The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewAndrew Napolitano Archive
Are Sanctuary Cities Legal?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Last week, President-elect Donald Trump re-emphasized the approach he will take in enforcing the nation’s immigration laws, which is much different from the manner of enforcement utilized by President Barack Obama. The latter pointedly declined to deport the 5 million undocumented immigrants in the United States who are the parents of children born here — children who, by virtue of birth, are American citizens. Trump has made known his intention to deport all undocumented people, irrespective of family relationships, starting with those who have committed crimes.

In response to Trump’s stated intentions, many cities — including New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco — have offered sanctuary to those whose presence has been jeopardized by the president-elect’s plan. Can they do this?
Here is the back story.

Under the Constitution, the president is the chief federal law enforcement officer in the land. Though the president’s job is to enforce all federal laws, as a practical matter, the federal government lacks the resources to do that. As well, the president is vested with what is known as prosecutorial discretion. That enables him to place priority on the enforcement of certain federal laws and put the enforcement of others on the back burner.

Over time — and with more than 4,000 criminal laws in the United States Code — Congress and the courts have simply deferred to the president and permitted him to enforce what he wants and not enforce what he doesn’t want. Until now.
Earlier this year, two federal courts enjoined President Obama — and the Supreme Court, in a tie vote, declined to interfere with those injunctions — from establishing a formal program whereby undocumented people who are the parents of natural-born citizens may lawfully remain here. It is one thing, the courts ruled, for the president to prioritize federal law enforcement; it is quite another for him to attempt to rewrite the laws and put them at odds with what Congress has written. It is one thing for the president, for humanitarian reasons or because of a lack of resources, to look the other way in the face of unenforced federal law. It is another for him to claim that by doing so, he may constitutionally change federal law.

Trump brilliantly seized upon this — and the electorate’s general below-the-radar-screen disenchantment with it — during his successful presidential campaign by promising to deport all 13 million undocumented immigrants currently in the United States, though he later reduced that promise so as to cover only the 2 million among them who have been convicted in the United States of violating state or federal laws.

Enter the sanctuary cities. These are places where there are large immigrant populations, among which many are undocumented, yet where there is apparently not a little public sentiment and local governmental support for sheltering the undocumented from federal reach. Trump has argued that these cities are required to comply with federal law by actively assisting the feds — or at least not aggressively resisting them.

Thus the question: Are state and local governments required to help the feds enforce federal law? In a word: No.

ORDER IT NOW

The term “sanctuary cities” is not a legal term, but it has been applied by those in government and the media to describe municipalities that offer expanded social services to the undocumented and decline to help the feds find them — including the case of Chicago’s offering undocumented immigrants money for legal fees to resist federal deportation. As unwise as these expenditures may be by cities that are essentially bankrupt and rely on federal largesse in order to remain in the black, they are not unlawful. Cities and towns are free to expand the availability of social services however they please, taking into account the local political climate.

Enter the Supreme Court. It has required the states — and thus the municipalities in them — to make social services available to everyone resident within them, irrespective of citizenry or lawful or unlawful immigration status. This is so because the constitutional command to the states of equal protection applies to all persons, not just to citizens. So the states and municipalities may not deny basic social services to anyone based on nationality or immigration status.
The high court has also prohibited the federal government from “commandeering” the states by forcing them to work for the feds at their own expense by actively enforcing federal law. As Ronald Reagan reminded us in his first inaugural address, the states formed the federal government, not the other way around. They did so by ceding 16 discrete powers to the federal government and retaining to themselves all powers not ceded.

If this constitutional truism were not recognized or enforced by the courts, the federal government could effectively eradicate the sovereignty of the states or even bankrupt them by forcing them to spend their tax dollars enforcing federal law or paying for federal programs.

Thus the Trump dilemma. He must follow the Constitution, or the courts will enjoin him as they have his predecessor. He cannot use a stick to bend the governments of sanctuary cities to his will, but he can use a carrot. He can ask Congress for legislative grants of funds to cities conditioned upon their compliance with certain federal immigration laws.

All of this is part of our constitutional republic. By dividing powers between the feds and the states — and by separating federal powers among the president, Congress and the courts — our system intentionally makes the exercise of governmental power cumbersome by diffusing it. And since government is essentially the negation of freedom, the diffusion of governmental powers helps to maximize personal liberty.

Copyright 2016 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.

 
Hide 54 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. David says:

    I thought Trump had threatened Sanctuary Cities with loss of most federal support. Obviously that’s practical. Carter forced states to set their speed limits at 55 mph by threatening to withhold federal highway funding. Isn’t there a well known case where the Supreme Court upholds such tactics? Any chance the decision was written by O. W. Holmes?

    Not a big deal, but “below the radar” as in, “come in below the radar,” means under the beams of radio waves that are sent out to be reflected by things like airplanes and returned to a radar antenna. Below the radar screen is a new one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Colleen Pater
    "They did so by ceding 16 discrete powers to the federal government and retaining to themselves all powers not ceded."

    Wow a liberal discovers states rights HMM suspicious timing.

    "If this constitutional truism were not recognized or enforced by the courts, the federal government could effectively eradicate the sovereignty of the states or even bankrupt them by forcing them to spend their tax dollars enforcing federal law or paying for federal programs."

    You have already bankrupted the states precisely by requiring federal laws which you even cite like providing social services for illegal aliens under some BS interpretation of the 14 amendment

    BTW he did not reduce his promise to only 2 million illegal criminals, he only said he will begin with them, all 40-60 million illegal aliens will be deported, and then we will review the citizenships of the past 30 years for fraud
    You can expect this administration to play by the same not rules of the past 150 years of liberal and cuckservatives
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /anapolitano/are-sanctuary-cities-legal/#comment-1676234
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Mark Green says: • Website

    Very good article. Ironically, progressives are now depending upon ‘states rights’ arguments to circumvent federal law as well as the will of the people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Connecticut Famer
    Yes, good point. The irony crossed my own mind prior to encountering your comment.
    , @Skeptikal
    This is true also in the case of state laws concerning marijuana.
    So far the feds have declined to come down hard, or at all, on states that have legalized various types of marijuana use while fed. law criminalizes it.

    One really has to develop some mental flexibility regarding central/local/state.

    The tensions between central and local government didn't start in the USA.
    In the Austrian Empire it was the emperor/central administration that extended protections to Jews within the empire, whereas most local politicians were openly anti-Semite.
    Even though one reason for that empire's longevity was that it basically left its component parts to their own devices (broad brush here; big topic).
    This central/local dichotomy can, obviously, cut both ways. It all depends who is in charge at the center: will progressive or regressive policies be promulgated and enforced? Same problem in the EU: Is the Brussels regime progressive or imperialist regressive? History makes it all a moving target and the clock starts at different points for different public policy issues.
    Speaking of irony it is also ironic that out west (in the USA) the central govt is the villain for enforcing certain environmental regs that ranchers and other frontiersmen consisder a heavy and unfair yoke. But the gummint in Washington is also responsible for ensuring that the same ranchers, etc. get virtually free water basically on the public purse. Of course it has been demonstrated that when it comes to the distribution of federal funds, these freedom lovers in the western states are subsidized by the eastern "pinkos."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. youbic says:

    What about unfunded mandates where new mandates are written into federal law or policy and the states or local municipalities have to fund them?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. Jason Liu says:

    The left has been bashing state’s rights for ages. Time to use their beliefs against them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. @Mark Green
    Very good article. Ironically, progressives are now depending upon 'states rights' arguments to circumvent federal law as well as the will of the people.

    Yes, good point. The irony crossed my own mind prior to encountering your comment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. anon says: • Disclaimer

    There is a lot of low hanging fruit.

    1. Simply announcing that a law will be enforced will increase compliance.

    2. Moratorium on refugee programs.

    3. Enforce e-Verify.

    4. Announce we will enforce laws regarding overstaying visas. Arrest one person. Preferably someone rich and famous and let it self advertise over main stream media.

    etc.

    Mexican immigration saved Chicago from a much worse fate. Whatever it will do for the city’s demography has been pretty much done.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Amasius says:

    Trump and many of his supporters have already conceded too much ground. “We’re going to focus on ‘criminal’ aliens…” All these illegals are criminal. They are trespassers, they are squatters, they are invaders. They have absolutely no right to be in this country. It’s right there in the word “illegal.” It’s becoming normalized that these “non-criminal” criminal aliens are okay. Enforce the damn law and get them out of here, all of them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Instead of telling non-white immigrants and/or invaders to go back, whites should pose a question:

    “Why don’t you want to go back to your country? Do you hate your own people and culture? Do you hate your own non-white nation and prefer to live in white majority nation? Do you not want to live with your kind? Do you not want your daughter to marry a man of her race? And why did you choose a white-majority nation as immigration-destination? Why not a non-white nation? Do you think white people are better than non-whites? Do you prefer white people over your own race? Why did you leave your own people to live with white people?”

    Isn’t it strange that non-whites bitch about how whites are not ‘welcoming’ and ‘accepting’ enough of their kind, but these people reject their own kind, flee their own nations, and want to come and live with whites?

    If they can’t stand their own kind, why should whites stand them?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    I think it's obvious they're mainly fleeing the dismal economic prospects in their native lands, as was true of Irish and Southern and Eastern European immigrants in times past.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. What about other federal laws?

    Can my town or city ignore the Americans with Disabilities Act?
    How about The Fair Housing and Voting Rights Laws?

    If enough citizens demand it, then local politicians should step forward and represent the will of their communities.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. KenH says:

    Napolitano has a soft spot in his heart for illegal aliens, hence his repeated claims that mere birth in this nation confers citizenship which is the opinion held by pro illegal immigration ideologues. The 14th amendment’s purpose was geared towards citizenship of former African slaves and their offspring; it wasn’t intended as a cheap and easy option for illegal aliens to win citizenship .

    Secondly, while states may or may not have an obligation to assist the federal government neither can they take an activist stance in thwarting federal enforcement of immigration laws which Rahm Emmanuel and a few other mayors have vowed to do. Remember judge, federal courts have ruled that states cannot make their own immigration law (enforcement provisions passed by states since the federal government abdicated on deportation and enforcement) and lack of enforcement by states in the form of sanctuary cities is an example of some states making their own de facto immigration laws. And that’s a problem that Trump needs to address.

    And I agree that’s it’s funny how the left is rediscovering separation of powers and states rights now that we have a president they don’t like. During the Obama era states rights were “relics of our racist past” and “used to promote bigotry against blacks and other minorities”. Not to worry though, as once Julian Castro or some other Obama like figure ascends to the presidency in the future states rights will once again become passe on the left and they will rediscover their love of executive order decrees and autocracy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    It is hard to apply the 14th amendment to the question of the offspring of illegal immigrants since illegal immigrants did not exist when the amendment was ratified, as there were no federal immigration laws that defined certain categories of alien as "illegal". The 14th amendment is a very questionable law for many reasons, of course; it always seems to be at the center of some federal power grab or other.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. D. K. says:

    Municipalities have no sovereign powers; they are merely administrative subdivisions of their respective states, which are sovereign powers. Municipalities possess only the powers expressly granted to them, respectively, by their sovereign states. Which states can the erstwhile New Jersey judge cite that have granted any or all of their respective municipalities the purported power to give legal sanctuary to actual or accused criminals being sought by the Federal government? The former judge also is mistaken in his claim that the sovereign states, and their governmental subdivisions, are required to provide any and all of their social services to anyone who happens to reside within them, irrespective of the respective citizenship or immigration status of any given resident. In his neighboring New York State, for example:

    https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/articles/james-l-seward/what-benefits-can-illegal-aliens-receive

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    Your argument is essentially that the federal government should have the power to force state and local authorities to enforce its laws. Yes, we all know that the left are hypocrites about states' rights, but the response here appears to be that the right should become equal hypocrites and override states' rights in the name of immigration enforcement.

    There are actually plenty of ways for the federal government to encourage local compliance without endangering states' rights. Judge Nap points out one such solution: cut federal funds to any local government that refuses to cooperate with federal immigration officers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. jtgw says:
    @D. K.
    Municipalities have no sovereign powers; they are merely administrative subdivisions of their respective states, which are sovereign powers. Municipalities possess only the powers expressly granted to them, respectively, by their sovereign states. Which states can the erstwhile New Jersey judge cite that have granted any or all of their respective municipalities the purported power to give legal sanctuary to actual or accused criminals being sought by the Federal government? The former judge also is mistaken in his claim that the sovereign states, and their governmental subdivisions, are required to provide any and all of their social services to anyone who happens to reside within them, irrespective of the respective citizenship or immigration status of any given resident. In his neighboring New York State, for example:

    https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/articles/james-l-seward/what-benefits-can-illegal-aliens-receive

    Your argument is essentially that the federal government should have the power to force state and local authorities to enforce its laws. Yes, we all know that the left are hypocrites about states’ rights, but the response here appears to be that the right should become equal hypocrites and override states’ rights in the name of immigration enforcement.

