Citizenship shouldn’t be a birthright
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Michael Anton is a lecturer and research fellow at Hillsdale College and a former national security official in the Trump administration.
Editor’s note: Michael Anton inserted the bracketed word “[or]” into a statement made by Michigan Sen. Jacob Howard during debate of the 14th Amendment on May 30, 1866, as recorded in the Congressional Globe. Anton wrote that Howard “clarified that the amendment explicitly excludes from citizenship ‘persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.’ ” Writers before Anton have made the same insertion, and Anton stands by his interpretation of Howard’s statement and maintains that the insertion of the word clarified rather than altered its meaning. You can read his full explanation in a blog post subsequently published by the Claremont Review of Books. Others believe the inserted word changes rather than clarifies the meaning of the quotation. Because the quotation can be read a different way, we should have asked Anton to publish it unaltered and then explain his interpretation rather than publishing it with the inserted word.
A Supreme Court confirmation fight always raises constitutional hopes and stokes constitutional fears. With one more justice, they’ll repeal Obamacare! If they get one more justice, they’ll overturn Roe v. Wade ! To arms!
These periodic, now-inevitable freakouts are a sad byproduct of our country’s drift away from political rule and over-investiture of power in the judiciary. But happily, the most urgent constitutional challenge of our time needn’t wait on a court ruling. Each political branch of government has the constitutional authority needed to fix it.
I refer, here, to ending birthright citizenship.
The notion that simply being born within the geographical limits of the United States automatically confers U.S. citizenship is an absurdity — historically, constitutionally, philosophically and practically.
Constitutional scholar Edward Erler has shown that the entire case for birthright citizenship is based on a deliberate misreading of the 14th Amendment . The purpose of that amendment was to resolve the question of citizenship for newly freed slaves. Following the Civil War, some in the South insisted that states had the right to deny citizenship to freedmen. In support, they cited 1857’s disgraceful Dred Scott v. Sandford decision , which held that no black American could ever be a citizen of the United States.
A constitutional amendment was thus necessary to overturn Dred Scott and to define the precise meaning of American citizenship.
That definition is the amendment’s very first sentence: “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 amendment clarified for the first time that federal citizenship precedes and supersedes its state-level counterpart. No state has the power to deny citizenship, hence none may dispossess freed slaves.
Second, the amendment specifies two criteria for American citizenship: birth or naturalization (i.e., lawful immigration), and being subject to U.S. jurisdiction. We know what the framers of the amendment meant by the latter because they told us. Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois, a principal figure in drafting the amendment, defined “subject to the jurisdiction” as “not owing allegiance to anybody else” — that is, to no other country or tribe. Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, a sponsor of the clause, further clarified that the amendment explicitly excludes from citizenship “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”
Yet for decades, U.S. officials — led by immigration enthusiasts in and out of government — have acted as though “subject to the jurisdiction” simply means “subject to American law.” That is true of any tourist who comes here. The framers of the 14th Amendment added the jurisdiction clause precisely to distinguish between people to whom the United States owes citizenship and those to whom it does not. Freed slaves definitely qualified. The children of immigrants who came here illegally clearly don’t.
Those framers understood, as did America’s founders, that birthright citizenship is inherently self-contradictory. A just government in the modern world rests on the social compact, a freely entered agreement among free citizens. That compact’s scope and authority extend only to those who have consented to its terms and whose membership has been consented to by all other citizen-members. A compact that anyone can join regardless of the wishes of its existing members is not a compact. As President Trump likes to say, “If we don’t have a border, we don’t have a country.”
Some will argue that the Supreme Court has already settled this issue , establishing birthright citizenship in United States v. Wong Kim Ark . But this is wrong. The court has ruled only that children of legal residents are citizens. That doesn’t change the status of children born to people living here illegally.
Practically, birthright citizenship is, as Erler put it, “a great magnet for illegal immigration.” This magnet attracts not just millions of the world’s poor but also increasingly affluent immigrants. “ Maternity hotels ” for pregnant Chinese tourists advertise openly in Southern California and elsewhere. Fly to the United States to have your baby, and its silly government will give him or her American citizenship!
