Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 122
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,674
    Blog Entries
    14
    Rep Power
    16
    Post Like Stats

    Default Bill O’Reilly is full of crap regarding INS v. RIOS-PINEDA, (1985)

    On this evening’s show (8/19/2015), Bill O’Reilly falsely suggested that INS v. RIOS-PINEDA, (1985) was to determine if a child born to an illegal alien while on American soil is a legal citizen.

    The truth is, the question being decided by the Supreme Court, in the case cited by Mr. O'Reilly was the Attorney General's discretionary power and had nothing to do with deciding whether or not a child born to an illegal alien while on American soil is a citizen upon birth. In other words, the case Bill O’Reilly cited has no bearing what-so-ever with regard to the question of whether or not a child born to an illegal alien while on American soil becomes a legal citizen upon birth.

    Keep in mind, "It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated."___ Chief Justice Marshal, Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 6 Wheat. 264 264 (1821)


    In any event, Bill O’Reilly, where is the documentation from the debates of the 39th Congress to support the notion the 14th Amendment was intended to bestowed citizenship upon a child born to an alien on American soil who has entered our country illegally?

    Put up or shut up Bill

    JWK





    The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.
    _____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

  2. Sponsored Links


  3. Likes Dingo liked this post
  4. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    West
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    506
    Rep Power
    10
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    On the other hand, Hannity tonight discussed the 14th with Mark Levin. They displayed the exact text of the 14th along with the attached details on it as written by the author (Howard) of the 14th. It specifies that citizenship under the 14th to offspring of foreigners, aliens, Native Americans, diplomats and so on was NOT to be given. The "jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th is not referring to temporary geographic jurisdiction, but total jurisdiction.

    Thus, not only are children of illegal aliens not entitled to US citizenship, but neither are those of visiting foreigners. Hannity and Levin further discussed the inclusion of Native American citizenship under the 14th by Congress in 1924 and that this did not require revoking the 14th or amending the Constitution. All of this simply requires examining the actual facts of the 14th.

    O'Reilly and others, like Judge Napolitano, never have it right in this or related issues to do with distinguishing natural born citizens from native born. They issue bombastic, groundless misinformation. What purpose their paid staff serves (apparently incapable of research) makes me wonder.

  5. Sponsored Links


  6. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    somewhere over the rainbo
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Inspired
    Ideology
    Conservative
    Posts
    41,493
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    29
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Fox is united to the incumbent, status quo and is a tool to perpetuate it's stability with those it pretends to empathize with.
    Friendly Neighborhood...Smyrnaman

  7. Sponsored Links


  8. Likes zantax liked this post
  9. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Proud New Yo'ker!
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Cheerful
    Posts
    14,468
    Rep Power
    12
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Holy crap John did you just reject dicta? Oooh I ambookmarking this

  10. Sponsored Links


  11. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,674
    Blog Entries
    14
    Rep Power
    16
    Post Like Stats

    Default Bill O’Reilly owes Andrea Tantaros an apology!

    I wonder if someone on FoxNews will bring this up and tell Bill O’Reilly to give Andrea Tantaros an apology for screaming at her and lying to her in order to pretend he was right!

    JWK



    To support Jeb Bush or John Kasich is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny which includes giving legal status and work permits to tens of millions who have invaded our borders!


  12. Sponsored Links


  13. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Newport News Virginia
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Sanguine
    Ideology
    Christian Conservative
    Posts
    1,896
    Rep Power
    10
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ View Post
    On the other hand, Hannity tonight discussed the 14th with Mark Levin. They displayed the exact text of the 14th along with the attached details on it as written by the author (Howard) of the 14th. It specifies that citizenship under the 14th to offspring of foreigners, aliens, Native Americans, diplomats and so on was NOT to be given. The "jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th is not referring to temporary geographic jurisdiction, but total jurisdiction.

    Thus, not only are children of illegal aliens not entitled to US citizenship, but neither are those of visiting foreigners. Hannity and Levin further discussed the inclusion of Native American citizenship under the 14th by Congress in 1924 and that this did not require revoking the 14th or amending the Constitution. All of this simply requires examining the actual facts of the 14th.

    O'Reilly and others, like Judge Napolitano, never have it right in this or related issues to do with distinguishing natural born citizens from native born. They issue bombastic, groundless misinformation. What purpose their paid staff serves (apparently incapable of research) makes me wonder.
    If there were no votes to be gained from illegal immigration, than there would be far less illegal immigration. The republicans want the cheap labor, and the dems want the votes. It is the middle class and poor who are taking the hit, but neither party really cares as long as they are getting the cheap labor or votes.

