Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    31 Oct '18 00:44
    @philokalia said
    Check out this quip, though, if we want to talk about original intent and what was on the minds of those who were ratifying it:

    [quote]The U.S. Senate record of debate on the birthright citizenship clause shows that Republican Jacob Howard proposed it on May 30, 1866. In his opening statement about this matter, he said:

    This amendment which I have offered is simply ...[text shortened]... the children of citizens -- not foreigners, aliens, or even legally present diplomats and the likes.
    Nonsense, as Judge Ho's article makes clear:

    Howard’s colleagues vigorously debated the wisdom of his
    amendment – indeed, some opposed it precisely because they opposed extending birthright citizenship to the children of aliens of different races. But no Senator disputed the
    meaning of the amendment with respect to alien children.


    Senator Edgar Cowan (R-PA) – who would later vote against the entire constitutional amendment anyway – was the first
    to speak in opposition to extending birthright citizenship to the children of foreigners. Cowan declared that, “if [a state] were
    overrun by another and a different race, it would have the right to absolutely expel them.” He feared that the Howard amendment would effectively deprive states of the
    authority to expel persons of different races– in particular, the Gypsies in his home state of Pennsylvania and the Chinese in California– by granting their children citizenship
    and thereby enabling foreign populations to overrun the country. Cowan objected especially to granting birthright citizenship to the children of aliens who “owe [the U.S.] no
    allegiance [and] who pretend to owe none,”and to those who regularly commit “trespass” within the U.S.22

    In response, proponents of the Howard amendment endorsed Cowan’s interpretation. Senator John Conness (R-CA) responded
    specifically to Cowan’s concerns about extending birthright citizenship to the children of Chinese immigrants:
    The proposition before us … relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California,
    and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. … I am in favor of doing so. … We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the
    children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled
    to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others.


    Conness acknowledged Cowan’s dire predictions of foreign overpopulation, but explained that, although legally correct, Cowan’s parade of horribles would not be realized,
    because most Chinese would not take advantage of such rights although entitled to them. He noted that most Chinese work
    and then return to their home countries, rather than start families in the U.S. Conness thus concluded that, if Cowan “knew as much of the Chinese and their habits as he professes to do of the Gypsies, … he would not be alarmed.”23

    No Senator took issue with the consensus
    interpretation adopted by Howard, Cowan,
    and Conness.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ho points out their error of the interpretation put forward in your article:

    Repeal proponents contend that history
    supports their position.

    First, they quote Howard’s introductory remarks to state that birthright citizenship “will not, of course, include … foreigners.”29
    But that reads Howard’s reference to “aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers” out of the sentence. It also renders completely meaningless the subsequent
    dialogue between Senators Cowan and Conness over the wisdom of extending birthright citizenship to the children of
    Chinese immigrants and Gypsies.

    https://www.gibsondunn.com/wp-content/uploads/documents/publications/Ho-DefiningAmerican.pdf

    Only a fringe group of legal scholars disputes the SCOTUS view, restated many times in the last 120 years.
  2. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    20408
    31 Oct '18 01:01
    @no1marauder said
    Nonsense, as Judge Ho's article makes clear:

    Howard’s colleagues vigorously debated the wisdom of his
    amendment – indeed, some opposed it precisely because they opposed extending birthright citizenship to the children of aliens of different races. But no Senator disputed the
    meaning of the amendment with respect to alien children.


    Senator Edgar Cowan (R-PA) ...[text shortened]... fringe group of legal scholars disputes the SCOTUS view, restated many times in the last 120 years.
    My favorite part of the quip, though, is this:

    Conness acknowledged Cowan’s dire predictions of foreign overpopulation, but explained that, although legally correct, Cowan’s parade of horribles would not be realized,
    because most Chinese would not take advantage of such rights although entitled to them. He noted that most Chinese work
    and then return to their home countries, rather than start families in the U.S. Conness thus concluded that, if Cowan “knew as much of the Chinese and their habits as he professes to do of the Gypsies, … he would not be alarmed.”23


    He envisioned it as utterly irrelevant because what amounted to legally present Chinese workers would just not stay. He envisioned them as being rather fundamentally unwelcome and thus the point was moot.

    If it was in the modern context, this addendum to his argument would be entirely irrelevant, would it not?

    Moreover, Marauder: what's your stance on the second amendment?