    There are actually plenty of ways for the federal government to encourage local compliance without endangering states’ rights. Judge Nap points out one such solution: cut federal funds to any local government that refuses to cooperate with federal immigration officers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    No, my argument is that municipalities do not have the legal authority to grant legal sanctuary to people wanted by the Federal government, in general, let alone in the cases of those in the country illegally, in particular. Providing such protection to those in the country illegally is itself felonious:

    http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/AidAbetUnlawfulSec8USC1324.html

    Again, municipalities, unlike the states that create them, are not sovereign entities. Municipalities, therefore, do not possess any such "states' rights," irrespective of anyone's argument(s) about just what those "states' rights" might be.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. jtgw says:
    @KenH
    Napolitano has a soft spot in his heart for illegal aliens, hence his repeated claims that mere birth in this nation confers citizenship which is the opinion held by pro illegal immigration ideologues. The 14th amendment's purpose was geared towards citizenship of former African slaves and their offspring; it wasn't intended as a cheap and easy option for illegal aliens to win citizenship .

    Secondly, while states may or may not have an obligation to assist the federal government neither can they take an activist stance in thwarting federal enforcement of immigration laws which Rahm Emmanuel and a few other mayors have vowed to do. Remember judge, federal courts have ruled that states cannot make their own immigration law (enforcement provisions passed by states since the federal government abdicated on deportation and enforcement) and lack of enforcement by states in the form of sanctuary cities is an example of some states making their own de facto immigration laws. And that's a problem that Trump needs to address.

    And I agree that's it's funny how the left is rediscovering separation of powers and states rights now that we have a president they don't like. During the Obama era states rights were "relics of our racist past" and "used to promote bigotry against blacks and other minorities". Not to worry though, as once Julian Castro or some other Obama like figure ascends to the presidency in the future states rights will once again become passe on the left and they will rediscover their love of executive order decrees and autocracy.

    It is hard to apply the 14th amendment to the question of the offspring of illegal immigrants since illegal immigrants did not exist when the amendment was ratified, as there were no federal immigration laws that defined certain categories of alien as “illegal”. The 14th amendment is a very questionable law for many reasons, of course; it always seems to be at the center of some federal power grab or other.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH
    If it's inapplicable to illegal aliens then they don't qualify for birthright citizenship as Napolitano and a few other conservative fraudsters repeatedly claim. As an aside, the 14th amendment was never properly ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures as required by the Constitution since Southern states initially rejected it then were placed under extreme duress to pass it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. D. K. says:
    @jtgw
    Your argument is essentially that the federal government should have the power to force state and local authorities to enforce its laws. Yes, we all know that the left are hypocrites about states' rights, but the response here appears to be that the right should become equal hypocrites and override states' rights in the name of immigration enforcement.

    There are actually plenty of ways for the federal government to encourage local compliance without endangering states' rights. Judge Nap points out one such solution: cut federal funds to any local government that refuses to cooperate with federal immigration officers.

    No, my argument is that municipalities do not have the legal authority to grant legal sanctuary to people wanted by the Federal government, in general, let alone in the cases of those in the country illegally, in particular. Providing such protection to those in the country illegally is itself felonious:

    http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/AidAbetUnlawfulSec8USC1324.html

    Again, municipalities, unlike the states that create them, are not sovereign entities. Municipalities, therefore, do not possess any such “states’ rights,” irrespective of anyone’s argument(s) about just what those “states’ rights” might be.

    Read More
    • Agree: KenH
    • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
    Indeed. Imagine the reaction of the Feds had the Municipality of West Peckerwood, Montana given sanctuary to Randy Weaver et al. with a firm and defiant declaration of support for real short sawed off shotguns from its mayor's office.
    , @jtgw
    Then that's a matter for the states. How does the federal government come into the picture? Is it the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that municipal governments obey their respective state governments? The Constitution does provide for the use of federal powers in suppressing local rebellions, but only at the request of the respective states (though you could argue that the Whiskey Rebellion set a precedent for ignoring the states).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. @D. K.
    No, my argument is that municipalities do not have the legal authority to grant legal sanctuary to people wanted by the Federal government, in general, let alone in the cases of those in the country illegally, in particular. Providing such protection to those in the country illegally is itself felonious:

    http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/AidAbetUnlawfulSec8USC1324.html

    Again, municipalities, unlike the states that create them, are not sovereign entities. Municipalities, therefore, do not possess any such "states' rights," irrespective of anyone's argument(s) about just what those "states' rights" might be.

    Indeed. Imagine the reaction of the Feds had the Municipality of West Peckerwood, Montana given sanctuary to Randy Weaver et al. with a firm and defiant declaration of support for real short sawed off shotguns from its mayor’s office.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH
    Good one. If that had happened then West Peckerwood, MT would have been subjected to a Waco like, military style assault for harboring Randy Weaver who harmed no one and threatened no one and whose only mistake was committing a trifling malum prohibitum offense. If he were an illegal mestizo he'd probably still be alive somewhere.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Hibernian says:
    @Anon
    Instead of telling non-white immigrants and/or invaders to go back, whites should pose a question:

    "Why don't you want to go back to your country? Do you hate your own people and culture? Do you hate your own non-white nation and prefer to live in white majority nation? Do you not want to live with your kind? Do you not want your daughter to marry a man of her race? And why did you choose a white-majority nation as immigration-destination? Why not a non-white nation? Do you think white people are better than non-whites? Do you prefer white people over your own race? Why did you leave your own people to live with white people?"

    Isn't it strange that non-whites bitch about how whites are not 'welcoming' and 'accepting' enough of their kind, but these people reject their own kind, flee their own nations, and want to come and live with whites?

    If they can't stand their own kind, why should whites stand them?

    I think it’s obvious they’re mainly fleeing the dismal economic prospects in their native lands, as was true of Irish and Southern and Eastern European immigrants in times past.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. KenH says:
    @jtgw
    It is hard to apply the 14th amendment to the question of the offspring of illegal immigrants since illegal immigrants did not exist when the amendment was ratified, as there were no federal immigration laws that defined certain categories of alien as "illegal". The 14th amendment is a very questionable law for many reasons, of course; it always seems to be at the center of some federal power grab or other.

    If it’s inapplicable to illegal aliens then they don’t qualify for birthright citizenship as Napolitano and a few other conservative fraudsters repeatedly claim. As an aside, the 14th amendment was never properly ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures as required by the Constitution since Southern states initially rejected it then were placed under extreme duress to pass it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    My point is that there is no reason to argue that it does not apply to the children of illegal aliens. Illegal aliens were not a concept in 1869. The amendment does make exceptions for the children of diplomats and invaders, not under US jurisdiction, but it has nothing to say about the children of illegal residents who are nevertheless under US jurisdiction (we hold illegal aliens responsible for crimes they commit on US soil, unlike diplomats). This isn't an argument for birthright citizenship, but simply to point out that the issue isn't as clear cut as you imagine. This is why Ron Paul campaigned for a constitutional amendment that would explicitly exclude the children of illegal aliens from birthright citizenship.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. KenH says:
    @Jim Bob Lassiter
    Indeed. Imagine the reaction of the Feds had the Municipality of West Peckerwood, Montana given sanctuary to Randy Weaver et al. with a firm and defiant declaration of support for real short sawed off shotguns from its mayor's office.

    Good one. If that had happened then West Peckerwood, MT would have been subjected to a Waco like, military style assault for harboring Randy Weaver who harmed no one and threatened no one and whose only mistake was committing a trifling malum prohibitum offense. If he were an illegal mestizo he’d probably still be alive somewhere.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. jtgw says:
    @D. K.
    No, my argument is that municipalities do not have the legal authority to grant legal sanctuary to people wanted by the Federal government, in general, let alone in the cases of those in the country illegally, in particular. Providing such protection to those in the country illegally is itself felonious:

    http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/AidAbetUnlawfulSec8USC1324.html

    Again, municipalities, unlike the states that create them, are not sovereign entities. Municipalities, therefore, do not possess any such "states' rights," irrespective of anyone's argument(s) about just what those "states' rights" might be.

    Then that’s a matter for the states. How does the federal government come into the picture? Is it the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that municipal governments obey their respective state governments? The Constitution does provide for the use of federal powers in suppressing local rebellions, but only at the request of the respective states (though you could argue that the Whiskey Rebellion set a precedent for ignoring the states).

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    The Constitution of the United States, Article IV, Section 4, reads, in full:

    "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

    Article I, Section 8, in its final paragraph, gives the Congress the power "[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

    The Congress of the United States, which has plenary powers over immigration, and all other entries into the United States by non-citizens, passed a law, duly signed by the then-sitting president, making it a crime to harbor or assist illegal aliens within the United States. My previous comment, to which you just were responding, included a link to a Web site citing the relevant section of the United States Code, and discussing it at length. In passing local ordinances that ostensibly grant illegal aliens legal sanctuary from the lawful police powers of the Federal government, those municipalities are not defying the sovereign states that granted them the totality of those municipalities' own respective legal authority; rather, those municipalities are defying "the supreme Law of the Land," by which "the Judges in every State shall be bound . . . , any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding," as stated in the penultimate paragraph of Article VI of the Constitution of the United States.

    The Federal government, through the proper officers and offices of the Executive Department, therefore, has the necessary constitutional authority and power to enforce the United States Code against municipalities which actively seek to harbor or assist illegal aliens, such as by officially declaring those municipalities legal sanctuaries from Federal immigration law, duly passed by the Congress of the United States, and signed into law by the then-sitting president. The sovereign states which created those municipalities do not come into play, in such situations, at all, unless and until they choose to use their own sovereign police powers to assist the Federal government in the exercise of its own such police powers. They may choose not to do so, but they have no constitutional authority to prevent the Federal government from exercising its own police powers, subject to an existing Federal statute, within the boundaries of any such sovereign state within the Union.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. jtgw says:
    @KenH
    If it's inapplicable to illegal aliens then they don't qualify for birthright citizenship as Napolitano and a few other conservative fraudsters repeatedly claim. As an aside, the 14th amendment was never properly ratified by 3/4 of state legislatures as required by the Constitution since Southern states initially rejected it then were placed under extreme duress to pass it.

    My point is that there is no reason to argue that it does not apply to the children of illegal aliens. Illegal aliens were not a concept in 1869. The amendment does make exceptions for the children of diplomats and invaders, not under US jurisdiction, but it has nothing to say about the children of illegal residents who are nevertheless under US jurisdiction (we hold illegal aliens responsible for crimes they commit on US soil, unlike diplomats). This isn’t an argument for birthright citizenship, but simply to point out that the issue isn’t as clear cut as you imagine. This is why Ron Paul campaigned for a constitutional amendment that would explicitly exclude the children of illegal aliens from birthright citizenship.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH

    My point is that there is no reason to argue that it does not apply to the children of illegal aliens. Illegal aliens were not a concept in 1869.
     
    Not sure if I follow your reasoning. Firstly, the judge and countless other bleeding hearts and political radicals have been arguing that the 14th amendment does indeed bestow citizenship on illegal aliens born on our soil, so people are forced to contradict those claims using the history and original intent of that amendment. Secondly, since illegal aliens weren't a concept in 1869 then that means the framers of the 14th amendment didn't have their welfare in mind and therefore it cannot be used by illegal aliens and the people who love them as a basis to win citizenship for their children born on our soil.

    The amendment does make exceptions for the children of diplomats and invaders, not under US jurisdiction,
     
    There are no exceptions that I'm aware of. Under current U.S. law a baby born on American soil to a foreign ambassador, head of state or military prisoner is not a U.S. citizen. Simple logic then dictates that babies born to illegal aliens are not citizens either. It's my view that illegal aliens aren't mentioned anywhere because common sense dictated that you can't simply enter this country illegally, have a baby (babies) and they automatically become citizens. America used to be sane and these things were commonly understood by our representative and the vast majority of citizens.

    ....but it has nothing to say about the children of illegal residents who are nevertheless under US jurisdiction
     
    I don't think that's correct. "Under the jurisdiction thereof" as defined by the 1866 Civil Rights Act is defined as “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power,". This means that if a person is a citizen or subject of a foreign power (nation) which all illegal aliens are (since they are citizens of say, Mexico or Guatemala) then they are subject to the jurisdiction of those nations, not the U.S., and therefore are constitutionally unqualified for citizenship.