  14. Sponsored Links


  15. Likes jwil59 liked this post
  16. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    My Mood
    Cheerful
    Ideology
    Filthy Liberal
    Posts
    17,237
    Rep Power
    13
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    On this evening’s show (8/19/2015), Bill O’Reilly falsely suggested that INS v. RIOS-PINEDA, (1985) was to determine if a child born to an illegal alien while on American soil is a legal citizen.

    The truth is, the question being decided by the Supreme Court, in the case cited by Mr. O'Reilly was the Attorney General's discretionary power and had nothing to do with deciding whether or not a child born to an illegal alien while on American soil is a citizen upon birth. In other words, the case Bill O’Reilly cited has no bearing what-so-ever with regard to the question of whether or not a child born to an illegal alien while on American soil becomes a legal citizen upon birth.

    Keep in mind, "It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated."___ Chief Justice Marshal, Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 6 Wheat. 264 264 (1821)


    In any event, Bill O’Reilly, where is the documentation from the debates of the 39th Congress to support the notion the 14th Amendment was intended to bestowed citizenship upon a child born to an alien on American soil who has entered our country illegally?

    Put up or shut up Bill

    Are you ever right about the law?

    Adroit just provided the answer in the thread about Mark Levin's radio show.

    Put up or shut up, johnwk.
    "We are, if elected president, going to invest a lot of money into mental health, and when you watch these Republican debates, you know why." --Bernie Sanders

  17. Sponsored Links


  18. #8
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Jersey joined 08/2002
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Inspired
    Ideology
    Liberal Lackey
    Posts
    10,048
    Blog Entries
    27
    Rep Power
    7
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    The controlling SCOTUS opinion

    is US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)

    until Wong is overruled birthright citizenship is the law of the land.

    Read it and weep cons!

    Allan



    V. In the forefront, both of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, and of the civil rights act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explcit and comprehensive terms. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-suprem....eaiamWvO.dpuf

  19. Sponsored Links


  20. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,674
    Blog Entries
    14
    Rep Power
    16
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by biggestal99 View Post
    The controlling SCOTUS opinion

    is US v Wong Kim Ark (1898)

    until Wong is overruled birthright citizenship is the law of the land.

    Read it and weep cons!



    Allan



    V. In the forefront, both of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, and of the civil rights act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explcit and comprehensive terms. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-suprem....eaiamWvO.dpuf

    Big baloney!

    The question before the Court in Wong was:

    "A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution"

    Those circumstances are entirely different than citizenship being bestowed upon a child born to an alien who has entered our country illegally and given birth. Wong is not applicable! But I'm sure you knew that and are here to perpetuate the myth of Wong. And the following quote establishes why you are wrong about Wong.



    "It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated."___ Chief Justice Marshal, Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 6 Wheat. 264 264 (1821)


    In any event, where is the documentation from the debates of the 39th Congress to support the notion the 14th Amendment was intended to bestowed citizenship upon a child born to an alien on American soil who has entered our country illegally?


    JWK



    The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.
    _____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

  21. Sponsored Links


  22. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,674
    Blog Entries
    14
    Rep Power
    16
    Post Like Stats

    Default None dare call it a criminal offense, but I will!

    Quote Originally Posted by RAJ View Post
    On the other hand, Hannity tonight discussed the 14th with Mark Levin. They displayed the exact text of the 14th along with the attached details on it as written by the author (Howard) of the 14th. It specifies that citizenship under the 14th to offspring of foreigners, aliens, Native Americans, diplomats and so on was NOT to be given. The "jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th is not referring to temporary geographic jurisdiction, but total jurisdiction.

    Thus, not only are children of illegal aliens not entitled to US citizenship, but neither are those of visiting foreigners. Hannity and Levin further discussed the inclusion of Native American citizenship under the 14th by Congress in 1924 and that this did not require revoking the 14th or amending the Constitution. All of this simply requires examining the actual facts of the 14th.

    O'Reilly and others, like Judge Napolitano, never have it right in this or related issues to do with distinguishing natural born citizens from native born. They issue bombastic, groundless misinformation. What purpose their paid staff serves (apparently incapable of research) makes me wonder.
    With all the documentation available from those who framed and helped to ratify the 14th Amendment which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a qualifying phrase which excludes from birthright citizenship a child born on American soil to a mother who is a foreign national, one must wonder if the forces of evil are at work and the ultimate goal is to flood America with the poorly educated, poverty stricken, low skilled and in many cases the criminally inspired populations of other countries, which in turn will cause devastating social and financial consequences for American Citizens. Why on earth would any rational and patriotic American want to defend the anchor baby myth which is destroying our country from within?