    Let me guess that it follows the ty pical view of the Left that, ultimately, the ratifiers could not anticipate a scenario like we had to day and so it is legitimate to regulate guns. Am I correct?

    This is the exact same argument applied to the fourteenth amendment.

    I'd also add this: We all know that prior to the 60s there were strict quotas on immigration, and it is incredibly doubtful that anyone would have been allowed off of the boat and into our country without express permission for us to be here.

    It was a fundamentally different situation, was it not?
  3. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10118
    31 Oct '18 01:201 edit
    @no1marauder said
    Maybe you should read the Constitution and then its provisions wouldn't come as such a shock to you.
    To think that a US citizen who has a child in another country is still a US citizen, but a migrant who has a baby in a foreign country is a citizen of that country and not of the parent is inconsistent.

    It makes no sense.
  4. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    20408
    31 Oct '18 01:25
    @whodey said
    To think that a US citizen who has a child in another country is still a US citizen, but a migrant who has a baby in a foreign country is a citizen of that country and not of the parent is inconsistent.

    It makes no sense.
    Right -- con sanguinas birth right is what makes the most sense.

    Even though my significant other and I are both legal long-term residents on legal visas here, our child will not be considered a Korean citizen. They will be given de facto legal residence, but only after a long period of living here and meeting certain qualifications will they even be given full citizenship.
  5. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y3ngvdp2
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    31 Oct '18 01:49
    @whodey

    Double citizenships happen in those cases
  6. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    31 Oct '18 01:52
    @philokalia said
    My favorite part of the quip, though, is this:

    [quote]Conness acknowledged Cowan’s dire predictions of foreign overpopulation, but explained that, although legally correct, Cowan’s parade of horribles would not be realized,
    because most Chinese would not take advantage of such rights although entitled to them. He noted that most Chinese work
    and then return to their ...[text shortened]... express permission for us to be here.[/i]

    It was a fundamentally different situation, was it not?
    Conness' argument that it wouldn't result in excessive foreign population is irrelevant as to whether the provision recognized birthright citizenship. It's striking that the parents in the 1898 case could not legally become parents because of the Chinese Exclusion Act, but that did not change the conclusion that the clear words of the 14th Amendment made Wong a citizen.

    You shouldn't guess something based on stereotypical projections of what you think all "leftists" believe. My views on the Second Amendment are somewhat complex, but I think there is a Natural Right to self-defense that contains a corollary right to have instruments that make that effectual. That means I think Heller was corrected decided; it does not mean that guns can't be regulated at all (no right is absolute and the amendment itself speaks of a "well-regulated militia'😉.

    The proper interpretation of the 14th Amendment mandating birthright citizen has been in effect during limited periods of immigration (1920s to 1960s) and also during the greatest waves of immigration (late 19th and earliest 20th century), so I'm not sure what your point is.
  7. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    31 Oct '18 02:04
    @whodey said
    To think that a US citizen who has a child in another country is still a US citizen, but a migrant who has a baby in a foreign country is a citizen of that country and not of the parent is inconsistent.

    It makes no sense.
    Sovereign nations can each make their own rules regarding citizenship.
  8. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10118
    31 Oct '18 02:171 edit
    @no1marauder said
    Sovereign nations can each make their own rules regarding citizenship.
    How is it a sovereign nation any invasion force can enter it and declare amnesty and then vote?

    The 14th amendment says all person born or naturalized in the US, "subject to the jurisdiction therefor...". How does that apply to anyone who crosses our borders and enters this nation "illegally"? I cannot understand how anyone can believe a woman can illegally cross our border, have a baby that afternoon and it is considered a citizen.
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    31 Oct '18 03:34
    @whodey said
    How is it a sovereign nation any invasion force can enter it and declare amnesty and then vote?

    The 14th amendment says all person born or naturalized in the US, "subject to the jurisdiction therefor...". How does that apply to anyone who crosses our borders and enters this nation "illegally"? I cannot understand how anyone can believe a woman can illegally cross our border, have a baby that afternoon and it is considered a citizen.
    Someone born here didn't enter the country
    "Illegally". The clause refers to them not their parents.

    Referring to immigrants as an "invasion force" really is ridiculous propaganda.
  10. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    20408
    31 Oct '18 04:13
    Sure, Marauder, it has been in effect a long time, but prior to 1965 the challenge of entering the US was far greater than previously and it was a non-issue. We were literally turning people away everywhere and circumstances did not facilitate so much illegal immigration -- at least not enough that it was a national issue.