    People like to argue that at the moment our hands are tied on this matter. They aren't. Decades ago Americans weren't divided on this issue and members of the establishment weren't arguing that the 14th amendment conferred citizenship upon non-citizens who happened to be born here. Operation Wetback instituted by Dwight Eisenhower is evidence of that fact as of the two million or so who were eventually deported (either forcibly or via self deportation) there were probably thousands (at least) who were born here, yet they too were unceremoniously kicked out.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. his judgeship forgot to mention obama deported more people than all presidents combined, while allowing american children born of foreign parents to remain.
    a nation that was built on genocide & slavery ought to seek redemption thru acts of humanity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Bob Lassiter
    Bullshit. His Excellency nigger-rigged the statistical reporting rules for deportation numbers versus getting caught climbing the fence and being put back over on the other side without the full blown interior deportation process.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. D. K. says:
    @jtgw
    Then that's a matter for the states. How does the federal government come into the picture? Is it the responsibility of the federal government to ensure that municipal governments obey their respective state governments? The Constitution does provide for the use of federal powers in suppressing local rebellions, but only at the request of the respective states (though you could argue that the Whiskey Rebellion set a precedent for ignoring the states).

    The Constitution of the United States, Article IV, Section 4, reads, in full:

    “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

    Article I, Section 8, in its final paragraph, gives the Congress the power “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

    The Congress of the United States, which has plenary powers over immigration, and all other entries into the United States by non-citizens, passed a law, duly signed by the then-sitting president, making it a crime to harbor or assist illegal aliens within the United States. My previous comment, to which you just were responding, included a link to a Web site citing the relevant section of the United States Code, and discussing it at length. In passing local ordinances that ostensibly grant illegal aliens legal sanctuary from the lawful police powers of the Federal government, those municipalities are not defying the sovereign states that granted them the totality of those municipalities’ own respective legal authority; rather, those municipalities are defying “the supreme Law of the Land,” by which “the Judges in every State shall be bound . . . , any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding,” as stated in the penultimate paragraph of Article VI of the Constitution of the United States.

    The Federal government, through the proper officers and offices of the Executive Department, therefore, has the necessary constitutional authority and power to enforce the United States Code against municipalities which actively seek to harbor or assist illegal aliens, such as by officially declaring those municipalities legal sanctuaries from Federal immigration law, duly passed by the Congress of the United States, and signed into law by the then-sitting president. The sovereign states which created those municipalities do not come into play, in such situations, at all, unless and until they choose to use their own sovereign police powers to assist the Federal government in the exercise of its own such police powers. They may choose not to do so, but they have no constitutional authority to prevent the Federal government from exercising its own police powers, subject to an existing Federal statute, within the boundaries of any such sovereign state within the Union.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    I looked over your link and it is certainly a complicated legal question. Not here, but elsewhere Judge Nap has noted that immigration control is not one of the enumerated powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8; the doctrine that Congress had plenary power over immigration regulation was "discovered" over the course of the 19th century. This poses a problem for constitutional originalists, at the very least, as well as federalists who support states' rights (states in the early 19th century exercised many of the powers over immigration that the federal government now exercises).

    If we leave that aside and grant to the federal government all the powers that its courts have conveniently discovered for it in the more ambiguous parts of the Constitution, we still have to show that the actions of sanctuary cities constitute violations of this federal statute. For example, if Chicago pays the legal fees of illegal aliens contesting deportation, is that a count of harboring? I think we would at the very least have to distinguish between local law enforcement actively impeding or resisting federal immigration agents, and local law enforcement who merely declined to expend extra effort cooperating with those agents. E.g. should a local jail really be required by federal law to spend resources detaining illegal aliens until federal agents pick them up at their convenience?

    This link is an interesting discussion of how states exercised powers over immigration and even citizenship in the 19th century

    https://mises.org/blog/19th-century-non-citizens-us-could-vote-22-states-and-territories

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. jtgw says:
    @D. K.
    The Constitution of the United States, Article IV, Section 4, reads, in full:

    "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

    Article I, Section 8, in its final paragraph, gives the Congress the power "[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

    The Congress of the United States, which has plenary powers over immigration, and all other entries into the United States by non-citizens, passed a law, duly signed by the then-sitting president, making it a crime to harbor or assist illegal aliens within the United States. My previous comment, to which you just were responding, included a link to a Web site citing the relevant section of the United States Code, and discussing it at length. In passing local ordinances that ostensibly grant illegal aliens legal sanctuary from the lawful police powers of the Federal government, those municipalities are not defying the sovereign states that granted them the totality of those municipalities' own respective legal authority; rather, those municipalities are defying "the supreme Law of the Land," by which "the Judges in every State shall be bound . . . , any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding," as stated in the penultimate paragraph of Article VI of the Constitution of the United States.

    The Federal government, through the proper officers and offices of the Executive Department, therefore, has the necessary constitutional authority and power to enforce the United States Code against municipalities which actively seek to harbor or assist illegal aliens, such as by officially declaring those municipalities legal sanctuaries from Federal immigration law, duly passed by the Congress of the United States, and signed into law by the then-sitting president. The sovereign states which created those municipalities do not come into play, in such situations, at all, unless and until they choose to use their own sovereign police powers to assist the Federal government in the exercise of its own such police powers. They may choose not to do so, but they have no constitutional authority to prevent the Federal government from exercising its own police powers, subject to an existing Federal statute, within the boundaries of any such sovereign state within the Union.

    I looked over your link and it is certainly a complicated legal question. Not here, but elsewhere Judge Nap has noted that immigration control is not one of the enumerated powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8; the doctrine that Congress had plenary power over immigration regulation was “discovered” over the course of the 19th century. This poses a problem for constitutional originalists, at the very least, as well as federalists who support states’ rights (states in the early 19th century exercised many of the powers over immigration that the federal government now exercises).

    If we leave that aside and grant to the federal government all the powers that its courts have conveniently discovered for it in the more ambiguous parts of the Constitution, we still have to show that the actions of sanctuary cities constitute violations of this federal statute. For example, if Chicago pays the legal fees of illegal aliens contesting deportation, is that a count of harboring? I think we would at the very least have to distinguish between local law enforcement actively impeding or resisting federal immigration agents, and local law enforcement who merely declined to expend extra effort cooperating with those agents. E.g. should a local jail really be required by federal law to spend resources detaining illegal aliens until federal agents pick them up at their convenience?

    This link is an interesting discussion of how states exercised powers over immigration and even citizenship in the 19th century

    https://mises.org/blog/19th-century-non-citizens-us-could-vote-22-states-and-territories

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    No, the City of Chicago's paying legal fees for illegal aliens, so that they could defend themselves against their lawful deportations by the Federal government, would not constitute the felony of "harboring" illegal aliens, under the United States Code; such city payments to known illegal aliens would constitute, instead, "assisting" those illegal aliens, which is likewise a felony under the aforementioned statute. So, yes, the City of Chicago, and its responsible authorities, would be in violation of the aforementioned statute, by doing so, if the city, in fact, knew that it was providing such financial assistance to illegal aliens. If the City of Chicago, instead, were willingly to provide living quarters for persons whom its responsible authorities knew to be illegal aliens, then the city, and its responsible authorities, would be guilty, under the same statute, of "harboring" those illegal aliens. The proof of the intent to violate the Federal statute lies in the very act of declaring the city a sanctuary, since that declaration proves that it is the city's intent, at a minimum, to "assist" known illegal aliens in its midst to avoid lawful deportation by Federal authorities; only the guilty-- i.e., actual illegal aliens-- need legal sanctuary from the Federal government's lawful enforcement of immigration law by the responsible departments of the Federal government.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. D. K. says:
    @jtgw
    I looked over your link and it is certainly a complicated legal question. Not here, but elsewhere Judge Nap has noted that immigration control is not one of the enumerated powers of Congress in Article I, Section 8; the doctrine that Congress had plenary power over immigration regulation was "discovered" over the course of the 19th century. This poses a problem for constitutional originalists, at the very least, as well as federalists who support states' rights (states in the early 19th century exercised many of the powers over immigration that the federal government now exercises).

    If we leave that aside and grant to the federal government all the powers that its courts have conveniently discovered for it in the more ambiguous parts of the Constitution, we still have to show that the actions of sanctuary cities constitute violations of this federal statute. For example, if Chicago pays the legal fees of illegal aliens contesting deportation, is that a count of harboring? I think we would at the very least have to distinguish between local law enforcement actively impeding or resisting federal immigration agents, and local law enforcement who merely declined to expend extra effort cooperating with those agents. E.g. should a local jail really be required by federal law to spend resources detaining illegal aliens until federal agents pick them up at their convenience?

    This link is an interesting discussion of how states exercised powers over immigration and even citizenship in the 19th century

    https://mises.org/blog/19th-century-non-citizens-us-could-vote-22-states-and-territories

    No, the City of Chicago’s paying legal fees for illegal aliens, so that they could defend themselves against their lawful deportations by the Federal government, would not constitute the felony of “harboring” illegal aliens, under the United States Code; such city payments to known illegal aliens would constitute, instead, “assisting” those illegal aliens, which is likewise a felony under the aforementioned statute. So, yes, the City of Chicago, and its responsible authorities, would be in violation of the aforementioned statute, by doing so, if the city, in fact, knew that it was providing such financial assistance to illegal aliens. If the City of Chicago, instead, were willingly to provide living quarters for persons whom its responsible authorities knew to be illegal aliens, then the city, and its responsible authorities, would be guilty, under the same statute, of “harboring” those illegal aliens. The proof of the intent to violate the Federal statute lies in the very act of declaring the city a sanctuary, since that declaration proves that it is the city’s intent, at a minimum, to “assist” known illegal aliens in its midst to avoid lawful deportation by Federal authorities; only the guilty– i.e., actual illegal aliens– need legal sanctuary from the Federal government’s lawful enforcement of immigration law by the responsible departments of the Federal government.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    I see what you're saying about declaring a city a sanctuary from immigration enforcement, but there seems to be something wrong with accusing the city of assisting illegal aliens by paying for their legal defense. If a private individual paid for their legal defense, would that also constitute a felony? Are they simply not allowed to defend themselves against deportation? I assume we're talking about instances where they would have a case against deportation and that a judge would throw out any frivolous challenges.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. KenH says:
    @jtgw
    My point is that there is no reason to argue that it does not apply to the children of illegal aliens. Illegal aliens were not a concept in 1869. The amendment does make exceptions for the children of diplomats and invaders, not under US jurisdiction, but it has nothing to say about the children of illegal residents who are nevertheless under US jurisdiction (we hold illegal aliens responsible for crimes they commit on US soil, unlike diplomats). This isn't an argument for birthright citizenship, but simply to point out that the issue isn't as clear cut as you imagine. This is why Ron Paul campaigned for a constitutional amendment that would explicitly exclude the children of illegal aliens from birthright citizenship.

    My point is that there is no reason to argue that it does not apply to the children of illegal aliens. Illegal aliens were not a concept in 1869.

    Not sure if I follow your reasoning. Firstly, the judge and countless other bleeding hearts and political radicals have been arguing that the 14th amendment does indeed bestow citizenship on illegal aliens born on our soil, so people are forced to contradict those claims using the history and original intent of that amendment. Secondly, since illegal aliens weren’t a concept in 1869 then that means the framers of the 14th amendment didn’t have their welfare in mind and therefore it cannot be used by illegal aliens and the people who love them as a basis to win citizenship for their children born on our soil.

    The amendment does make exceptions for the children of diplomats and invaders, not under US jurisdiction,

    There are no exceptions that I’m aware of. Under current U.S. law a baby born on American soil to a foreign ambassador, head of state or military prisoner is not a U.S. citizen. Simple logic then dictates that babies born to illegal aliens are not citizens either. It’s my view that illegal aliens aren’t mentioned anywhere because common sense dictated that you can’t simply enter this country illegally, have a baby (babies) and they automatically become citizens. America used to be sane and these things were commonly understood by our representative and the vast majority of citizens.

    ….but it has nothing to say about the children of illegal residents who are nevertheless under US jurisdiction

    I don’t think that’s correct. “Under the jurisdiction thereof” as defined by the 1866 Civil Rights Act is defined as “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power,”. This means that if a person is a citizen or subject of a foreign power (nation) which all illegal aliens are (since they are citizens of say, Mexico or Guatemala) then they are subject to the jurisdiction of those nations, not the U.S., and therefore are constitutionally unqualified for citizenship.