    And what was one of our forefathers thinking with regard to who should be allowed to immigrate into our country? Let us recall what Representative BURKE says during our Nations` first debate on a RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790

    Mr. BURKE thought it of importance to fill the country with useful men, such as farmers, mechanics, and manufacturers, and, therefore, would hold out every encouragement to them to emigrate to America. This class he would receive on liberal terms; and he was satisfied there would be room enough for them, and for their posterity, for five hundred years to come. There was another class of men, whom he did not think useful, and he did not care what impediments were thrown in their way; such as your European merchants, and factors of merchants, who come with a view of remaining so long as will enable them to acquire a fortune, and then they will leave the country, and carry off all their property with them. These people injure us more than they do us good, and, except in this last sentiment, I can compare them to nothing but leeches. They stick to us until they get their fill of our best blood, and then they fall off and leave us. I look upon the privilege of an American citizen to be an honorable one, and it ought not to be thrown away upon such people. There is another class also that I would interdict, that is, the convicts and criminals which they pour out of British jails. I wish sincerely some mode could be adopted to prevent the importation of such; but that, perhaps, is not in our power; the introduction of them ought to be considered as a high misdemeanor.

    So, as it turns out, allowing the kind of foreigners who are now invading our borders to stay here should be considered as a "high misdemeanor" which happens to be a criminal and impeachable offense! And to those who support and perpetuate the anchor baby myth which accelerates the introduction of other country's poverty and crime into America, they too ought to be viewed as committing a crime which is destructive to the general welfare of these United States.

    JWK



    To support Jeb Bush or John Kasich is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny which includes giving legal status and work permits to tens of millions who have invaded our borders!


  23. Sponsored Links


  24. Likes ExDem liked this post
  25. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    15,674
    Blog Entries
    14
    Rep Power
    16
    Post Like Stats

    Default Bill O’Reilly doubles down on his 14th Amendment delusion

    This is absolutely incredible! Instead of admitting he was wrong about INS v. RIOS-PINEDA and stepping up like a real man and giving Andrea Tantaros an apology for bullying her while she was on his show, Bill O’Reilly decides to take his dog and pony show a step further and decided to bring two guests on his show this evening, John Yoo and David Rivkin, knowing they will get in bed with him and support his misrepresentations of the 14th Amendment, INS v. RIOS-PINEDA, and United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

    In regard to INS v. RIOS-PINEDA, the case had nothing to do with deciding if a child born to a foreign national who enters our country illegally is guaranteed birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. The case was about an Attorney General's discretionary powers and not applicable to the current conversation.


    In regard to United States v. Wong Kim Ark., the question before the Court was:

    "A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution"

    Those circumstances, addressed by the court, are entirely different than asking the court if citizenship is bestowed upon a child born to an alien who has entered our country illegally and gives birth on American soil who has no allegiance to the United States. The fact is, Wong is not applicable, nor is INS v. RIOS-PINEDA, and yet O”Reilly’s two bed partners to support O'Reilly ignore one of the great maxims of law expressed by Chief Justice Marshal, in Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 6 Wheat. 264 264 (1821):

    "It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated."

    If this does not establish that Bill O’Reilly is more interested in doubling down to give the illusion he is right, rather than working to establish the truth and facts regarding the qualifying words in the 14th Amendment, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, as expressed by those who actually debated the issue during the 39th Congress, then nothing will convince his audience of the blowhard that he is. Bringing two sympathetic guests on his show at the same time, one of whom is a “law professor” as Obama was often referred to, is an indication of O’Reilly’s petulant and arrogant demeanor. FoxNews needs to call Bill O’Reilly on the carpet for this one!

    JWK


    "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

  26. Sponsored Links


  27. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Naughty
    Ideology
    Get off my lawn
    Posts
    26,925
    Rep Power
    50
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    On this evening’s show (8/19/2015), Bill O’Reilly falsely suggested that INS v. RIOS-PINEDA, (1985) was to determine if a child born to an illegal alien while on American soil is a legal citizen.

    The truth is, the question being decided by the Supreme Court, in the case cited by Mr. O'Reilly was the Attorney General's discretionary power and had nothing to do with deciding whether or not a child born to an illegal alien while on American soil is a citizen upon birth. In other words, the case Bill O’Reilly cited has no bearing what-so-ever with regard to the question of whether or not a child born to an illegal alien while on American soil becomes a legal citizen upon birth.

    Keep in mind, "It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated."___ Chief Justice Marshal, Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 6 Wheat. 264 264 (1821)


    In any event, Bill O’Reilly, where is the documentation from the debates of the 39th Congress to support the notion the 14th Amendment was intended to bestowed citizenship upon a child born to an alien on American soil who has entered our country illegally?

    Put up or shut up Bill

    JWK





    The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.
    _____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
    What was the definition of an illegal alien and how did they determin it during the time of the passage of the 14th amendment
    sigline.jpg
    DISPATCHERS SAVE SECONDS.................SECONDS SAVE LIVES

  28. Sponsored Links


  29. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sugar Land, TX
    Posts
    18,810
    Rep Power
    16
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    I already took you to school on this subject in your other thread.