It is no wonder that citizens of other countries take advantage of our foolishness. Life is still better here than almost anywhere else, including rising China and relatively prosperous Mexico. The wonder is that we Americans continue to allow our laws to be flouted and our citizenship debased.
The problem can be fixed easily. Congress could clarify legislatively that the children of noncitizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and thus not citizens under the 14th Amendment. But given the open-borders enthusiasm of congressional leaders of both parties, that’s unlikely.
It falls, then, to Trump. An executive order could specify to federal agencies that the children of noncitizens are not citizens. Such an order would, of course, immediately be challenged in the courts. But officers in all three branches of government — the president no less than judges — take similar oaths to defend the Constitution. Why shouldn’t the president act to defend the clear meaning of the 14th Amendment?
Judges faithful to their oaths will have no choice but to agree with him.
Birthright citizenship was a mistake whose time has gone.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
106 visitors
I submit this article, at the risk of further upsetting our fellow "newstalkers" on the left, because it is the best explanation I have seen regarding the confusion about what is meant by birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment. It's purpose was to settle the status of freed black slaves and has been taken out of context in application to anyone else.
Sounds every bit as clear to me as the second amendment.
That means they can't be subject to a foreign power. Obviously, it's not clear
Which is it? Either it's CLEAR to you what it means, or it's NOT clear. Please pick one and proceed.
That, of course, refers to diplomats and their families. Just like Sen. McCain was born in Panama but is a natural US citizen.
It's as clear as this.
It's the Constitution. You can't cherry pick it like the Bible.
Indeed. it doesn't get any clearer than that. If one is born within the nation's borders, then one is a natural born citizen of the nation. Quite simple really.
You tell me. Did you read the article? You or I may have an opinion but it calls for clarification.
I think Mr Anton has the answer:
"The problem can be fixed easily. Congress could clarify legislatively that the children of noncitizens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and thus not citizens under the 14th Amendment. "
You want me to clarify your contradiction?
Yes, I read that claptrap.
The precedent in our jurisprudence makes it quite clear and does not rely on either of our opinions.
There is no 'problem' to FIX. All of those who proclaim 'I got mine, fuck the rest of you' can go pound sand.
How about Native Americans of all political ideologies?
As noted by 1st Warrior the other day, citizenship for them has been denied and debated by Congress ad nauseam for 200 years.
Well of course!
They aren't White.
Duh.
The 14th was written to make sure that the States recognized the citizenship of all freed Male slaves.
Multiple court cases determined the Congress thought differently of Native Americans and devised bizarre laws to further disenfranchise NAs from their tribal properties
( for the mineral rights) and made renouncing their heritage part of becoming 'naturalized' over decades.
I was under the impression many of them want to be a sovereign nation.
Not only are they not White... but they get uppity sometimes, and they have land that should belong to White people.
Of course they mustn't be allowed full rights.
Double duh!
Where do you get all these crazy "impressions" that you cite all the time. You probably should reconsider your "reliable sources".
Before the Congress acted, NA were viewed only as citizens of their sovereign Tribes and not 'fully' under the jurisdiction of the US. Today, many Tribes use that concept to their advantage in litigation and in business [casinos/gambling] though they are still fighting for true sovereignty from the BIA.
I got that idea from 1st Warrior.
“Why is it that Dominant Society can not get it wrapped around their heads that Indian Tribes/Nations are SOVEREIGN nations? They don't need a "baby-sitter" or guardian. Hell, they worked quite well for over 40,000 years BEFORE Dominant Society showed up.
Why does Dominant Society feel/believe that they know how to take care of us better than we do/can? We have raised our families and children without assistance for centuries. Why do we have to "abide" by Dominant Society's rules/regulations?”
That should be addressed as well in any clarification of the 14th Amendment the Congress "hopefully" makes, Native Americans need to be included.
If they are on their reservation, pueblo, or their lands THEY ARE SOVEREIGN.
They should be American citizens by birth and get dual citizenship from the Indian Nation they belong to.
His article was about the ICWA and the twisted lawsuits that threaten it.
Yes his comment talks about sovereign nations and not wanting government intervention. If one is a member of a sovereign nation why would they want to be citizens of a different nation?
Dean - the vast majority of them do want to be recognized as a sovereign nation/tribe. In fact, 562 of the Federally Recognized Tribes/Nations are considered to be sovereign nations - per SCOTUS and in most of the Federal Indian Law actions.
