The 14th Amendment & Birthright Citizenship

[OlDawg]

Interesting reads.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Thoughts?

[tvc184]

I think the there is obviously a case for no birthright citizenship, especially considering the Supreme Court case of Elk v. Wilkins.

Even though John Elk was born in US territory on an Indian reservation, in a 7-2 ruling the Supreme Court said that Elk was not a US citizen. This was because he was born on the reservation and due to treaties, was subject to tribal law, not that of the US.

It took an act of Congress in 1924 under their authority in Article I of the Constitution to regulate immigration and citizenship, to declare that any Native American was a citizen at birth even though they were subject to tribal law. So after WWI and only 100 years ago, Indians born on a reservation were not Americans at birth.

I think however the Supreme Court is about 98% likely to rule in favor of birthright citizenship, more from tradition than fact, much like in Obergefell where on a 5-4 vote they supported same sex marriages. 

[OlDawg]

Sen. Jacob Howard, who wrote the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause believed the same thing as Bingham as evidenced by his introduction of the clause to the US Senate as follows:

[T]his 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. 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.

*Copied from the second link in OP thread above.

 

SCOTUS got this wrong according to the author of the Amendment. IMHO, a fix would be to clarify ‘anyone born here to parent/parents with legal standing to be in the United States or its provinces or territories’. This would follow the author of the Amendment’s original intent that was voted on, and would be a compromise that works in the best interest of the public.

While it wouldn’t stop rich people from having ‘birthing vacations’ in the U.S., it would stop anchor babies & many issues with immigration & family separation. Those who are wealthy becoming citizens aren’t a drain on the public till, and the number is very small. They could also claim dual citizenship if desired. Those who are already considered citizens would remain as such.

Personally, I think SCOTUS may uphold the injunctions temporarily, but  request the issue be developed deeper for a more thorough review before a final ruling.

This issue needs to be addressed.

@tvc184