    People like to argue that at the moment our hands are tied on this matter. They aren’t. Decades ago Americans weren’t divided on this issue and members of the establishment weren’t arguing that the 14th amendment conferred citizenship upon non-citizens who happened to be born here. Operation Wetback instituted by Dwight Eisenhower is evidence of that fact as of the two million or so who were eventually deported (either forcibly or via self deportation) there were probably thousands (at least) who were born here, yet they too were unceremoniously kicked out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    I will skip the involved legal analysis, and leave it at this: As a practical matter, irrespective of my professional opinion, as a retired attorney, any federal statute claiming to "clarify" (i.e., limit) natural-born citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment's opening line, would undoubtedly be challenged immediately, as to its constitutionality, and also would undoubtedly be enjoined, by whichever hand-picked Federal District Court trial judge the challenge was placed in front of for injunctive relief. In other words, the Supreme Court of the United States would ultimately decide the matter, on constitutional grounds, before that federal statute ever was actually enforced on the ground. If I were a gambling man, I know which way I would bet....
    , @jtgw

    Firstly, the judge and countless other bleeding hearts and political radicals have been arguing that the 14th amendment does indeed bestow citizenship on illegal aliens born on our soil, so people are forced to contradict those claims using the history and original intent of that amendment. Secondly, since illegal aliens weren’t a concept in 1869 then that means the framers of the 14th amendment didn’t have their welfare in mind and therefore it cannot be used by illegal aliens and the people who love them as a basis to win citizenship for their children born on our soil.
     
    I think the best you can say is that the original intent of the framers of the amendment is uncertain when it comes to illegal aliens, since that category did not exist at the time of framing. I accept that it is not clear they would support birthright citizenship for the children of illegal residents, but neither is it clear they would oppose it.

    There are no exceptions that I’m aware of. Under current U.S. law a baby born on American soil to a foreign ambassador, head of state or military prisoner is not a U.S. citizen. Simple logic then dictates that babies born to illegal aliens are not citizens either. It’s my view that illegal aliens aren’t mentioned anywhere because common sense dictated that you can’t simply enter this country illegally, have a baby (babies) and they automatically become citizens. America used to be sane and these things were commonly understood by our representative and the vast majority of citizens.
     
    Illegal aliens aren't mentioned in the amendment since they did not exist at the time of the amendment's framing. I thought we'd already established that.

    I don’t think that’s correct. “Under the jurisdiction thereof” as defined by the 1866 Civil Rights Act is defined as “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power,”. This means that if a person is a citizen or subject of a foreign power (nation) which all illegal aliens are (since they are citizens of say, Mexico or Guatemala) then they are subject to the jurisdiction of those nations, not the U.S., and therefore are constitutionally unqualified for citizenship.

     

    By that reasoning, legal foreign residents are likewise not under US jurisdiction, since they retain foreign citizenship. But the legal precedent for granting citizenship to the children of legal foreign residents is quite clear (Wong Kim Ark vs US).

    People like to argue that at the moment our hands are tied on this matter. They aren’t. Decades ago Americans weren’t divided on this issue and members of the establishment weren’t arguing that the 14th amendment conferred citizenship upon non-citizens who happened to be born here. Operation Wetback instituted by Dwight Eisenhower is evidence of that fact as of the two million or so who were eventually deported (either forcibly or via self deportation) there were probably thousands (at least) who were born here, yet they too were unceremoniously kicked out.

     

    Hasn't it been customary to grant citizenship to the children of all non-diplomat foreigners, whether legal or not, for over a century now? Was there a time when the children of illegal aliens were not granted citizenship? If you can show that there was a time when the children of illegal aliens born in the US were not granted citizenship, then your case would be stronger.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Lawrence Fitton
    his judgeship forgot to mention obama deported more people than all presidents combined, while allowing american children born of foreign parents to remain.
    a nation that was built on genocide & slavery ought to seek redemption thru acts of humanity.

    Bullshit. His Excellency nigger-rigged the statistical reporting rules for deportation numbers versus getting caught climbing the fence and being put back over on the other side without the full blown interior deportation process.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. D. K. says:
    @KenH

    My point is that there is no reason to argue that it does not apply to the children of illegal aliens. Illegal aliens were not a concept in 1869.
     
    Not sure if I follow your reasoning. Firstly, the judge and countless other bleeding hearts and political radicals have been arguing that the 14th amendment does indeed bestow citizenship on illegal aliens born on our soil, so people are forced to contradict those claims using the history and original intent of that amendment. Secondly, since illegal aliens weren't a concept in 1869 then that means the framers of the 14th amendment didn't have their welfare in mind and therefore it cannot be used by illegal aliens and the people who love them as a basis to win citizenship for their children born on our soil.

    The amendment does make exceptions for the children of diplomats and invaders, not under US jurisdiction,
     
    There are no exceptions that I'm aware of. Under current U.S. law a baby born on American soil to a foreign ambassador, head of state or military prisoner is not a U.S. citizen. Simple logic then dictates that babies born to illegal aliens are not citizens either. It's my view that illegal aliens aren't mentioned anywhere because common sense dictated that you can't simply enter this country illegally, have a baby (babies) and they automatically become citizens. America used to be sane and these things were commonly understood by our representative and the vast majority of citizens.

    ....but it has nothing to say about the children of illegal residents who are nevertheless under US jurisdiction
     
    I don't think that's correct. "Under the jurisdiction thereof" as defined by the 1866 Civil Rights Act is defined as “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power,". This means that if a person is a citizen or subject of a foreign power (nation) which all illegal aliens are (since they are citizens of say, Mexico or Guatemala) then they are subject to the jurisdiction of those nations, not the U.S., and therefore are constitutionally unqualified for citizenship.

    People like to argue that at the moment our hands are tied on this matter. They aren't. Decades ago Americans weren't divided on this issue and members of the establishment weren't arguing that the 14th amendment conferred citizenship upon non-citizens who happened to be born here. Operation Wetback instituted by Dwight Eisenhower is evidence of that fact as of the two million or so who were eventually deported (either forcibly or via self deportation) there were probably thousands (at least) who were born here, yet they too were unceremoniously kicked out.

    I will skip the involved legal analysis, and leave it at this: As a practical matter, irrespective of my professional opinion, as a retired attorney, any federal statute claiming to “clarify” (i.e., limit) natural-born citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment’s opening line, would undoubtedly be challenged immediately, as to its constitutionality, and also would undoubtedly be enjoined, by whichever hand-picked Federal District Court trial judge the challenge was placed in front of for injunctive relief. In other words, the Supreme Court of the United States would ultimately decide the matter, on constitutional grounds, before that federal statute ever was actually enforced on the ground. If I were a gambling man, I know which way I would bet….

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH
    Sure, a left wing activist federal judge would provide injunctive relief, but a constitutional originalist most likely would not and uphold an act of Congress restricting citizenship to people born of parents who are both citizens. Of course, it would then get appealed and since there seem to be far more activist judges than originalists at some point it would probably get blocked.

    Ultimately, the definition of citizenship is the purview of the people's representatives in Congress and not unelected tyrants squatting on the federal bench. The fact that this issue has bitterly divided the Congress, the judiciary and pundits of various stripes is just proof that this country is coming apart at the seams and a final solution may lie in the dissolution of the union and allowing new nations to form over the rotting carcass of America.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. I don’t understand – if the Federal government doesn’t have the power to force the states to enforce immigration law, why in the heck does it have the power to force the states to provide services to non-citizens? Kicking illegals off the dole would be a non-violent way to encourage them to self-deport, probably more effective than building a wall. If we can’t re-interpret the 14th Amendment in a more reasonable fashion, we need to repeal it. I would personally have no problem with a FEDERAL version of Arizona’s notorious SB1070.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    This is indeed another sorry consequence of the 14th amendment. As a matter of policy, I think the government goes about immigration enforcement in the worst way. Immigrants who are gainfully employing and contributing to the economy are targeted for deportation and their employers for prosecution, while welfare agencies are compelled to hand out taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to those who aren't contributing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. jtgw says:
    @D. K.
    No, the City of Chicago's paying legal fees for illegal aliens, so that they could defend themselves against their lawful deportations by the Federal government, would not constitute the felony of "harboring" illegal aliens, under the United States Code; such city payments to known illegal aliens would constitute, instead, "assisting" those illegal aliens, which is likewise a felony under the aforementioned statute. So, yes, the City of Chicago, and its responsible authorities, would be in violation of the aforementioned statute, by doing so, if the city, in fact, knew that it was providing such financial assistance to illegal aliens. If the City of Chicago, instead, were willingly to provide living quarters for persons whom its responsible authorities knew to be illegal aliens, then the city, and its responsible authorities, would be guilty, under the same statute, of "harboring" those illegal aliens. The proof of the intent to violate the Federal statute lies in the very act of declaring the city a sanctuary, since that declaration proves that it is the city's intent, at a minimum, to "assist" known illegal aliens in its midst to avoid lawful deportation by Federal authorities; only the guilty-- i.e., actual illegal aliens-- need legal sanctuary from the Federal government's lawful enforcement of immigration law by the responsible departments of the Federal government.

    I see what you’re saying about declaring a city a sanctuary from immigration enforcement, but there seems to be something wrong with accusing the city of assisting illegal aliens by paying for their legal defense. If a private individual paid for their legal defense, would that also constitute a felony? Are they simply not allowed to defend themselves against deportation? I assume we’re talking about instances where they would have a case against deportation and that a judge would throw out any frivolous challenges.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    Yes, they have a right to due process, under our existing immigration laws, but they would only have a valid case against deportation if they were not, in fact, illegally present in this country. The sanctuary supporters admit that the immigrants to whom they are offering sanctuary are in the country illegally; their argument is that the current law is wrong and bad-- not unconstitutional, nor illegally applied, but instead simply immoral, unethical and inhuman! They oppose current immigration law on principles that are quite outside of the purview of constitutional law itself.

    I assume that the fees are incurred only once someone claimed by the Federal government to be in the country illegally already has been placed in the custody of our immigration authorities, to await deportation proceedings-- which is why I stated that offering to pay those fines on behalf of the illegal alien would not amount to "harboring" an illegal alien, under the cited law, since one can only harbor someone who is wanted by the authorities, not someone who already is in their custody.

    The City of Chicago would have no legal basis, that I can think of, to spend taxpayer funds on someone who was known to be neither a citizen nor a permanent legal resident of the United States, let alone of the State of Illinois-- from whose sovereign powers the City of Chicago derives literally all of its legal authority, as a municipality incorporated by that sovereign state-- much less to do so in opposition to the lawful exercise of the Federal government's own police power.

    Again, the City of Chicago is publicly offering its supposed sanctuary to people it knows to be in the country illegally-- because those are the only people at risk of deportation as such. It is that knowledge of illegality, in conjunction with there being no plausible legal basis, as far as I can tell, for spending taxpayer funds on the type of people at issue (i.e., those without legal authority to be in the country, at all), which, in my opinion, would make the city's offer-- a policy announced publicly to people who have yet to be apprehended, mind you!-- a form of assistance to people known to be illegally present in this country.

    By announcing such a policy publicly, the City of Chicago is obviously seeking to induce illegal aliens residing within the city to remain there, in further violation of the law, and perhaps even to induce other illegal aliens to come to Chicago, both from elsewhere in the United States, for greater security (which is the whole motive behind offering sanctuary to illegal aliens, in the first place, after all), and even from outside of the country, thus increasing the actual numbers of such illegal aliens present in the country.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. jtgw says:
    @KenH

    My point is that there is no reason to argue that it does not apply to the children of illegal aliens. Illegal aliens were not a concept in 1869.
     
    Not sure if I follow your reasoning. Firstly, the judge and countless other bleeding hearts and political radicals have been arguing that the 14th amendment does indeed bestow citizenship on illegal aliens born on our soil, so people are forced to contradict those claims using the history and original intent of that amendment. Secondly, since illegal aliens weren't a concept in 1869 then that means the framers of the 14th amendment didn't have their welfare in mind and therefore it cannot be used by illegal aliens and the people who love them as a basis to win citizenship for their children born on our soil.

    The amendment does make exceptions for the children of diplomats and invaders, not under US jurisdiction,
     
    There are no exceptions that I'm aware of. Under current U.S. law a baby born on American soil to a foreign ambassador, head of state or military prisoner is not a U.S. citizen. Simple logic then dictates that babies born to illegal aliens are not citizens either. It's my view that illegal aliens aren't mentioned anywhere because common sense dictated that you can't simply enter this country illegally, have a baby (babies) and they automatically become citizens. America used to be sane and these things were commonly understood by our representative and the vast majority of citizens.