Even if living off the res/pueblo/township, if they are a recognized member of a tribe/nation that is federally recognized as being Native American, they are considered citizens of a sovereign nation.
That’s what I thought.
Technically, they do. Ask the Tuscarora who use their tribal/nation ID card as passports when traveling, even to foreign countries. And, they are accepted as the Tuscarora are a Sovereign Nation/Tribe and its members are also U. S. Citizens.
XD - interesting questions. They only "history" I know of the Tuscarora using their Nation's I.D. to travel was a few years ago for a Lacrosse tournament in England. The team was not allowed entry for the tournament.
Recently, the teams are going head to head over the passport thing again -
Passport issues again stall Iroquois lacrosse team traveling to world championship
The Iroquois Nationals started traveling with their Haudenosaunee passports in the early 1980's. In fact in 83 or 84 they toured England using their Haudenosaunee passports. The first time that they were refused was 2010 by England of all countries. The U.S. and Canada tried to intervene and would have issued them US or Canadian passports on the spot so they could play in the 2010 World Championships. They refused as a matter of principal. As one of the best Lacrosse teams in the world their not playing cast a pall over the championships.
Again this year they ran into a couple of problems, one Israel by law couldn't recognize their passports and the Nationals refused to travel on any other passport. A lot of work between the government of Israel and Canada resolved the problem and they arrived in Israel using their Haudenosaunee passports, but they didn't arrive until the day the tournament started. They won the Bronze medal in the 2018 world championships.
As the inventors and originators of the ''Creators Game'' they are wildly popular across the world.
The Iroquois word for Lacrosse, which is a French word, is Tewaaraton (little brother of war) and the Ojibwe word, (Ojibwe are avid Lacrosse players and on the 2014 team had 3 members) the word is Baaga'adowewin (Heavy Stick) . The original Lacrosse stick was wooden and very heavy, they are still legal but few teams every use them. In 2014 World Championships the Iroquois used them against Canada in one of the great Lacrosse games of all time. The Canadians were really upset that the Iroquois used them since they consider them weapons not sport instruments. Canada won 9-8 in OT. The Nationals felt that the Canadians were being babies since they invented the game, taught the white folks how to play it and have always used wooden sticks.
The second problem that they had was the huge amount of pressure put on them by BDS and their allies...They were bombarded day and night to boycott the games. The did not bend to the pressure of BDS and their allies.
They came to Israel, played and won a Bronze Medal. Proving once again that they are one of the worlds best teams despite have to draw from a pool of less then 500...Where as the US draws from over 200,000 and Canada from over 100,000.
That is the part of the story of the Iroquois Nationals Lacrosse team and their Haudenosaunee passports.
Baaga'adowewin gadenaage.
SP - U. S. Citizenship for Native Americans has been a really thorny and questionable thing.
The "thought" of giving citizenship started with the 1st U. S. Treaty with the Lenape/Delaware in 1778 at Ft. Pitt where, in the treaty, the U. S. asked that the Delaware serve in the U. S. forces against the "foreign" invaders. The Delaware were asked to help gather other tribes/nations to form a separate Indian state, of which the Delaware would be the head and would receive a seat in Congress as the representative of the "state". In later years, Tribal/Nation members who served in the U. S. military as scouts were granted citizenship when they retired. Some treaties granted Tribal/Nation members U. S. Citizenship "if" they denounced their Tribal/nation membership. The American Indian Citizen Act of 1924 was initially designed to be given to American Indian WWI veterans as a reward for their service.
As we are still not a part of the U. S. Constitution, treatment of us is touchy and very thorny. The U. S. still hasn't figured out how to deal with sovereign nations/tribes within the boundaries of the U. S. - and probably never will.
Very interesting thread, and it has changed my thinking.
There are lots of strange legal associations for US overseas territories. So having Nations' lands be sovereign but associated should not be a problem... and I'm not hypocritical enough to have a problem with double nationalities...
The Marshall Trilogies starting in 1823 through 1832 established the basis for interpreting federal law and defining tribal sovereignty. Indian tribes are ''dependent sovereign nations'' per SCOTUS.
