Just to go on record here, I don't see how anyone can have confidence in how the Court would rule were they asked, today, to adjudicate the 14th Amendment citizenship section, i.e., the section that 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...' The Court might well fall back on stare decisis. Anyone looking at the issue dispassionately, as say from the perspective of someone living on Mars, would have to rule that the 14th does not confer citizenship upon anyone born to parents illegally here. However, what about a child born to non-citizen, non-diplomat parents, but legally present in the United States? A child born to one parent, a citizen, the other here illegally? Or any of the other various permutations to be considered. But those are minor issues compared to the reality the Court would face. There are children born to parents here illegally, and those children have lived all their lives in the U.S., graduated from U.S. schools and are culturally as "American" as any child born to U.S. citizens. There is strong majority sentiment in favor of letting them remain in the U.S. as long as they embark on a path to citizenship. [That's what the bipartisan Dream Act was about.] Asking the court to adjudicate this issue is a dangerous path to go down, both for the Court and for U.S. Citizens. Would the court fall back on stare decisis or would they rule from the perspective of planet Mars. Who can know? The best and least dangerous solution, from a political perspective, is to let sleeping dogs lie, and for Congress to pass the Dream Act, finally!, and in the meantime tighten up he border. The Dream Act would certainly not be a prima facie violation of the 14th, and passing it would not be impossible were there a well functioning Congress. There isn't, and in any case no such legislation will be passed in the midst of a highly partisan, populist oriented election campaign. If Mr. Trump persists, he'll get close to zero Latina and Latino votes. Is he serious? We will know soon enough. He better be very clear, because if he leaves any wiggle room at all in his position, it will only be interpreted one way by his opposition. He has painted himself into a corner, let's see if he can get out of the room without stepping in it.
Thank you so much, Jem. I stand suitably corrected, and from now on remind me to refer to our friend Mr. Scalia, as a strict "originalist", which he pretends to be, but certainly isn't whenever it does not serve his purpose. Tee Hee.. I have clearly been guilty of confounding those two related, by different descriptors in my mind, and most likely because Scalia was misquoted by the press at some point. Scalia is one of my favorites because his are the only opinions I can read later than noon without dosing off. (He must have very clever clerks) He is also the most fun to criticize, and certainly gives us the greatest opportunities to do so. After the most recent O'Romney care fiasco, I wish I'd had the good sense to send him a grocery bag.
No. There is a fundamental principal that most every culture and ethnicity subscribes to. And that is..... close the door behind me. Hispanics that are already citizens are not going to vote en mass against Trump. Only illegals will vote en mass against him....if the democrats have anything to say about voter id laws.
You do realize that those Hispanic immigrants who went thru the legal channels for citizenship are not on board with mass amnesty? The ambiguities of the citizenship process and all of the politico false promises has made this far more complex than you grasp. By taking a very clear position, he can guarantee some Latino support as opposed to all of the other GOP candidates that throw around a few soundbites and then forget the entire issue once elected. Let's also be clear that neither side of the aisle "owns" this issue...
so far on this subject we are seeing a lot of words, but no substance. I am glad you take more pride your agw analysis. Maybe you should read Scalia before noon but after your first cup of coffee and then compare him to say... anyone else on this court save maybe Kennedy. If you are looking for thoughtful content from the left... it will probably take you a couple minutes.
It's the parents who are the illegals. The child is not illegal for being born on US soil and is under the "jurisdiction thereof". They are born in US territory within which, US legal power can be exercised upon them, just like every other new born. Furthermore, all children at birth are not soldiers and do not owe allegiance to anyone else. So that's no reason to deny citizenship. The only exception as far as I can see are those born on territory within the US declared foreign by the US, such as Embassies.
V Good points piezo and well put. But the 14th clearly says "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...'' The 14th does not say... "All persons born to parents residing legally ....' All the Court need do surely, is follow the 14th. Yes it does confer citizenship to anyone born here, whether to parents here legally or illegally and does so unambiguously. "All persons..." piezo! Although he doesn't speak it, Jem requires.. "the language as written".
You're right, of course, about what it says. And GWB is right of course about the citizenship clause being insane. And I'm right about the risks of challenging the 14th in Court. We can be certain of one thing, and that is how you would rule were you on the Court.
You are simply wrong... http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/ http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html