    Children of foreign diplomats.
    Indians born on Indian lands.


    Those were the ONLY two exception by those who adopted the amendment.


    youre gonna post the Howard quote, which I've already shown that it doesn't mean what you think it means - you just don't understand punctuation and grammar.


    youre gonna quote Elk v Wilkins, which is ironic given this OP of yours and bemoaning Bill citing a case that doesn't provide precedent.


    youre gonna post a throwaway quote from Slaughterhouse cases, which is ironic given your Marshall quote.

    the 14th doesn't provide a requirement of a certain immigration status. You want one added? Start the amendment process.

  30. Sponsored Links


  31. #14
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    On the dock of the Bay
    Gender
    Male
    My Mood
    Sardonic
    Ideology
    Filthy Liberal
    Posts
    7,744
    Rep Power
    9
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    This is absolutely incredible! Instead of admitting he was wrong about INS v. RIOS-PINEDA and stepping up like a real man and giving Andrea Tantaros an apology for bullying her while she was on his show, Bill O’Reilly decides to take his dog and pony show a step further and decided to bring two guests on his show this evening, John Yoo and David Rivkin, knowing they will get in bed with him and support his misrepresentations of the 14th Amendment, INS v. RIOS-PINEDA, and United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

    In regard to INS v. RIOS-PINEDA, the case had nothing to do with deciding if a child born to a foreign national who enters our country illegally is guaranteed birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. The case was about an Attorney General's discretionary powers and not applicable to the current conversation.


    In regard to United States v. Wong Kim Ark., the question before the Court was:

    "A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution"

    Those circumstances, addressed by the court, are entirely different than asking the court if citizenship is bestowed upon a child born to an alien who has entered our country illegally and gives birth on American soil who has no allegiance to the United States. The fact is, Wong is not applicable, nor is INS v. RIOS-PINEDA, and yet O”Reilly’s two bed partners to support O'Reilly ignore one of the great maxims of law expressed by Chief Justice Marshal, in Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 6 Wheat. 264 264 (1821):

    "It is a maxim not to be disregarded that general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. The reason of this maxim is obvious. The question actually before the court is investigated with care, and considered in its full extent. Other principles which may serve to illustrate it are considered in their relation to the case decided, but their possible bearing on all other cases is seldom completely investigated."

    If this does not establish that Bill O’Reilly is more interested in doubling down to give the illusion he is right, rather than working to establish the truth and facts regarding the qualifying words in the 14th Amendment, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, as expressed by those who actually debated the issue during the 39th Congress, then nothing will convince his audience of the blowhard that he is. Bringing two sympathetic guests on his show at the same time, one of whom is a “law professor” as Obama was often referred to, is an indication of O’Reilly’s petulant and arrogant demeanor. FoxNews needs to call Bill O’Reilly on the carpet for this one!

    JWK


    "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
    Why, it's almost as if O'Reilly was nothing more than an entertainer. Who knew?
    "You're going to have such great healthcare, at a tiny fraction of the cost - and it's going to be so easy." - Donald Trump, October 2016

  32. Sponsored Links


  33. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    53,046
    Rep Power
    24
    Post Like Stats

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adroit View Post
    I already took you to school on this subject in your other thread.


    Children of foreign diplomats.
    Indians born on Indian lands.


    Those were the ONLY two exception by those who adopted the amendment.


    youre gonna post the Howard quote, which I've already shown that it doesn't mean what you think it means - you just don't understand punctuation and grammar.


    youre gonna quote Elk v Wilkins, which is ironic given this OP of yours and bemoaning Bill citing a case that doesn't provide precedent.


    youre gonna post a throwaway quote from Slaughterhouse cases, which is ironic given your Marshall quote.

    the 14th doesn't provide a requirement of a certain immigration status. You want one added? Start the amendment process.
    The Supreme Court excluded children born of aliens and of citizens as noted in Wong Kim Ark:

    "That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship),

    reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of [p680] parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

    Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship."

    The Slaughterhouse decision was about the exclusions to the subject clause that you mention from the Congressional debates, but the court went further than that. Natural-born citizens (born in the country of citizen parents) were excluded in Minor and then Gray himself excluded children of alien in Elk v. Wilkins, but Gray had to come up with an explanation as to why that exlusion only applied to Indians. This is what he came up with:

    "The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State"

    The idea that the relation of Indians with the federal government was a "peculiar" relation is itself peculiar because those relationships were negotiated by not-so-peculiar treaties, something that England had engaged in prior to ceding the colonies to the United States. Gray got around this further by allowing that if the parents of aliens had permanent residence and domicil in the U.S., then their children could be citizens at birth under the 14th amendment.

  34. Sponsored Links


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •