http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-08-19.html





Citizenship explained. ARF Lawyers especially, chime in



eta:



"Citizenship in a monarchy was all about geography -- as it is in
countries bristling with lords and vassals, which should not be confused
with this country. Thus, under the majority's logic in Wong Kim
Ark, children born to American parents traveling in England would not be
American citizens, but British subjects."

The only reference to citizenship in the original Constitution is for the qualifications to become President.

Who was considered a citizen back then?

Not slaves, but I guess free black men.

Indians---certainly not. Ann says not until 1924 for them.





 

DT





 

http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2015-08-26.html





Also a great article. Well worth reading.



"The main object of the opening sentence of the 14th Amendment was ...
to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether
formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and
owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United
States ...  The evident meaning of (the words, "and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof") is, not merely subject in some respect or degree
to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to
their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate
allegiance. ... Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterward, except by
being naturalized ..."

Her criticism of the Wong case is quite weak. She seems to think that we should rely on Roman law and not English common law to inform our understanding, then flippantly refers to it as "feudal" law.

This of course is preposterous. We have a long and consistent history of relying on English legal roots to interpret our own laws. I wonder if she'd say the same thing about the discussion of Anglo-American jurisprudence in other cases, like the ones a few years ago that held the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Good article!

Thank you, sir. I didn't catch that. Calling common law "feudal law" is dishonest in this context.  She chose those words to get people with no legal education (Me) to dismiss it.


Thank you, counselor.



I still agree with Ann but she hurt her cause.





 

Ann Coulter went to a Tier 1 law school. She's also batshit and has an agenda to pander, whereas I went to a Tier 1 law school and am not batshit, and at least have less of an agenda.

Here's the bottom line on this whole immigration/anchor baby issue:

If you're expecting the current SCOTUS to rule that "anchor babies" are not citizens, go buy a Powerball ticket and see which one hits first. There are a multitude of reasons why it's not happening. The Wong case, the plain text of the 14th Amendment, and the longstanding practice that we've adhered to thus far are the big legal problems. The SCOTUS would have to undo the already-recognized citizenship of millions of people, which ain't happening legally or politically. That's before we even get to the politics of the current Court.

On the other hand, there are no (or few, easily fixed) legal impediments to essentially re-running "Operation Wetback" like we did in the 1950s. Round up the illegals and ship the back. If they have babies born here, we won't even get into whether they're citizens - take them with you or not. I'm guessing most will.

I can't see it happening either. Only solution is self deportation

 
No benefits and Draonian punishment for,those employing illegals


Roberts voted liberal now so there would need be no hope

She never has a bad one. I should post them as they come out

 

A1S8 grants Congress the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."

Googling for their subsequent actions


 

ETA.  These dates don't jive

True, but that has nothing to do with birthright citizenship.

Everytime somebody says it cant be done, I send them to go google this.
 

Yup. They might want to give it a more PC name than that, but it most certainly can be done.

Yeah I get your point, but it doesn't really matter in the context of this discussion about "anchor babies."

To run that one again you'd have to "federalize/militarize" the local police with federal enforcement authority.

Damn.  She is wicked smart.  I wish she wasn't so snarky though.

I learn something from her every time I read her.  (didn't know Indians weren't citizens until 1924).  Makes me wonder why, if the state has to decide who is and who isn't, how and when I became a "citizen" ......or if I really am?

Good post OP.

Which would still be much easier than any judicial or constitutional change to 400+ years worth of jus soli citizenship. Local cop and prosecutors get sworn/appointed to do federal things ALL THE TIME.

Not to mention more effective, as eliminating birthright citizenship doesn't actually remove anyone or keep them from coming. They'll still come, for the same reasons they do now.

Your law school teach you that?

Every law school teaches that. Ann either skipped class that day or, more likely, she's just conveniently ignoring it in this case because it suits her agenda and she knows that 99% of the mouthbreathers who watch/read her won't know the difference.

You should stick to shooting milk jugs and posting videos.

... I just had a great idea

I agree with you.  I think not everyone has thought the whole process and implications through, though.

Much as it pains me to say it, dbrowne1 is absolutely correct about english common law.  (*Except for Louisiana and we won't get into Napoleonic Code)  It's almost like none of you folks read case law decisions from the USSC.

Excellent post!

I was on my soap box with my eldest daughter yesterday about Anglo-American jurisprudence and the British Bill of Rights (with a slice of the Enlightenment).

Love the Ann Coulter is batshit crazy dodge.  

Ann makes basically six arguments:

1.Original Intent of the authors of the 14th  Amendment:
“Give me a scenario -- just one scenario -- where guaranteeing the citizenship of children born to illegals would be important to Americans in 1868.

2.Original intent of the 14th was followed in 1884 Wilken v Elk SCOTUS decision.

John Elk, went before the Supreme Court to argue that he was an American citizen because he was born in the United States. He lost. SCOTUS the 14th Amendment did not grant Indians citizenship. ‘The "main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment,’ the court explained -- and not for the first or last time – ‘was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black ... should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.’”
We all know that American Indians were not made citizens until the 1924 The Indian Citizenship Act. Therefore:

3.Why were people born on American soil up until 1924 not American citizens?  

4.In the 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court granted citizenship to the children born to legal immigrants, with certain exceptions, such as for diplomats.  We can all agree that there is a difference between legal and illegal.

