of a particular state may be determined by the location of real property in a state (in rem jurisdiction), or whether the parties are located within the state (in personam jurisdiction). Thus, a probate of Marsha Blackwood's estate would be in Idaho where she lived and died, but jurisdiction over her title to real estate in Utah will be under the jurisdiction of the Utah courts.”
ReplyDeleteThe immigration question as it relates to the 14th amendment thus requires determination of which authority has primary jurisdiction over the immigrant. In a broad sense the United States has jurisdiction over all individuals, citizen or not, within our boundaries. Individuals here as lawful representatives of foreign sovereignties, however, retain the primacy of their initial citizenship, so the children of the French Ambassador remain French even if birthed in Maryland.
Therefore, it can also be argued that illegal residents in the United States retain the citizenship of their origin. For example, the Canadian government retains primary jurisdiction, and the right of extradition, over any Canadian citizen overstaying a work visa. The people who drafted the 14th amendment most likely did not consider the necessity to overtly state that jurisdiction meant primary authority because it was common sense that unnaturalized individuals were not citizens, and thus neither were their offspring.
Yes, but the MIS-interpretation of the 14th automatically assigning citizenship to any newborns who happen to be on our side of the line is the problem.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct that "unnaturalized individuals", which includes newborns of illegals, are subject to the primary authority of the US.
I have read every word of every thread. As you know, I am a car salesman, not a lawyer. I was able to read every bit of that mumbo jumbo illusory puts out and still, your interpretation of the 14th amendment makes complete sense to me.
ReplyDeleteBest stick to selling cars, then.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct that "unnaturalized individuals", which includes newborns of illegals, are subject to the primary authority of the US.
ReplyDeleteBorn or naturalized, reads the Clause, Dad. That they are "unnaturalized" is conceded, as well as irrelevant to the anchor baby question.
Let's be careful with our logical operators out there.
Ah, Illusory--seems that you have a certain sort of "snippishness" about you.
ReplyDeleteMy my.
Actually, it is NOT 'irrelevant' to the anchor baby question, except in the fevered minds of certain judges.
Only a certain mindset could ignore the fact that the intent of the mother counts.
Usually, that mindset can be found on planets with more than one moon.
*sigh*
ReplyDeleteWhatever. You're beyond hope.
Nope.
ReplyDeleteI'm determined.
And literate.
AND--I have common sense.