the rest of you Johnny come latelies can get wrecked

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5629408&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864",#48304962)

it will be appealed to SCOTUS and SCOTUS will decide what " , and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, " means in this context

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5629408&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864",#48305015)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-toUNR9Vo6w

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5629408&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864",#48305041)

the notion was that if you have divided loyalty you do not get BRC.

so the child of two Mexican citizens has divided loyalty and therefore Congress is free to regulate that child's citizenship or lack of citizenship.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5629408&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864",#48305971)

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n.10 (1982). "Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark ... detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term 'jurisdiction' was used. He further noted that it was 'impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" ... as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" ... or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."' ... As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5629408&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864",#48305059)

SCOTUS needs to decide, and they will

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5629408&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864",#48305066)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5629408&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864",#48305342)

Op-Ed Contributor

Birthright of a Nation

By Peter H. Schuck

Aug. 13, 2010

Share full article

DESPITE persistent calls for comprehensive immigration reform, the hot debate today is about an old issue: birthright citizenship.

The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868, provides that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...” This language has traditionally been interpreted to give automatic citizenship to anyone born on American soil, even to the children of illegal immigrants.

Congress plans to hold hearings this fall on a constitutional amendment to change that language, something even moderate Republican senators like South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham support. With a new study showing that undocumented mothers account for a disproportionate number of births, even some Democrats might find it hard to stand opposed to altering the citizenship clause.

Fortunately, the history of the clause suggests an effective, pragmatic solution that should appeal to both parties.

The clause’s purpose was to guarantee citizenship for former slaves — a right Congress had enacted in 1866 — and to overrule the infamous Dred Scott decision, which had denied blacks citizenship and helped precipitate the Civil War.

But the clause also excluded from birthright citizenship people who were not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This exclusion was primarily aimed at the American-born children of American Indians and foreign diplomats and soldiers, categories governed by other sovereign entities.

The citizenship clause reflected a new American approach to political membership. Under common law dating back to the early 17th century, national allegiance had been perpetual, not consensual. Our country contested this assumption during the War of 1812 after the British impressed Americans into the Royal Navy, insisting that they remained the king’s subjects.

By 1868, Congress had come to view citizenship as a mutual relationship to which both the nation and the individual must consent. This explains why it passed — one day before the citizenship clause was ratified — the Expatriation Act, allowing Americans to shed their American or foreign citizenship.

Particularly relevant to today’s controversy was the floor debate on the citizenship clause. It suggested that the American-born children of resident aliens would indeed be citizens, a suggestion confirmed in an 1898 Supreme Court decision involving the son of a resident Chinese couple.

Congress did not, however, discuss the status of children of illegal immigrants — at the time, federal law didn’t limit immigration, so no parents were here illegally.

Nevertheless, it is hard to believe that Congress would have surrendered the power to regulate citizenship for such a group, much less grant it automatically to people whom it might someday bar from the country. The Supreme Court has never squarely held otherwise, although it did assume, without explanation, in a brief 1982 footnote that the American-born children of illegal immigrants were constitutional citizens. This history suggests that Congress can act on birthright citizenship without a constitutional amendment.

Fast-forward to today to an America with 11 million illegal immigrants. If the Constitution permits Congress to regulate their children’s citizenship by statute, what should that statute provide?

This question is much harder than the zealots on both sides suggest. The argument against any birthright citizenship is that these children are here as a result of an illegal act and thus have no claim to membership in a country built on the ideal of mutual consent.

In the extreme case of “anchor babies” — children born after a mother briefly crosses the border to give birth — the notion of automatic citizenship for the child strikes most people as not only anomalous but also offensive. No other developed country except Canada, which has relatively few illegal immigrants, has rules that would allow it.

At the same time, we rightly resist punishing children for their parents’ crimes. Without birthright citizenship, they could be legally stranded, perhaps even stateless, in a country where they were born and may spend their lives. And because more than a third of undocumented parents have a least one American child, ending birthright citizenship would greatly increase the number of undocumented people in the country.

Fortunately, these strongly competing values, combined with the notion of mutual-consent citizenship, suggest a solution: condition the citizenship of such children on having what international law terms a “genuine connection” to American society.

This is already a practice in some European countries, where laws requiring blood ties to existing citizens have been relaxed to give birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants who have lived in the country for some time — Britain, for example, requires 10 years and no long absences from the country.

Congress should do likewise, perhaps conditioning birthright citizenship on a certain number of years of education in American schools; such children could apply for citizenship at, say, age 10. The children would become citizens retroactively, regardless of their parents’ status.

Other aspects of the larger immigration debate would continue, of course. But such a principled yet pragmatic solution to the birthright citizenship question could point the way toward common ground on immigration reform.

Peter H. Schuck, a professor of law at Yale, is a co-editor of “Understanding America: The Anatomy of an Exceptional Nation.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5629408&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864",#48305941)

Peter Schuck of YLS had the best analysis and he says Congress can restrict people who have foreign citizenship from having BR citizenship.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5629408&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864",#48305014)

Look, faggot, your "reasons" and "analysis" has been pure fucking wrong this entire election. Do us all a favor and shut the fuck up.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5629408&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864",#48305311)

Anyway he's doing it by exec order so none of this matters. Looking forward to your hyperventilating when your anchor babies get deported. Sorry you hate America so much you want to see invaders take it over.

Admit that all you're faggy analysis of the election was completely wrong.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5629408&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864",#48305394)

Birthright citizenship is an abomination and has led to a massive underclass of welfare americans who do nothing but suck this country dry of its resources.

Nearly every other country on earth recognizes what a mistake birthright citizenship is.

It's going away by executive order or otherwise.

Conservative lawyers and law professors have already written tomes about the basis for getting rid of it. It's not nearly as 'legally contentious' as shitlibs think.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5629408&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864",#48305456)

so many gooks and russians get passports this way

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5629408&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864",#48305162)

Not sure about the method.

ALL incentives to come here illegally need to be removed.

They need to get that case requiring schooling of illegals' kids overturned.

Illegals shouldn't get access to any welfare type program.

DACA shit needs to be kilt.

No one who came here illegally, at any age, should ever be given citizenship.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5629408&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864",#48305664)

so do libs say that Congress, with all those constitutional provisions giving Congress control of immigration and citizenship, is powerless to deny BRC to the child of a Chinese woman who flies into LA to give birth and then fly home? it's a crazy ass argument. of course Congress can.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5629408&forum_id=2\u0026mark_id=5310864",#48306372)