Indian gaming was ushered in 1987, in California vs Cabazon Band of Mission Indians. SCOTUS ruled that states has no authority to regulate or prohibit gaming on Indian lands.
As for fighting for true sovereignty from the BIA. Are you saying that the BIA can grant sovereignty? If so that is not correct. The BIA does not have the authority to grant sovereignty, that would rest with congress and in my opinion it will never happen and is not being sought by the tribes. What is being sought is that our current sovereignty is not encroached on. And yes, we have gone to court many times to fight encroachment on that sovereignty.
Each tribe regulates who can be a member of said tribe and each tribe has specific rules regarding this. If you are a member of the tribe you are a citizen of that Indian nation we are also citizens of the United States.
I am a citizen of the Ojibwe Nation and also a citizen of the United States.
I grew up in Lanape Valley in Central Bucks County, PA.
It's an abomination that schools and school districts are named for people that the current residents don't have a clue about or respect.
Come on Kavika, you know me better than that. I don't have to explain to you how the US government uses the BIA to control the Tribes. It's like owning property in 'trust' that you have no control over and which those that do allow to be raped and pillaged.
I also don't have to tell you that the Tribes ARE sovereign. PERIOD, full stop. Yet they are STILL litigating for FULL control over their land and lives.
I was asking a question because your comment wasn't clear to me, Dulay. Yup, congress uses Dept of the Interior who in turn uses the BIA.
The ''Dependent Sovereign nations'' is the catch phrase that gives legality to the so called ''trust'' situation. Even though we, as a people, have lawyers, judges, scientists, CEO's we are unable to manage our own land. It's all about control Dulay the ''dependent'' clause is pure bullshit as your aware.
Yet we go back to ''dependent'' that word allows the control that congress can and does exersise over Indians and our land.
BTW the Marshall Trilogy screwed Indians for the next 500 years.
America experimented with having underclasses of non-citizens as in Native Americans and slaves. How did that work out? What is to become of these masses of countryless nationless citizenship free underclasses within our boarders? Get real People! America's greatest strength has and will always be being a welcoming beacon of freedom to those who long to escape tyranny and oppression. If we are ever to become a fascist, "Show Me Your Papers", sort of tin-horn dictatorship where only the elite can walk down our streets without being harassed by The Citizenship Police then I give up. "I was hungry and you fed me. I was naked and you clothed me. I was imprisoned and you visited me. I was a stranger in your land and you welcomed me". Did I do that? Verily I say unto you, whatever you do for the the least among us you do in the grace of mankind's greater spirit. "Love your others as you love yourself and do unto others as you would have them do unto you for it is only by grace that we all are not fallen unto there, also". Hate and avarice towards the disadvantaged upon our boarders and on our shores striving for an opportunity to share our nation's bounteous freedoms are not true American values. Period...
"I was a stranger in your land and you welcomed me"
If a stranger sneaks into a country by crossing a sovereign border then they aren't a stranger. They are intruders.
I need to remember that
Very well said, Sir
Some believe in open borders and reparations for centuries old misdeeds.
America is a great nation. It renounced slavery at the high cost of at least 618,000 lives. It made good on the promises of equality in the Constitution and has been the benevolent superpower which fought for freedom and human rights all over the world. Europe wouldn't be free right now without the US. That being said every country must maintain its sovereignty, especially the US, or the entire third world will simply migrate here and completely overwhelm our social services.
The bolded part is incorrect. The court ruled only that persons born in the US are citizens.
Also note that there are other kinds of birthright citizenship like when a birth occurs in a foreign territory to a US citizen. But until about 1934 only male citizens could confer birthright citizenship upon their offspring.
I also see that the author of the seed is making an erroneous argument made by many xenophobic and racist right-wingers, that the 14th Amendment applies to racial issues alone. Not only isn't race mentioned in the citizenship clause or equal protection clause (it's not mentioned at all in the 14th Amendment), but efforts to restrict the latter to racial discrimination alone were explicitly rejected by Congress.
The author of the seed is making a compelling argument based on the historical context of the amendment, the wording, and the intent of those who drafted it. Once you understand all of that, it becomes clear that the liberal view of a constitutional right to birthright citizenship is nonsense.
We already know the intent based on the Congressional record and it doesn't support your claims or those of the seed's author at all.