    ....but it has nothing to say about the children of illegal residents who are nevertheless under US jurisdiction
     
    I don't think that's correct. "Under the jurisdiction thereof" as defined by the 1866 Civil Rights Act is defined as “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power,". This means that if a person is a citizen or subject of a foreign power (nation) which all illegal aliens are (since they are citizens of say, Mexico or Guatemala) then they are subject to the jurisdiction of those nations, not the U.S., and therefore are constitutionally unqualified for citizenship.

    People like to argue that at the moment our hands are tied on this matter. They aren't. Decades ago Americans weren't divided on this issue and members of the establishment weren't arguing that the 14th amendment conferred citizenship upon non-citizens who happened to be born here. Operation Wetback instituted by Dwight Eisenhower is evidence of that fact as of the two million or so who were eventually deported (either forcibly or via self deportation) there were probably thousands (at least) who were born here, yet they too were unceremoniously kicked out.

    Firstly, the judge and countless other bleeding hearts and political radicals have been arguing that the 14th amendment does indeed bestow citizenship on illegal aliens born on our soil, so people are forced to contradict those claims using the history and original intent of that amendment. Secondly, since illegal aliens weren’t a concept in 1869 then that means the framers of the 14th amendment didn’t have their welfare in mind and therefore it cannot be used by illegal aliens and the people who love them as a basis to win citizenship for their children born on our soil.

    I think the best you can say is that the original intent of the framers of the amendment is uncertain when it comes to illegal aliens, since that category did not exist at the time of framing. I accept that it is not clear they would support birthright citizenship for the children of illegal residents, but neither is it clear they would oppose it.

    There are no exceptions that I’m aware of. Under current U.S. law a baby born on American soil to a foreign ambassador, head of state or military prisoner is not a U.S. citizen. Simple logic then dictates that babies born to illegal aliens are not citizens either. It’s my view that illegal aliens aren’t mentioned anywhere because common sense dictated that you can’t simply enter this country illegally, have a baby (babies) and they automatically become citizens. America used to be sane and these things were commonly understood by our representative and the vast majority of citizens.

    Illegal aliens aren’t mentioned in the amendment since they did not exist at the time of the amendment’s framing. I thought we’d already established that.

    I don’t think that’s correct. “Under the jurisdiction thereof” as defined by the 1866 Civil Rights Act is defined as “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power,”. This means that if a person is a citizen or subject of a foreign power (nation) which all illegal aliens are (since they are citizens of say, Mexico or Guatemala) then they are subject to the jurisdiction of those nations, not the U.S., and therefore are constitutionally unqualified for citizenship.

    By that reasoning, legal foreign residents are likewise not under US jurisdiction, since they retain foreign citizenship. But the legal precedent for granting citizenship to the children of legal foreign residents is quite clear (Wong Kim Ark vs US).

    People like to argue that at the moment our hands are tied on this matter. They aren’t. Decades ago Americans weren’t divided on this issue and members of the establishment weren’t arguing that the 14th amendment conferred citizenship upon non-citizens who happened to be born here. Operation Wetback instituted by Dwight Eisenhower is evidence of that fact as of the two million or so who were eventually deported (either forcibly or via self deportation) there were probably thousands (at least) who were born here, yet they too were unceremoniously kicked out.

    Hasn’t it been customary to grant citizenship to the children of all non-diplomat foreigners, whether legal or not, for over a century now? Was there a time when the children of illegal aliens were not granted citizenship? If you can show that there was a time when the children of illegal aliens born in the US were not granted citizenship, then your case would be stronger.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH

    Illegal aliens aren’t mentioned in the amendment since they did not exist at the time of the amendment’s framing. I thought we’d already established that.
     
    We're spinning our wheels here. If you are arguing that babies born of illegal aliens should be given the benefit of the doubt and granted citizenship until such time as the matter can be addressed by yet another constitutional amendment then that is the typical sentiment of a bleeding heart and/or pro-illegal alien ideologue. And in so doing you are resting your case on some of the 14th amendment language which you said is not germane to the discussion.

    By that reasoning, legal foreign residents are likewise not under US jurisdiction, since they retain foreign citizenship. But the legal precedent for granting citizenship to the children of legal foreign residents is quite clear (Wong Kim Ark vs US).
     
    I don't agree with the SCOTUS ruling in this case, but Wong's parents were legally domiciled in the U.S. (i.e., granted permanent legal residency by the government) which, according to the high court, entitled their son (who was born here but temporary returned to China before seeking re-entry) to citizenship. An illegal alien birth mother does not meet this criterion (she would not be a legal resident), so this case would not extend to her and babies born of illegal aliens are not entitled to birthright citizenship.

    Mere birth on our soil shouldn't entitle one to an upgrade in citizenship status as in the Wong case. The baby should only carry the same status as his/her birth parents which means Wong would remain classified as legal resident upon birth and not full fledged citizen.


    Hasn’t it been customary to grant citizenship to the children of all non-diplomat foreigners, whether legal or not, for over a century now? Was there a time when the children of illegal aliens were not granted citizenship? If you can show that there was a time when the children of illegal aliens born in the US were not granted citizenship, then your case would be stronger.
     
    Scant evidence of the claim that the U.S. grants citizenship to children of non-diplomat foreigners carte blanche. There has never been an act of Congress or SCOTUS ruling conferring citizenship upon illegal alien children born on U.S. soil. And somehow I don't recall reading stories about throngs of illegal aliens in 1916 and 1935 whose babies born on our soil were granted citizenship.

    Of the 14th amendment language, Senator Reverdy Johnson said:

    “Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”
    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14

    This means maternity tourists from China and the Middle East and illegal mamacitas from Mexico and central America are all subjects of their respective nations since they are Chinese, Jordanian or Mexican nationals as are their newborn children on American soil.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. jtgw says:
    @Fidelios Automata
    I don't understand - if the Federal government doesn't have the power to force the states to enforce immigration law, why in the heck does it have the power to force the states to provide services to non-citizens? Kicking illegals off the dole would be a non-violent way to encourage them to self-deport, probably more effective than building a wall. If we can't re-interpret the 14th Amendment in a more reasonable fashion, we need to repeal it. I would personally have no problem with a FEDERAL version of Arizona's notorious SB1070.

    This is indeed another sorry consequence of the 14th amendment. As a matter of policy, I think the government goes about immigration enforcement in the worst way. Immigrants who are gainfully employing and contributing to the economy are targeted for deportation and their employers for prosecution, while welfare agencies are compelled to hand out taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars to those who aren’t contributing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. D. K. says:
    @jtgw
    I see what you're saying about declaring a city a sanctuary from immigration enforcement, but there seems to be something wrong with accusing the city of assisting illegal aliens by paying for their legal defense. If a private individual paid for their legal defense, would that also constitute a felony? Are they simply not allowed to defend themselves against deportation? I assume we're talking about instances where they would have a case against deportation and that a judge would throw out any frivolous challenges.

    Yes, they have a right to due process, under our existing immigration laws, but they would only have a valid case against deportation if they were not, in fact, illegally present in this country. The sanctuary supporters admit that the immigrants to whom they are offering sanctuary are in the country illegally; their argument is that the current law is wrong and bad– not unconstitutional, nor illegally applied, but instead simply immoral, unethical and inhuman! They oppose current immigration law on principles that are quite outside of the purview of constitutional law itself.

    I assume that the fees are incurred only once someone claimed by the Federal government to be in the country illegally already has been placed in the custody of our immigration authorities, to await deportation proceedings– which is why I stated that offering to pay those fines on behalf of the illegal alien would not amount to “harboring” an illegal alien, under the cited law, since one can only harbor someone who is wanted by the authorities, not someone who already is in their custody.

    The City of Chicago would have no legal basis, that I can think of, to spend taxpayer funds on someone who was known to be neither a citizen nor a permanent legal resident of the United States, let alone of the State of Illinois– from whose sovereign powers the City of Chicago derives literally all of its legal authority, as a municipality incorporated by that sovereign state– much less to do so in opposition to the lawful exercise of the Federal government’s own police power.

    Again, the City of Chicago is publicly offering its supposed sanctuary to people it knows to be in the country illegally– because those are the only people at risk of deportation as such. It is that knowledge of illegality, in conjunction with there being no plausible legal basis, as far as I can tell, for spending taxpayer funds on the type of people at issue (i.e., those without legal authority to be in the country, at all), which, in my opinion, would make the city’s offer– a policy announced publicly to people who have yet to be apprehended, mind you!– a form of assistance to people known to be illegally present in this country.

    By announcing such a policy publicly, the City of Chicago is obviously seeking to induce illegal aliens residing within the city to remain there, in further violation of the law, and perhaps even to induce other illegal aliens to come to Chicago, both from elsewhere in the United States, for greater security (which is the whole motive behind offering sanctuary to illegal aliens, in the first place, after all), and even from outside of the country, thus increasing the actual numbers of such illegal aliens present in the country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    OK, I think you make a good point. Liberals who've been championing the centralization of authority certainly don't appear to have a leg to stand on in this debate. The only way out, which as a federalist and decentralizer I support, is to argue that this is a case where the federal government is overstepping its bounds; the states, not the federal government, should have the powers to regulate residence of aliens (except in narrowly defined cases where national security is at stake). Of course, that would defy over a century of federalization of immigration policy.

    I see a lot of parallels with drug policy. On that issue, the federal government has arrogated to itself the right to regulate drug use in a constitutionally questionable manner, and many states are testing its authority with local acts of legalization. If the states win this, then I can see a path for the states to win on immigration policy.

    The elephant in the room, of course, is the 14th amendment, which has been the primary tool of centralization since its ratification. It either needs to be repealed or radically reinterpreted.
    , @anon
    Spillover from another discussion: could this be interpreted as a violation of the Logan Act?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. jtgw says:
    @D. K.
    Yes, they have a right to due process, under our existing immigration laws, but they would only have a valid case against deportation if they were not, in fact, illegally present in this country. The sanctuary supporters admit that the immigrants to whom they are offering sanctuary are in the country illegally; their argument is that the current law is wrong and bad-- not unconstitutional, nor illegally applied, but instead simply immoral, unethical and inhuman! They oppose current immigration law on principles that are quite outside of the purview of constitutional law itself.

    I assume that the fees are incurred only once someone claimed by the Federal government to be in the country illegally already has been placed in the custody of our immigration authorities, to await deportation proceedings-- which is why I stated that offering to pay those fines on behalf of the illegal alien would not amount to "harboring" an illegal alien, under the cited law, since one can only harbor someone who is wanted by the authorities, not someone who already is in their custody.

    The City of Chicago would have no legal basis, that I can think of, to spend taxpayer funds on someone who was known to be neither a citizen nor a permanent legal resident of the United States, let alone of the State of Illinois-- from whose sovereign powers the City of Chicago derives literally all of its legal authority, as a municipality incorporated by that sovereign state-- much less to do so in opposition to the lawful exercise of the Federal government's own police power.

    Again, the City of Chicago is publicly offering its supposed sanctuary to people it knows to be in the country illegally-- because those are the only people at risk of deportation as such. It is that knowledge of illegality, in conjunction with there being no plausible legal basis, as far as I can tell, for spending taxpayer funds on the type of people at issue (i.e., those without legal authority to be in the country, at all), which, in my opinion, would make the city's offer-- a policy announced publicly to people who have yet to be apprehended, mind you!-- a form of assistance to people known to be illegally present in this country.

    By announcing such a policy publicly, the City of Chicago is obviously seeking to induce illegal aliens residing within the city to remain there, in further violation of the law, and perhaps even to induce other illegal aliens to come to Chicago, both from elsewhere in the United States, for greater security (which is the whole motive behind offering sanctuary to illegal aliens, in the first place, after all), and even from outside of the country, thus increasing the actual numbers of such illegal aliens present in the country.

    OK, I think you make a good point. Liberals who’ve been championing the centralization of authority certainly don’t appear to have a leg to stand on in this debate. The only way out, which as a federalist and decentralizer I support, is to argue that this is a case where the federal government is overstepping its bounds; the states, not the federal government, should have the powers to regulate residence of aliens (except in narrowly defined cases where national security is at stake). Of course, that would defy over a century of federalization of immigration policy.

    I see a lot of parallels with drug policy. On that issue, the federal government has arrogated to itself the right to regulate drug use in a constitutionally questionable manner, and many states are testing its authority with local acts of legalization. If the states win this, then I can see a path for the states to win on immigration policy.