    Because resources are scarce, wage dilution is real, and all of the other practical considerations that make it impossible to exist without a border and without regulations, we need to reform the laws as it stands.

    And since we are in a state of general emergency (and actually have been for a very long time) of unprecedneted demographic shifts and what have you, why not put up this executive order and then have a proper fight about it in the courts and in legislation.

    ... And honestly, if we do not win, that is also fine: we should just defy the system and maintain the order because it is the pragmatic and morally right thing to do, just as how California has vowed to defy any attempts to break their sanctuary city laws.
  11. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    57089
    31 Oct '18 04:13
    @whodey said
    These are migrants who are already citizens of another country.

    What if they are in an air plane born over the US?

    Hmm?
    Not on about the parents.
    The newly born.

    I believe if a kid is born on a plane the parents can choose place of birth as either the location they departed from or the place they are landing in.

    How can you be born in a certain place, have it in your passport, yet not belong to that place?

    Does the newly born not have the right to belong somewhere?
  12. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    40034
    31 Oct '18 04:22
    @philokalia said
    Sure, Marauder, it has been in effect a long time, but prior to 1965 the challenge of entering the US was far greater than previously and it was a non-issue. We were literally turning people away everywhere and circumstances did not facilitate so much illegal immigration -- at least not enough that it was a national issue.

    Because resources are scarce, wage dilu ...[text shortened]... ing to do, just as how California has vowed to defy any attempts to break their sanctuary city laws.
    I don't believe in blatantly defying the Constitution for partisan political reasons which is what this is all about.

    I'm not in favor of unlimited immigration, think that the amount of illegal immigration over the last few decades has had negative economic effects and am fine with enhancing border security.

    I do not believe in limiting immigration for racial reasons, however.
  13. Subscribermoonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    2490
    31 Oct '18 06:20
    @shavixmir said
    Obviously.
    But if you can’t say I’m X because I was born there, then the whole point of having place of birth in your passport is completely pointless.
    No, it isn't pointless. Several people could have the same name and birthdate. Knowing where a person is born helps to identify the person, whether or not having been born there entails citizenship in that place. It is less likely that several people would have the same name, birthdate, and birth place (though this too is possible).
  14. Subscribermoonbus
    Uber-Nerd
    Joined
    31 May '12
    Moves
    2490
    31 Oct '18 06:322 edits
    @shavixmir said
    Not on about the parents.
    The newly born.

    I believe if a kid is born on a plane the parents can choose place of birth as either the location they departed from or the place they are landing in.

    How can you be born in a certain place, have it in your passport, yet not belong to that place?

    Does the newly born not have the right to belong somewhere?
    "How can you be born in a certain place, have it in your passport, yet not belong to that place?" Because the laws of the place in question determine whether place is relevant to citizenship in that place. Some countries determine citizenship by place of birth, others by the citizenship of the parent(s). In no country do parents determine their children's citizenship by their own say-so. Citizenship is regulated by states, not by parents.

    For example, legal alien residents in Switzerland, let us say from Portugal, have a child in Switzerland. The child will have Portuguese citizenship, not Swiss citizenship, according to Swiss and Portuguese law. Nonetheless, the child's Portuguese passport will note the place of birth as Switzerland.

    Some states allow dual citizenship, others do not.

    So, it is possible that a child be born in a plane in U.S. airspace (or on a cruise ship in U.S. waters) and thereby have U.S. citizenship according to U.S. law, whereas the parents might be citizens of some country which determines citizenship by other criteria than place of birth. This does not, however, automatically entail that the child has dual citizenship. One of the two countries might recognise dual citizenship and the other might not. Anomalies do occasionally arise in international law.
  15. Standard membershavixmir
    Guppy poo
    Sewers of Holland
    Joined
    31 Jan '04
    Moves
    57089
    31 Oct '18 07:38
    @moonbus said
    "How can you be born in a certain place, have it in your passport, yet not belong to that place?" Because the laws of the place in question determine whether place is relevant to citizenship in that place. Some countries determine citizenship by place of birth, others by the citizenship of the parent(s). In no country do parents determine their children's citizenship by their ...[text shortened]... nise dual citizenship and the other might not. Anomalies do occasionally arise in international law.
    I know.
    I’m just saying it’s stupid.
Back to Top