We know just the opposite.
Which orifice did you pull that "knowledge" from?
Exactly. These 'originalists' demand that we go back to what the authors of the 2nd Amendment MEANT when they wrote it but when it comes to the 14th they want to totally ignore the clear statements of the authors of that Amendment. The debate over the 2nd is scarcely documented, but the debate over the 14th is transcribed and CLEARLY states multiple times that the rights enumerated are NOT based on race or color. That's clear in the Committee report AND in the actual debate.
deleted
The intent of the amendment is quite obvious from its historical context and the seeder’s statement is entirely accurate. The language wasn’t limited to black people and nobody has ever suggested that it was or should have been. In understanding what something means, you have to examine the historical context (unless you’re a liberal that just makes shit up).
The issue here is birthright citizenship. The 13th amendment was not broad enough to support federal civil rights legislation to ensure that blacks would be treated equally so a 14th amendment was needed. The motivation for the amendment is an undisputed historical fact.
Neither the 14th amendment, nor the civil rights legislation that followed, limits its applicability to black people. The idea was to ensure that everyone was treated the same (if similarly situated). So, if whites had a particular right, then everybody else should have that right as well. The historical context, congressional debate, and language of the amendment make clear that the drafters never intended to grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens.
Well since there was NO SUCH THING as an 'illegal alien' when the 14th was drafted, you are absolutely right. They DID however intend to grant birthright citizenship to 'All persons born' here, with noted exceptions, so there you go...
No they DID NOT. As first warrior has already noted, In order to acquire citizenship under the amendment a person had to be born here AND be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Foreigners and their children were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because they owed their allegiance to their home country.
Seriously, you are conflating 'jurisdiction' with 'allegiance'. They are two COMPLETELY different terms.
If you can stop typing uninformed bullshit long enough you should look up those terms and educate yourself. Then go read the fucking Constitutional debate on the 14th Amendment.THEN go read the fucking rulings that were cited here.
( deleted )
If under the 14th Amendment or the Constituion, EVERY 'illegal alien' was not under the 'jurisdiction of the US', they would have the same kind of immunity as Diplomats. Think about that for just one fucking minute.
As America becomes more conservative the concept of citizenship is losing its privilege. Is it time to scrap all of The Constitutional Amendments except The Second?
Most conservatives would like to scrap the 14th Amendment and the first clause of the 1st Amendment.
It’s liberals who have scraped the 14th amendment and replaced parts of it with what they wish it had said. Conservatives are trying to restore/preserve the 14th amendment consistent with both its language and its orginal intent.
LOL. Like what exactly? Sounds like you're trying to insert exclusions which aren't part of the text.
.
Hmmmm......based on previous conversations I've had with you it's clear that you think LGBT folks should be denied equal protection despite the language of the equal protection clause applying to all.
True. The idea that a sexual perversion is a liberty protected under the 14th amendment is one of the most preposterous constitutional interpretations in history.
Because theocracy is liberty, right?
oddly you don't whine about the sexual perversions of heterosexuals, huh ?
So you’re plunged into a theocracy every time you can’t twist something to support what you want to do?
What other explanation is there for your irrational desire to control the sex lives of consenting adults? As SCOTUS has repeatedly noted there is no rational basis for what you want to do.
You are confused. I have never expressed a desire to control anybody’s sex life and, in fact, have said repeatedly that I couldn’t care less what they do. What I’m expressing is my view that their sexual behavior is neither normal nor a constitutional right (as either issue arises). If they keep their sex lives to themselves, then I don’t care about it. If they seek some kind of societal approval or acceptance, then I oppose it. My opinion on normality is based on both science and common sense. My opinion on the constitution is based on the words in the document and the intent behind them. Neither has anything to do with a theocracy.
As for the SCOTUS, they do not decide for me what is rational and what is not. Their decisions in this area are arguably a constitutional overreach by the judicial branch. That can be remedied by replacing them with conservative judges.
Actually you've repeatedly confused sex with marriage and opposed the right of same sex couples to marry. There is no rational basis for such bizarre views.
.
I'm not sure what you think is "abnormal" about gay folks having sex with their own gender. Who else would they have sex with?