    The elephant in the room, of course, is the 14th amendment, which has been the primary tool of centralization since its ratification. It either needs to be repealed or radically reinterpreted.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    Or, we could have enough states vote to call for a new Constitutional Convention, and then it can vote to dissolve the Union, which has long since outlived its usefulness at making the whole worth more than the sum of its parts, and just leave the fifty sovereign states as actual sovereign states on the world stage-- a la the former Soviet republics, a quarter of a century ago. As for the still outstanding problem of what to do about the District of Columbia, which is not a sovereign entity, I have a thoroughly fair and equitable solution: in return for the aforementioned convention's vote to grant the District of Columbia its sovereignty, and an equal place among the nations of the world, the District must agree to take on the whole of the national debt, which its denizens have incurred, over the generations, as well as any outstanding liabilities to those erstwhile Americans living both inside and outside of the District of Columbia, such as Social Security and pensions for former Federal officers and employees. Then, we can all just get on with our individual lives, in our respective nations, sadder but wiser for the enlightening experience!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. D. K. says:
    @jtgw
    OK, I think you make a good point. Liberals who've been championing the centralization of authority certainly don't appear to have a leg to stand on in this debate. The only way out, which as a federalist and decentralizer I support, is to argue that this is a case where the federal government is overstepping its bounds; the states, not the federal government, should have the powers to regulate residence of aliens (except in narrowly defined cases where national security is at stake). Of course, that would defy over a century of federalization of immigration policy.

    I see a lot of parallels with drug policy. On that issue, the federal government has arrogated to itself the right to regulate drug use in a constitutionally questionable manner, and many states are testing its authority with local acts of legalization. If the states win this, then I can see a path for the states to win on immigration policy.

    The elephant in the room, of course, is the 14th amendment, which has been the primary tool of centralization since its ratification. It either needs to be repealed or radically reinterpreted.

    Or, we could have enough states vote to call for a new Constitutional Convention, and then it can vote to dissolve the Union, which has long since outlived its usefulness at making the whole worth more than the sum of its parts, and just leave the fifty sovereign states as actual sovereign states on the world stage– a la the former Soviet republics, a quarter of a century ago. As for the still outstanding problem of what to do about the District of Columbia, which is not a sovereign entity, I have a thoroughly fair and equitable solution: in return for the aforementioned convention’s vote to grant the District of Columbia its sovereignty, and an equal place among the nations of the world, the District must agree to take on the whole of the national debt, which its denizens have incurred, over the generations, as well as any outstanding liabilities to those erstwhile Americans living both inside and outside of the District of Columbia, such as Social Security and pensions for former Federal officers and employees. Then, we can all just get on with our individual lives, in our respective nations, sadder but wiser for the enlightening experience!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. KenH says:
    @jtgw

    Firstly, the judge and countless other bleeding hearts and political radicals have been arguing that the 14th amendment does indeed bestow citizenship on illegal aliens born on our soil, so people are forced to contradict those claims using the history and original intent of that amendment. Secondly, since illegal aliens weren’t a concept in 1869 then that means the framers of the 14th amendment didn’t have their welfare in mind and therefore it cannot be used by illegal aliens and the people who love them as a basis to win citizenship for their children born on our soil.
     
    I think the best you can say is that the original intent of the framers of the amendment is uncertain when it comes to illegal aliens, since that category did not exist at the time of framing. I accept that it is not clear they would support birthright citizenship for the children of illegal residents, but neither is it clear they would oppose it.

    There are no exceptions that I’m aware of. Under current U.S. law a baby born on American soil to a foreign ambassador, head of state or military prisoner is not a U.S. citizen. Simple logic then dictates that babies born to illegal aliens are not citizens either. It’s my view that illegal aliens aren’t mentioned anywhere because common sense dictated that you can’t simply enter this country illegally, have a baby (babies) and they automatically become citizens. America used to be sane and these things were commonly understood by our representative and the vast majority of citizens.
     
    Illegal aliens aren't mentioned in the amendment since they did not exist at the time of the amendment's framing. I thought we'd already established that.

    I don’t think that’s correct. “Under the jurisdiction thereof” as defined by the 1866 Civil Rights Act is defined as “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power,”. This means that if a person is a citizen or subject of a foreign power (nation) which all illegal aliens are (since they are citizens of say, Mexico or Guatemala) then they are subject to the jurisdiction of those nations, not the U.S., and therefore are constitutionally unqualified for citizenship.

     

    By that reasoning, legal foreign residents are likewise not under US jurisdiction, since they retain foreign citizenship. But the legal precedent for granting citizenship to the children of legal foreign residents is quite clear (Wong Kim Ark vs US).

    People like to argue that at the moment our hands are tied on this matter. They aren’t. Decades ago Americans weren’t divided on this issue and members of the establishment weren’t arguing that the 14th amendment conferred citizenship upon non-citizens who happened to be born here. Operation Wetback instituted by Dwight Eisenhower is evidence of that fact as of the two million or so who were eventually deported (either forcibly or via self deportation) there were probably thousands (at least) who were born here, yet they too were unceremoniously kicked out.

     

    Hasn't it been customary to grant citizenship to the children of all non-diplomat foreigners, whether legal or not, for over a century now? Was there a time when the children of illegal aliens were not granted citizenship? If you can show that there was a time when the children of illegal aliens born in the US were not granted citizenship, then your case would be stronger.

    Illegal aliens aren’t mentioned in the amendment since they did not exist at the time of the amendment’s framing. I thought we’d already established that.

    We’re spinning our wheels here. If you are arguing that babies born of illegal aliens should be given the benefit of the doubt and granted citizenship until such time as the matter can be addressed by yet another constitutional amendment then that is the typical sentiment of a bleeding heart and/or pro-illegal alien ideologue. And in so doing you are resting your case on some of the 14th amendment language which you said is not germane to the discussion.

    By that reasoning, legal foreign residents are likewise not under US jurisdiction, since they retain foreign citizenship. But the legal precedent for granting citizenship to the children of legal foreign residents is quite clear (Wong Kim Ark vs US).

    I don’t agree with the SCOTUS ruling in this case, but Wong’s parents were legally domiciled in the U.S. (i.e., granted permanent legal residency by the government) which, according to the high court, entitled their son (who was born here but temporary returned to China before seeking re-entry) to citizenship. An illegal alien birth mother does not meet this criterion (she would not be a legal resident), so this case would not extend to her and babies born of illegal aliens are not entitled to birthright citizenship.

    Mere birth on our soil shouldn’t entitle one to an upgrade in citizenship status as in the Wong case. The baby should only carry the same status as his/her birth parents which means Wong would remain classified as legal resident upon birth and not full fledged citizen.

    Hasn’t it been customary to grant citizenship to the children of all non-diplomat foreigners, whether legal or not, for over a century now? Was there a time when the children of illegal aliens were not granted citizenship? If you can show that there was a time when the children of illegal aliens born in the US were not granted citizenship, then your case would be stronger.

    Scant evidence of the claim that the U.S. grants citizenship to children of non-diplomat foreigners carte blanche. There has never been an act of Congress or SCOTUS ruling conferring citizenship upon illegal alien children born on U.S. soil. And somehow I don’t recall reading stories about throngs of illegal aliens in 1916 and 1935 whose babies born on our soil were granted citizenship.

    Of the 14th amendment language, Senator Reverdy Johnson said:

    “Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”

    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14

    This means maternity tourists from China and the Middle East and illegal mamacitas from Mexico and central America are all subjects of their respective nations since they are Chinese, Jordanian or Mexican nationals as are their newborn children on American soil.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    Why would there be an act of Congress conferring citizenship on illegal alien children when it has clearly been the universal practice to interpret the 14th amendment to the Constitution as doing so? Don't you see that the burden of proof is on you to show that this was not formerly the practice?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. KenH says:
    @D. K.
    I will skip the involved legal analysis, and leave it at this: As a practical matter, irrespective of my professional opinion, as a retired attorney, any federal statute claiming to "clarify" (i.e., limit) natural-born citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment's opening line, would undoubtedly be challenged immediately, as to its constitutionality, and also would undoubtedly be enjoined, by whichever hand-picked Federal District Court trial judge the challenge was placed in front of for injunctive relief. In other words, the Supreme Court of the United States would ultimately decide the matter, on constitutional grounds, before that federal statute ever was actually enforced on the ground. If I were a gambling man, I know which way I would bet....

    Sure, a left wing activist federal judge would provide injunctive relief, but a constitutional originalist most likely would not and uphold an act of Congress restricting citizenship to people born of parents who are both citizens. Of course, it would then get appealed and since there seem to be far more activist judges than originalists at some point it would probably get blocked.

    Ultimately, the definition of citizenship is the purview of the people’s representatives in Congress and not unelected tyrants squatting on the federal bench. The fact that this issue has bitterly divided the Congress, the judiciary and pundits of various stripes is just proof that this country is coming apart at the seams and a final solution may lie in the dissolution of the union and allowing new nations to form over the rotting carcass of America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    President Trump had better nominate judges with the right view on this crucial issue, and fast, especially to the U.S. Circuit Courts and, as opportunity arises, to the Supreme Court.

    We need judges who will steadfastly strike down any and all restrictions on our First and Second Amendment rights, without which we cannot take back our other liberties and defend our way of life. These and birthright citizenship should be the priorities when nominating and confirming fed judges, not abortion or the "rights" of fucking corporations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @D. K.
    Yes, they have a right to due process, under our existing immigration laws, but they would only have a valid case against deportation if they were not, in fact, illegally present in this country. The sanctuary supporters admit that the immigrants to whom they are offering sanctuary are in the country illegally; their argument is that the current law is wrong and bad-- not unconstitutional, nor illegally applied, but instead simply immoral, unethical and inhuman! They oppose current immigration law on principles that are quite outside of the purview of constitutional law itself.

    I assume that the fees are incurred only once someone claimed by the Federal government to be in the country illegally already has been placed in the custody of our immigration authorities, to await deportation proceedings-- which is why I stated that offering to pay those fines on behalf of the illegal alien would not amount to "harboring" an illegal alien, under the cited law, since one can only harbor someone who is wanted by the authorities, not someone who already is in their custody.

    The City of Chicago would have no legal basis, that I can think of, to spend taxpayer funds on someone who was known to be neither a citizen nor a permanent legal resident of the United States, let alone of the State of Illinois-- from whose sovereign powers the City of Chicago derives literally all of its legal authority, as a municipality incorporated by that sovereign state-- much less to do so in opposition to the lawful exercise of the Federal government's own police power.

    Again, the City of Chicago is publicly offering its supposed sanctuary to people it knows to be in the country illegally-- because those are the only people at risk of deportation as such. It is that knowledge of illegality, in conjunction with there being no plausible legal basis, as far as I can tell, for spending taxpayer funds on the type of people at issue (i.e., those without legal authority to be in the country, at all), which, in my opinion, would make the city's offer-- a policy announced publicly to people who have yet to be apprehended, mind you!-- a form of assistance to people known to be illegally present in this country.

    By announcing such a policy publicly, the City of Chicago is obviously seeking to induce illegal aliens residing within the city to remain there, in further violation of the law, and perhaps even to induce other illegal aliens to come to Chicago, both from elsewhere in the United States, for greater security (which is the whole motive behind offering sanctuary to illegal aliens, in the first place, after all), and even from outside of the country, thus increasing the actual numbers of such illegal aliens present in the country.

    Spillover from another discussion: could this be interpreted as a violation of the Logan Act?

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    Sorry, but I do not follow your drift...!?!?!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Ron Unz says:

    Well, I’m hardly a constitutional scholar, but I’ve always thought that only loons questioned whether the American-born children of illegal immigrants were automatically U.S. citizens based on the 14th Amendment. Since quite a few of the agitated commenters on this thread seem to have exactly that firm conviction perhaps they can explain something to me…

    First, I totally agree that since there were no immigrant restrictions (hence no “illegal immigrants”) when the 14th Amendment was enacted, it’s not at all clear how the actual drafters might have interpreted it. However, immigration laws did appear just a couple of decades later. So for almost the last 130 years of American history, there have been illegal immigrants living in America, and they’ve not infrequently had American-born children, surely totaling many, many millions over such a extended period of time.

    Now my strong impression is that for well over a century all those many, many millions of American-born children have always been universally regarded as automatic U.S. citizens by virtue of the 14th Amendment, with no one even raising any legal doubts until a few anti-immigrant activists began doing so on fringe websites maybe 15-20 years ago. If anyone can point to a counter-example or two, please do so.

    It seems to me that if essentially 100% of all the lawyers in America had always interpreted the 14th Amendment’s stance on birthright citizenship in a particular way for well over 100 years, perhaps it’s a little “presumptuous” for a few rightwingers to suddenly declare that “Oops!—they were all totally wrong!”