5. “…..Justice John Marshall Harlan II, who in the 1967 case, Afroyim v. Rusk, that the sponsors of the 14th Amendment feared that:  “Unless citizenship were defined, freedmen might, under the reasoning of the Dred Scott decision, be excluded by the courts from the scope of the amendment. It was agreed that, since the 'courts have stumbled on the subject,' it would be prudent to remove the 'doubt thrown over' it. The clause would essentially overrule Dred Scott and place beyond question the freedmen's right of citizenship because of birth."

6.As the Supreme Court said in Elk: "[N]o one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent."  That ladies in gentleman is stare decises.

I'll be patiently waiting for the refutation for each question and comment listed above.

edited for formatting.

Given the last session of the court, it's clear to me that there is no logic to our laws.

That abortion is a super-duper right not to be questioned or regulated by the states or fed in theory or in practice...unquestioned by the egg heads and "law experts".

But the 2nd amendment's clear language notwithstanding, every jurisdiction is a-OK with all manner of infringement procedures, license and tax requirements. If getting an abortion was as difficult as buying a gun, we'd have a lot less abortions. The background check alone would nail statutory rapists.

That Obamacare can be re-written by the court and shoehorned ex post facto into "law" means there is no rational basis for our laws. The rest is just shouting and waving hands.

If SCOTUS wanted to declare Christians non-persons they could. They declared blacks to be 3/5 the value of people but otherwise non-persons () seriously - how convoluted must you be to declare blacks "non-persons, mere possessions" but then count them as 3/5 the value of people for the sake of political representation?

It's not logic we're getting from courts but negotiated compromise via another mechanism.

When it's convenient to tax everyone in the country we'll nationalize people for just crossing the frontier.

Regardless of what the authors of the 14th Amendment intended there is no chance that a SCOTUS that found Obamacare constitutional twice will reverse anchor baby status.

Article I, Section 2 requires a Representative to "...have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States," and Article I, Section 3 requires a Senator to, "...have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States..."

Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power "To establish a uniform rule of naturalization..." which is obviously the path to citizenship. The legislative branch controls it, not the judicial, no matter what the courts say, but the states could admit people as they saw fit until Congress was able to change the laws after 1808.

Citizenship is in Article IV, Section 2: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

Although they didn't do it, I find no legal reason why the Congress could not have written the law to grant citizenship to everybody except people who live in Rhode Island because we uniformly don't like people in Rhode Island and nanny-nanny-foo-foo.

As you know, the United States lags far behind European jurisprudence in adoption of the legal tenet of nanny-nanny-foo-foo and it's long past time we caught up.

lol

She threw me with the feudal law thing. I didn't connect that she was referring to Common Law. Common Law has magna carta and a long history of supporting freedoms that are absent from what one would think of as "feudal law".



Of course, common law is a huge part of our system and heritage. I'm no lawyer but even high school civics would get you that.



 

Good man.

My dad took time to teach me.



 

That the best you got when it comes to insulting people? Also, you have clearly indicated that you have an agenda and it telling people nothing can be done about birthright citizenship anchor babies.

       
I respect O_P so didn't care for that.

However, going through SCOTUS will not work.  No way will this court uphold any change to that.





 

I  thought the Reagan administration got a law passed that allowed the deportation of anchor babies with their parents with proof of US birth so they could return to the US when they reached adulthood?

Not that I recall.  Maybe he fell for the dems promise that they might do that in the future once he gave amnesty.

Just like most GOP presidents, got played for a sucker.



 

I would tell the parent(s) of anchor babies that they were leaving and could take the babies with them or not, as they chose.

Wow.  In less than half a page you got me to move from taking your comments at face value to doubting anything you post, regardless of how reasonable it sounds-- even the stuff I know to be true.



You went to ad hominem without passing go or collecting $200.



Now having to reevaluate all of the silent nods of agreement I issued.



 

tag

What happens when there is new legislation which reverses the Immigration Act of 1964?  The 1964 act was Ted Kennedy's move to get the doors opened for Irish immigration which his Boston area Irish heritage supporters wanted.

But shortly afterwards the Cloward & Piven crowd realized what they could do with Teddy's anchor baby provision and the term "Browning of America" began to be heard, along with predictions of massive increases in Hispanic population.  And now 50 years later, the self-fulfilling prophesy has come true.

And now it's plainly apparent what Teddy's lasting legacy is for the nation.

EXACTLY.

Has to be done.



 

To be clear, I did not graduate from a tier 1 anything.  But aren't you conflating two different things here?  Dred Scott determined that Blacks weren't citizens and that their owners were their owners regardless of where they were or lived.  To the best of my knowledge, it did not determine that they were 3/5 of a person.



The 3/5 clause did not specifically mention blacks.  It determined that "slaves and Indians who are not taxed" should be counted as 3/5 of a citizen for the purposes of assigning congressional representation.  Taken verbatim, the Constitution does not assign or deny personhood to anybody.



 

Ding Ding Ding......winner winner chicken dinner.

Democrat shenanigans notwithstanding, if it was legal when you did it, it's still legal for you to have done it, even if the law makes it illegal after the fact.  That's the whole point of the ex post facto clause.  If the law were changed tomorrow, each and every anchor baby born between the enactment of the 14" and today would still be citizens.  The poor unfortunate illegal whose labor goes long would find herself the proud parent of a citizen of her home country.