You also seem to whine a lot about the sexual behavior of gays but not straights, which is rather odd because gays and straights generally engage in the exact same sort of sexual behavior.
And you still have never been able to express what legitimate secular purpose a state would have for regulating one's sex life, much less regulate the race or gender of one's spouse. That's why conservatives like you have utterly lost in court on these issues.
Science says homosexuality is normal too. And common sense says there's no big deal about homosexuality or homosexual relationships/marriage. So there's no rational reason to oppose it.
Your "opinion" doesn't mean much, especially if you can't understand the Constitution or its interpretations and intentions.
Good thing too, especially as some of your views are totally irrational.
Only to those who disagree with them.
In other words, you want judges who share your "opinions," regardless if they're rational or not.
What is the compelling state interest to ban non-reproductive sex? Why are you so damn obsessed with what happens in someone else's bedroom and why is it any business of yours what they do?
Do you sincerely believe that the state should strip the citizenship of people who are LGBT? Do you also want to strip the citizenship of people of certain religious beliefs? Where does the US Constitution give you that power?
Here we go!
I've been wondering when the anti-democratic right would come out in the open, and call for limits on citizenship.
The ultimate goal is to limit the vote to wealthy old White men. Does that sound absurd? Not if you seriously watch the news....
What news networks would that be? It really wouldn’t surprise me if that is what the leftist news editorialists are claiming.
Please read more carefully, Dean. There is no "that" there...
If you want to know more about what I (or anyone else) thinks, just ask... open questions. When you ask sideways questions, a more cynical person than I may imagine that you are only interested in scoring points.
Supreme Court decisions
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)].
In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8 USC Sß 1401, provides that:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
"Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union."
That decision was based on the CLEAR statements in the report and debate about the 14th that 'Indians' were NOT to be given 'birthright citizenship'. The actually cite the statements from the transcript that I mentioned.
From the ruling:
Had NOTHING to do with his parents 'immigration status' when he was born, it was about them being 'alien'. PERIOD full stop. The FACT is that the government tried to make Wong Kim Ark an 'illegal alien' and deny him 'immigration' into the US when he returned from a visit to China. Just as with the 'Indians', the Chinese were NOT allowed 'naturalization' and AFTER his parents immigrated LEGALLY, the law was changed. If they, like their son, had left to visit China, they would NOT have been allowed to return based on the recently passed Chinese exclusion laws.
The ruling cited:
Based on the Wong Kim Ark ruling, one must presume that 'no right superior to that granted to the white race' includes EVERY race and people born here from ancestors of foreign birth.
It benefitted me and my family so I'm not gonna complain
I agree with the author. Further, I do not think citizenship should be granted to children of those who legally travel to America for the purpose of having their child on US soil to obtain duel citizenship.
Seriously? You agree with
You think this topic should be overturned by Executive Order?
IMNAAHO, the whole article is a dog-whistle.
Trump is an empty vessel in which to be used and manipulated.
I wasn't focused on that snippet that you highlighted. I was focused on how the Russian's and Chinese (primarily) have been setting up maternity wards here in America and coming over to specifically give birth so their children have duel citizenship. That seems much more sinister and worries me far more than immigrants coming over the borders to look for jobs. The Russians and the Chinese are more strategic in using their citizens to infiltrate from within.
The US is a nation of 360 million people. How many tourist babies have there been? Is the phenomenon really significant? Or a red herring?
It's not a red herring to me otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it. Sometimes those "red herrings" turn out to be more damaging because they were ignored.
I simply don't believe children born here of non citizens should automatically be granted citizenship. We will have to disagree on this issue.
I don't disagree. I just think that the "good folks" who raise this kind of issue often have ulterior motives.
I agree that many times people disguise their racism and misogynistic motives within reasonable policy addendum's. I don't know how to get around it though. We can't give a test on whether someone has a black heart. I do think Trump has been useful in exposing some Americans for who and what they truly are by examining their support of him and many of his policies. And let's not forget his bizarre allegiance to Russia which doesn't seem to bother many of them..........
"360 million people"
That is the main problem, too many people already
Yep it's kind of scary even when you look at the numbers increasing:
More people, more problems, more laws, more government. Want a smaller government ?
Stop producing more people or be prepared for the numbers to be:
2065 ............. 656.000.000
AWWWW !!! Shit !
Interesting view, as I read your words - I am thinking that I now understand what my neighbor was trying to express to me (I will have to clarify with him this afternoon) …
that being said, I think my argument will remain the same .. these individuals that have somehow 'revealed' themselves have always been there - have always been doing the same things. White nationalists have always voted, applied for and received permits to march - thus have always marched, held rally's and made their opinions quite clear. White nationalists were protesting and holding rally's during the removal of the Confederate flag from federal and State government properties - did you hear about it?
So could the exposing be due to the media placing a spot light on a ignored aspect of how/what some Americans believe .. White Nationalists, KKK and Aryan Brotherhoods will always be around, even though their numbers are low.. when Obama was first elected everyone was all up in arms about white supremacy numbers on the rise .. more hits to nationalists websites after the first mixed race president was elected .. nothing ever came of it .. cuz the media did not dwell on it?
The media is partly why we have the President we have now and so is the Republican leadership. They did NOTHING when some members of the anti Obama crowd was spitting on black politicians and using derogatory language.
Racism has always been prevalent in America. We are just more cognate of it when the evilness of it appears to be winning.
I also believe Trump will indeed advance the greatness of America by highlighting the sickness of so many of his supporters through his own racist acts.
Ugghhh I cannot copy/paste again.. bare with me
Valid point .. yet does condemning such things actually change them - or just send them underground. Jesse Jackson never believed there was a decline in racism, he believes it went underground. I believe that racism has declined, will always exist - but does not have the same power and influence that it once did... Yet now through the media and "We the People" Jesse Jackson is 'correct' .. as once again individuals are thinking that supremacy is winning, therefore it is emboldened.....
My oldest son is mixed race .. and I watched him (during the last administration) turn himself inside and out trying to figure out where he belongs in the 'race' of things .. he denied the white in him, thus his lil brother and I became racists and oppressors - he went to Seattle to join Black Lives Matter movement, only to return home more confused than when he left. He found NO Peace, he only found more racism from those he did not believe could be racist...
Wish I had answers, but perhaps through exposure the "sickness" can be eliminated … I find that I do not really see color, unless like this gal I saw at the store, had the most beautiful colored skin I had even seen .. I could not help but look at her.
That's a whole lot to unpack. I agree that racism has never gone away. It's just morphed. Yes, racism is on both sides and until the black community can admit that it cannot be addressed.
I cannot pretend to know what your eldest son has and is going through. It's crappy that we can't just be us without a label or a designation.
I've mentioned a couple times that the term racism has been misused by both sides. I think we need to also look at whether something may be just a cultural difference or preference. Who knows......maybe I'm way off base. Racism is a very difficult discussion to have because so many people interpret it differently and you never know what's appropriate to say for fear it will offend someone.
It's what got the King of the Birthers elected so it obviously has some sway with certain demographics like white males.
Wow - what a leap. You definitely meant the "QUEEN" of birthers since it was Hillary's folks who started the "story".
Nice try.
Started being the key here. Trump took it viral and wouldn't let it go for YEARS. He owns it now.
wait a minute - you mean to tell me that Hillary investigated Obama's birthplace and kept publicly asking for his birth certificate, and even claimed to know it was a fraud ?
I myself do not truly know what my son has been through or continues to go through - all I could / can do was/is remain supportive of him .. live is still a bit topsy turvy .. but the three of us are working past what we have been unable to work through and working through what cannot go unaddressed .. life is an adventure after all ...
Think we are reading the same book on this subject PJ .. so many times 'we' see posters calling each other racist / bigoted and it just makes me cringe - there is never going to be a chance of reaching common ground, understanding and eventual compromise if everyone keeps gouging each others eyes out while taking offense / exception to everything said -- sometimes it takes a wee bit of a hashing out in order to know where another is coming from...
Thank you so much for the exchange of thoughts and civil conversation .. much appreciated ...
Peace...
Cheers
The sane and ethical ones certainly did.
Cool, then only those who have served in the military get to be citizens, the rest of you get the fuck out of my country.
Or better yet, merge this concept with the one where only smart people are allowed to vote. That would make most conservatives merely voiceless serfs.
Does it count if you are serving your country in a different branch other than military?