    By close analogy, isn’t it a little silly when leftist lawyers declare that for well over 200 years the U.S. Constitution has actually guaranteed a right to Gay Marriage…but nobody had noticed that fact until just a few years ago…

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    I know and have worked for and with some of the finest attorneys and judges in the country. Very few believe in the absurd concept of birthright citizenship for the offspring of illegal aliens.

    The people who purport to find merit in birthright citizenship for offspring of illegal aliens typically are people with hatred and resentment toward the historic core of the USA, I.e. the white European American nation, who use the concept as a way to hasten our demise through demographic replacement.

    The provision in question was indisputably intended to protect slaves and their descendants, not enable foreign peoples to invade our country in unlimited numbers and arrogate to themselves the power to confer citizenship in OUR country. Wake up and don't buy into the propaganda claim that quote everyone has always thought it's a valid concept.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. D. K. says:
    @anon
    Spillover from another discussion: could this be interpreted as a violation of the Logan Act?

    Sorry, but I do not follow your drift…!?!?!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Skeptikal says:
    @Mark Green
    Very good article. Ironically, progressives are now depending upon 'states rights' arguments to circumvent federal law as well as the will of the people.

    This is true also in the case of state laws concerning marijuana.
    So far the feds have declined to come down hard, or at all, on states that have legalized various types of marijuana use while fed. law criminalizes it.

    One really has to develop some mental flexibility regarding central/local/state.

    The tensions between central and local government didn’t start in the USA.
    In the Austrian Empire it was the emperor/central administration that extended protections to Jews within the empire, whereas most local politicians were openly anti-Semite.
    Even though one reason for that empire’s longevity was that it basically left its component parts to their own devices (broad brush here; big topic).
    This central/local dichotomy can, obviously, cut both ways. It all depends who is in charge at the center: will progressive or regressive policies be promulgated and enforced? Same problem in the EU: Is the Brussels regime progressive or imperialist regressive? History makes it all a moving target and the clock starts at different points for different public policy issues.
    Speaking of irony it is also ironic that out west (in the USA) the central govt is the villain for enforcing certain environmental regs that ranchers and other frontiersmen consisder a heavy and unfair yoke. But the gummint in Washington is also responsible for ensuring that the same ranchers, etc. get virtually free water basically on the public purse. Of course it has been demonstrated that when it comes to the distribution of federal funds, these freedom lovers in the western states are subsidized by the eastern “pinkos.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. KenH says:

    Well, I’m hardly a constitutional scholar,……

    I don’t think any of us claimed to be either, but it’s not to difficult to research the history of the 14th amendment and its intended application and conclude it doesn’t include a loophole for all illegal aliens born here. And you make your case by hurling ad hominem attacks against opponents of birthright citizenship for illegal aliens?

    First, I totally agree that since there were no immigrant restrictions (hence no “illegal immigrants”) when the 14th Amendment was enacted, it’s not at all clear how the actual drafters might have interpreted it.

    I see. So if a time traveler went back to the 1860′s and notified the 14th amendment framers that one day their amendment would be grossly distorted to confer citizenship upon millions of children born of Mexicans and other third world people on our soil illegally that they would welcome that? But before you disingenuously answer in the affirmative remember that pre 1965 America was just a horrid place where white racism, sexism and xenophobia were the rule.

    While restrictions prior to the 1880′s were far from comprehensive, some restrictions did exist. The naturalization act of 1790 restricted citizenship consideration to “free, white persons” of “good moral character”. Applicants had to have resided in the nation for 2yrs to apply which was later increased to 5yrs in 1795 and 14 yrs in 1798 (14yr provision was later repealed).

    The Alien and Sedition acts of 1798 facilitated the deportation of foreigners deemed dangerous to the peace and safety of the U.S.

    In 1884, Elk Vs. Wilkins, the SCOTUS ruled that the 14th amendment did not apply to John Elk, an Indian born on U.S. soil since he was not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The fact that he had earlier renounced his tribal allegiance did not sway the court. I don’t always agree with the use of legal precedent, but doing so in this case means that if John Elk was disqualified for citizenship then the anchor babies of illegal aliens would be too.

    Now my strong impression is that for well over a century all those many, many millions of American-born children have always been universally regarded as automatic U.S. citizens by virtue of the 14th Amendment, with no one even raising any legal doubts until a few anti-immigrant activists began doing so on fringe websites maybe 15-20 years ago.

    That’s news to me. But it didn’t really need to be addressed because it didn’t become a serious problem until probably the late 1980′s when illegal immigration from Mexico began to vastly increase. Don’t forget that your website is considered “fringe” by the establishment.

    Do you have evidence that every practicing lawyer and serving judge is in agreement that the 14th amendment confers citizenship on babies born on U.S. soil of illegal alien mothers? It’s a little presumptuous for loony leftists and anti-white bigots to act as if they have a mandate to racially transform the U.S. into a majority non-white nation and to interpret the 14th amendment in such a way as to incentivize illegal aliens from the third world to sneak in and speedily accomplish that aim.

    Extending birthright citizenship to illegal aliens or any foreign biped who gives birth on our soil makes a complete mockery of our immigration and naturalization laws. People with common sense can understand this concept.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    You're right.

    And we should reinstate that requirement of fourteen years legal residenc before applying for citizenship. I'd make it twenty years or more. People not born and raised here cannot be trusted to assimilate as fully, understand and adopt our culture and mores as thoroughly, and be completely loyal to the America nation and to our country.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Napolitano, my Paisan: why are you using the left’s propaganda word “undocumented”?

    These aren’t people who misplaced their papers but otherwise have a legal right to be here.

    They are ILLEGAL ALIENS who have no right to come here or stay here. By coming here or by overstaying a visa, they already broke federal law and deserve a long prison sentence followed by deportation.

    Also, why are you using the absurd figure of thirteen million illegal aliens? There are probably more than that many illegal aliens in California and Texas alone. The scale of the invasion is staggering, so I’m guessing you aren’t spending much time in CA and TX outside airports and fancy hotels. There could realistically be Thirty million illegal aliens or more here.

    Finally, there are more than two million noncitizens, including illegal aliens and legal permanent residents, who have been convicted of violating federal or state law in addition to breaking fed immigration law.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. @Ron Unz
    Well, I'm hardly a constitutional scholar, but I've always thought that only loons questioned whether the American-born children of illegal immigrants were automatically U.S. citizens based on the 14th Amendment. Since quite a few of the agitated commenters on this thread seem to have exactly that firm conviction perhaps they can explain something to me...

    First, I totally agree that since there were no immigrant restrictions (hence no "illegal immigrants") when the 14th Amendment was enacted, it's not at all clear how the actual drafters might have interpreted it. However, immigration laws did appear just a couple of decades later. So for almost the last 130 years of American history, there have been illegal immigrants living in America, and they've not infrequently had American-born children, surely totaling many, many millions over such a extended period of time.

    Now my strong impression is that for well over a century all those many, many millions of American-born children have always been universally regarded as automatic U.S. citizens by virtue of the 14th Amendment, with no one even raising any legal doubts until a few anti-immigrant activists began doing so on fringe websites maybe 15-20 years ago. If anyone can point to a counter-example or two, please do so.

    It seems to me that if essentially 100% of all the lawyers in America had always interpreted the 14th Amendment's stance on birthright citizenship in a particular way for well over 100 years, perhaps it's a little "presumptuous" for a few rightwingers to suddenly declare that "Oops!---they were all totally wrong!"

    By close analogy, isn't it a little silly when leftist lawyers declare that for well over 200 years the U.S. Constitution has actually guaranteed a right to Gay Marriage...but nobody had noticed that fact until just a few years ago...

    I know and have worked for and with some of the finest attorneys and judges in the country. Very few believe in the absurd concept of birthright citizenship for the offspring of illegal aliens.

    The people who purport to find merit in birthright citizenship for offspring of illegal aliens typically are people with hatred and resentment toward the historic core of the USA, I.e. the white European American nation, who use the concept as a way to hasten our demise through demographic replacement.

    The provision in question was indisputably intended to protect slaves and their descendants, not enable foreign peoples to invade our country in unlimited numbers and arrogate to themselves the power to confer citizenship in OUR country. Wake up and don’t buy into the propaganda claim that quote everyone has always thought it’s a valid concept.

    Read More
    • Agree: KenH
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    I know and have worked for and with some of the finest attorneys and judges in the country. Very few believe in the absurd concept of birthright citizenship for the offspring of illegal aliens.
     
    Well, maybe. But based on your commenting, you strike me as a random nut who hangs around my website, always ranting and raving like a lunatic...
    , @jtgw
    If there are examples of people being denied citizenship because their parents were illegal residents, please produce them. Otherwise, stop pretending to have the legal expertise you clearly don't have.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @KenH

    Well, I’m hardly a constitutional scholar,......
     
    I don't think any of us claimed to be either, but it's not to difficult to research the history of the 14th amendment and its intended application and conclude it doesn't include a loophole for all illegal aliens born here. And you make your case by hurling ad hominem attacks against opponents of birthright citizenship for illegal aliens?

    First, I totally agree that since there were no immigrant restrictions (hence no “illegal immigrants”) when the 14th Amendment was enacted, it’s not at all clear how the actual drafters might have interpreted it.
     
    I see. So if a time traveler went back to the 1860's and notified the 14th amendment framers that one day their amendment would be grossly distorted to confer citizenship upon millions of children born of Mexicans and other third world people on our soil illegally that they would welcome that? But before you disingenuously answer in the affirmative remember that pre 1965 America was just a horrid place where white racism, sexism and xenophobia were the rule.

    While restrictions prior to the 1880's were far from comprehensive, some restrictions did exist. The naturalization act of 1790 restricted citizenship consideration to "free, white persons" of "good moral character". Applicants had to have resided in the nation for 2yrs to apply which was later increased to 5yrs in 1795 and 14 yrs in 1798 (14yr provision was later repealed).

    The Alien and Sedition acts of 1798 facilitated the deportation of foreigners deemed dangerous to the peace and safety of the U.S.

    In 1884, Elk Vs. Wilkins, the SCOTUS ruled that the 14th amendment did not apply to John Elk, an Indian born on U.S. soil since he was not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The fact that he had earlier renounced his tribal allegiance did not sway the court. I don't always agree with the use of legal precedent, but doing so in this case means that if John Elk was disqualified for citizenship then the anchor babies of illegal aliens would be too.

    Now my strong impression is that for well over a century all those many, many millions of American-born children have always been universally regarded as automatic U.S. citizens by virtue of the 14th Amendment, with no one even raising any legal doubts until a few anti-immigrant activists began doing so on fringe websites maybe 15-20 years ago.
     
    That's news to me. But it didn't really need to be addressed because it didn't become a serious problem until probably the late 1980's when illegal immigration from Mexico began to vastly increase. Don't forget that your website is considered "fringe" by the establishment.

    Do you have evidence that every practicing lawyer and serving judge is in agreement that the 14th amendment confers citizenship on babies born on U.S. soil of illegal alien mothers? It's a little presumptuous for loony leftists and anti-white bigots to act as if they have a mandate to racially transform the U.S. into a majority non-white nation and to interpret the 14th amendment in such a way as to incentivize illegal aliens from the third world to sneak in and speedily accomplish that aim.

    Extending birthright citizenship to illegal aliens or any foreign biped who gives birth on our soil makes a complete mockery of our immigration and naturalization laws. People with common sense can understand this concept.

    You’re right.

    And we should reinstate that requirement of fourteen years legal residenc before applying for citizenship. I’d make it twenty years or more. People not born and raised here cannot be trusted to assimilate as fully, understand and adopt our culture and mores as thoroughly, and be completely loyal to the America nation and to our country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH
    Residency requirements of some length should be reimposed. This way we can see what type of person(s) we are getting before granting citizenship. Immigration should be drastically reduced to around 25K per annum and restricted to Europeans only who can contribute economically.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @KenH
    Sure, a left wing activist federal judge would provide injunctive relief, but a constitutional originalist most likely would not and uphold an act of Congress restricting citizenship to people born of parents who are both citizens. Of course, it would then get appealed and since there seem to be far more activist judges than originalists at some point it would probably get blocked.

    Ultimately, the definition of citizenship is the purview of the people's representatives in Congress and not unelected tyrants squatting on the federal bench. The fact that this issue has bitterly divided the Congress, the judiciary and pundits of various stripes is just proof that this country is coming apart at the seams and a final solution may lie in the dissolution of the union and allowing new nations to form over the rotting carcass of America.

    President Trump had better nominate judges with the right view on this crucial issue, and fast, especially to the U.S. Circuit Courts and, as opportunity arises, to the Supreme Court.

    We need judges who will steadfastly strike down any and all restrictions on our First and Second Amendment rights, without which we cannot take back our other liberties and defend our way of life. These and birthright citizenship should be the priorities when nominating and confirming fed judges, not abortion or the “rights” of fucking corporations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Ron Unz says:
    @RadicalCenter
    I know and have worked for and with some of the finest attorneys and judges in the country. Very few believe in the absurd concept of birthright citizenship for the offspring of illegal aliens.

    The people who purport to find merit in birthright citizenship for offspring of illegal aliens typically are people with hatred and resentment toward the historic core of the USA, I.e. the white European American nation, who use the concept as a way to hasten our demise through demographic replacement.

    The provision in question was indisputably intended to protect slaves and their descendants, not enable foreign peoples to invade our country in unlimited numbers and arrogate to themselves the power to confer citizenship in OUR country. Wake up and don't buy into the propaganda claim that quote everyone has always thought it's a valid concept.

    I know and have worked for and with some of the finest attorneys and judges in the country. Very few believe in the absurd concept of birthright citizenship for the offspring of illegal aliens.

    Well, maybe. But based on your commenting, you strike me as a random nut who hangs around my website, always ranting and raving like a lunatic…

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Ron, I'm surprised at the lack of substance in your response, and the needless personal dig. Still, I enjoy the website and learn from the columnists and commenters at times.

    You can contact me to find out who I am and decide for yourself if I am some inexperienced, Ill-informed, or dangerous person. You'll conclude that I'm none of those, even if for some reason you still dislike me after speaking with me, which you might not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @David
    I thought Trump had threatened Sanctuary Cities with loss of most federal support. Obviously that's practical. Carter forced states to set their speed limits at 55 mph by threatening to withhold federal highway funding. Isn't there a well known case where the Supreme Court upholds such tactics? Any chance the decision was written by O. W. Holmes?

    Not a big deal, but "below the radar" as in, "come in below the radar," means under the beams of radio waves that are sent out to be reflected by things like airplanes and returned to a radar antenna. Below the radar screen is a new one.

    “They did so by ceding 16 discrete powers to the federal government and retaining to themselves all powers not ceded.”

    Wow a liberal discovers states rights HMM suspicious timing.

    “If this constitutional truism were not recognized or enforced by the courts, the federal government could effectively eradicate the sovereignty of the states or even bankrupt them by forcing them to spend their tax dollars enforcing federal law or paying for federal programs.”

    You have already bankrupted the states precisely by requiring federal laws which you even cite like providing social services for illegal aliens under some BS interpretation of the 14 amendment

    BTW he did not reduce his promise to only 2 million illegal criminals, he only said he will begin with them, all 40-60 million illegal aliens will be deported, and then we will review the citizenships of the past 30 years for fraud
    You can expect this administration to play by the same not rules of the past 150 years of liberal and cuckservatives

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. KenH says:
    @RadicalCenter
    You're right.

    And we should reinstate that requirement of fourteen years legal residenc before applying for citizenship. I'd make it twenty years or more. People not born and raised here cannot be trusted to assimilate as fully, understand and adopt our culture and mores as thoroughly, and be completely loyal to the America nation and to our country.

    Residency requirements of some length should be reimposed. This way we can see what type of person(s) we are getting before granting citizenship. Immigration should be drastically reduced to around 25K per annum and restricted to Europeans only who can contribute economically.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Ron Unz

    I know and have worked for and with some of the finest attorneys and judges in the country. Very few believe in the absurd concept of birthright citizenship for the offspring of illegal aliens.
     
    Well, maybe. But based on your commenting, you strike me as a random nut who hangs around my website, always ranting and raving like a lunatic...

    Ron, I’m surprised at the lack of substance in your response, and the needless personal dig. Still, I enjoy the website and learn from the columnists and commenters at times.

    You can contact me to find out who I am and decide for yourself if I am some inexperienced, Ill-informed, or dangerous person. You’ll conclude that I’m none of those, even if for some reason you still dislike me after speaking with me, which you might not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    dangerous person
     
    Well, you've called for genocide; if you were serious this would seem to apply.

    I don't like Mr. Unz's habit of occasionally dropping in to drop insults (a pun! ha!) either, but this is his website, and he can do as he pleases; just tolerating all the nonsense that gets posted here, by myself among others, is more than one would expect, and in my opinion he has shown unusual forbearance. Also, this time it was funny, which ought to count for something, and the substantive discussion on birthright citizenship had already been delivered upthread.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. jtgw says:
    @RadicalCenter
    I know and have worked for and with some of the finest attorneys and judges in the country. Very few believe in the absurd concept of birthright citizenship for the offspring of illegal aliens.

    The people who purport to find merit in birthright citizenship for offspring of illegal aliens typically are people with hatred and resentment toward the historic core of the USA, I.e. the white European American nation, who use the concept as a way to hasten our demise through demographic replacement.

    The provision in question was indisputably intended to protect slaves and their descendants, not enable foreign peoples to invade our country in unlimited numbers and arrogate to themselves the power to confer citizenship in OUR country. Wake up and don't buy into the propaganda claim that quote everyone has always thought it's a valid concept.

    If there are examples of people being denied citizenship because their parents were illegal residents, please produce them. Otherwise, stop pretending to have the legal expertise you clearly don’t have.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. jtgw says:
    @KenH

    Illegal aliens aren’t mentioned in the amendment since they did not exist at the time of the amendment’s framing. I thought we’d already established that.
     
    We're spinning our wheels here. If you are arguing that babies born of illegal aliens should be given the benefit of the doubt and granted citizenship until such time as the matter can be addressed by yet another constitutional amendment then that is the typical sentiment of a bleeding heart and/or pro-illegal alien ideologue. And in so doing you are resting your case on some of the 14th amendment language which you said is not germane to the discussion.

    By that reasoning, legal foreign residents are likewise not under US jurisdiction, since they retain foreign citizenship. But the legal precedent for granting citizenship to the children of legal foreign residents is quite clear (Wong Kim Ark vs US).
     
    I don't agree with the SCOTUS ruling in this case, but Wong's parents were legally domiciled in the U.S. (i.e., granted permanent legal residency by the government) which, according to the high court, entitled their son (who was born here but temporary returned to China before seeking re-entry) to citizenship. An illegal alien birth mother does not meet this criterion (she would not be a legal resident), so this case would not extend to her and babies born of illegal aliens are not entitled to birthright citizenship.

    Mere birth on our soil shouldn't entitle one to an upgrade in citizenship status as in the Wong case. The baby should only carry the same status as his/her birth parents which means Wong would remain classified as legal resident upon birth and not full fledged citizen.


    Hasn’t it been customary to grant citizenship to the children of all non-diplomat foreigners, whether legal or not, for over a century now? Was there a time when the children of illegal aliens were not granted citizenship? If you can show that there was a time when the children of illegal aliens born in the US were not granted citizenship, then your case would be stronger.
     
    Scant evidence of the claim that the U.S. grants citizenship to children of non-diplomat foreigners carte blanche. There has never been an act of Congress or SCOTUS ruling conferring citizenship upon illegal alien children born on U.S. soil. And somehow I don't recall reading stories about throngs of illegal aliens in 1916 and 1935 whose babies born on our soil were granted citizenship.

    Of the 14th amendment language, Senator Reverdy Johnson said:

    “Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”
    http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14

    This means maternity tourists from China and the Middle East and illegal mamacitas from Mexico and central America are all subjects of their respective nations since they are Chinese, Jordanian or Mexican nationals as are their newborn children on American soil.

    Why would there be an act of Congress conferring citizenship on illegal alien children when it has clearly been the universal practice to interpret the 14th amendment to the Constitution as doing so? Don’t you see that the burden of proof is on you to show that this was not formerly the practice?

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH
    This is double talk. You said earlier that the 14th amendment couldn't be used for or against illegal alien children born on our soil. If so, then their status would default to a law (or laws) of which there isn't one that states they are entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment.

    Don’t you see that the burden of proof is on you to show that this was not formerly the practice?
     
    I've more than proved that by my previous comments and the Elk vs. Wilkins case. Your support for birthright citizenship is purely ideological and the only thing you and Ronald provided is a hackneyed claim of "universal support" for birthright citizenship which even if I concede is true for the sake of argument is a comparatively recent phenomenon (around three decades old) and which coincides with political correctness and the radical left's long march through the institutions.

    Congress could resolve this but Republicans are so paralyzed by political correctness and fear of the media and growing Latino lobby that they won't fight this battle.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @RadicalCenter
    Ron, I'm surprised at the lack of substance in your response, and the needless personal dig. Still, I enjoy the website and learn from the columnists and commenters at times.

    You can contact me to find out who I am and decide for yourself if I am some inexperienced, Ill-informed, or dangerous person. You'll conclude that I'm none of those, even if for some reason you still dislike me after speaking with me, which you might not.

    dangerous person

    Well, you’ve called for genocide; if you were serious this would seem to apply.

    I don’t like Mr. Unz’s habit of occasionally dropping in to drop insults (a pun! ha!) either, but this is his website, and he can do as he pleases; just tolerating all the nonsense that gets posted here, by myself among others, is more than one would expect, and in my opinion he has shown unusual forbearance. Also, this time it was funny, which ought to count for something, and the substantive discussion on birthright citizenship had already been delivered upthread.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. KenH says:
    @jtgw
    Why would there be an act of Congress conferring citizenship on illegal alien children when it has clearly been the universal practice to interpret the 14th amendment to the Constitution as doing so? Don't you see that the burden of proof is on you to show that this was not formerly the practice?

    This is double talk. You said earlier that the 14th amendment couldn’t be used for or against illegal alien children born on our soil. If so, then their status would default to a law (or laws) of which there isn’t one that states they are entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment.

    Don’t you see that the burden of proof is on you to show that this was not formerly the practice?

    I’ve more than proved that by my previous comments and the Elk vs. Wilkins case. Your support for birthright citizenship is purely ideological and the only thing you and Ronald provided is a hackneyed claim of “universal support” for birthright citizenship which even if I concede is true for the sake of argument is a comparatively recent phenomenon (around three decades old) and which coincides with political correctness and the radical left’s long march through the institutions.

    Congress could resolve this but Republicans are so paralyzed by political correctness and fear of the media and growing Latino lobby that they won’t fight this battle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jtgw
    I originally asked if you had evidence that the 14th amendment had previously been interpreted the way you think it should be interpreted, i.e. as excluding the children of illegal aliens from citizenship. I said your case would be considerably strengthened if you could show that in the past others, especially lawyers and judges, had agreed with you. You haven't produced any evidence so far of this, so your case still remains weak; your best example, Elk vs Wilkins, deals only with the question of Indian citizenship, not the citizenship of children of illegal aliens, so it is not probative. Remember that our legal tradition is a common law one, where things like universal and longstanding practice carry a lot of weight in interpreting the written law. This is separate from the question of original intent of a law's framers, which can certainly also carry weight but is not the only consideration.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. jtgw says:
    @KenH
    This is double talk. You said earlier that the 14th amendment couldn't be used for or against illegal alien children born on our soil. If so, then their status would default to a law (or laws) of which there isn't one that states they are entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment.

    Don’t you see that the burden of proof is on you to show that this was not formerly the practice?
     
    I've more than proved that by my previous comments and the Elk vs. Wilkins case. Your support for birthright citizenship is purely ideological and the only thing you and Ronald provided is a hackneyed claim of "universal support" for birthright citizenship which even if I concede is true for the sake of argument is a comparatively recent phenomenon (around three decades old) and which coincides with political correctness and the radical left's long march through the institutions.

    Congress could resolve this but Republicans are so paralyzed by political correctness and fear of the media and growing Latino lobby that they won't fight this battle.

    I originally asked if you had evidence that the 14th amendment had previously been interpreted the way you think it should be interpreted, i.e. as excluding the children of illegal aliens from citizenship. I said your case would be considerably strengthened if you could show that in the past others, especially lawyers and judges, had agreed with you. You haven’t produced any evidence so far of this, so your case still remains weak; your best example, Elk vs Wilkins, deals only with the question of Indian citizenship, not the citizenship of children of illegal aliens, so it is not probative. Remember that our legal tradition is a common law one, where things like universal and longstanding practice carry a lot of weight in interpreting the written law. This is separate from the question of original intent of a law’s framers, which can certainly also carry weight but is not the only consideration.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Napolitano Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation