It may be true that "The U.S. government has clearly not accepted unauthorized immigrants as being under its sovereignty" but the question in dispute isn't the status of the "unauthorized immigrant" *parent*, it's the status of the *baby,* who isn't an "immigrant" at all. The argument being offered here is circular: it seems to assume that people born to "unauthorized immigrants" are themselves unauthorized -- which is exactly the question under debate.
These conversations get into trouble for verbal and sematic reasons because it becomes impossible to effectively communicate and succinctly convey precise conceptual content when the same words have unfortunately accumulated multiple incompatible meanings whether it is the of a plain English understanding, a euphemism (often replacing yet another euphemism from the recent past), a legal term of art, or the intentional efforts of some advocates on all sides to muddy the waters with regard to these terms and their favored interpretations.
As to the legal question of whether it is possible for the continued presence in the US of an infant born on American soil to be contrary to law in a manner consistent with the 14th Amendment, the answer is yes. If a legally present foreign diplomat gives birth in the US, that baby does not become a citizen thereby, and if the child remains in the US subsequent the expiration of its mother's nonimmigrant visa, the child is now illegally present and subject to deportation. American Indian children (at least "non-straggling" ones per a description from 1870, or those who acquired it via the Dawes Act) didn't get US citizenship until as recently as 1924.
So the matter is not really circular at all. The whole question is whether birth on US soil by itself in circumstances not convered by these traditional exceptions always automatically grants citizenship to any other kind of newborn. If it does, the infant is automatically legally present in the US. If it doesn't, then, yes, the infant is not authorized to remain in the country.
Ed Erler produced some excellent and persuasive scholarship on this question, and several years ago Heritage, Claremont, and Michael Anton hosted several events and symposia in which he was given the opportunity to present his findings and make his very solid case.
Foreign diplomats have to get visas and are present in the US legally but can be ejected, but if their children are born on American soil, those children do not obtain US citizenship. American Indian children whose ancestors have all been born within the current boundaries of the US since before there was a US likewise have no constitutional right to citizenship, it is purely statutory. Any purportedly coherent legal theory that nevertheless gives superior anchoring rights to illegally present aliens ought to presumed suspect at best.
any baby born here who is not the child of a diplomat is subject to our jurisdiction. the fact that lay people don’t understand isn’t really the issue. courts and judges have reinforced birthright citizenship from the earliest days of the republic, and then it was further encapsulated in the fourteenth amendment.
if that person is subject to our laws then they are subject to our jurisdiction.
honestly i’d expect better of these arguments. this exec order will fail.
What about persons who have survived abortion when the mothers are citizens of the United States?
If the child has been born alive by a "failed" abortion, then that child should be a citizen with the protection of the 14th Amendment.
Two dear friends of mine are abortion survivors, and both of them are international speakers. They managed to survive, and they are witnesses to why we should have a law that gives medical care to those still alive after abortion. Otherwise, we have made it a capital offense for a baby to survive abortion.
Gianna Jessen is in her 40s (I think) and she has cerebral palsy from the attempt to kill her in the womb.
Melissa Ohden is in her 40s and is married with two daughters. She has founded The Abortion Survivors Network consisting of some 500 members.
Knowing that Ferguson was one of the course instructors I would have bet all of my chips too ! While in college (Ole Miss-Pharmacy, 1976) I took every opportunity to hear the best of the best at sponsored speeches and seminars and I benefited from it immensely. I am keeping my eye on UATX for my grandchildren. Only got about 5-6 years to wait !
It may be true that "The U.S. government has clearly not accepted unauthorized immigrants as being under its sovereignty" but the question in dispute isn't the status of the "unauthorized immigrant" *parent*, it's the status of the *baby,* who isn't an "immigrant" at all. The argument being offered here is circular: it seems to assume that people born to "unauthorized immigrants" are themselves unauthorized -- which is exactly the question under debate.
Correct
These conversations get into trouble for verbal and sematic reasons because it becomes impossible to effectively communicate and succinctly convey precise conceptual content when the same words have unfortunately accumulated multiple incompatible meanings whether it is the of a plain English understanding, a euphemism (often replacing yet another euphemism from the recent past), a legal term of art, or the intentional efforts of some advocates on all sides to muddy the waters with regard to these terms and their favored interpretations.
As to the legal question of whether it is possible for the continued presence in the US of an infant born on American soil to be contrary to law in a manner consistent with the 14th Amendment, the answer is yes. If a legally present foreign diplomat gives birth in the US, that baby does not become a citizen thereby, and if the child remains in the US subsequent the expiration of its mother's nonimmigrant visa, the child is now illegally present and subject to deportation. American Indian children (at least "non-straggling" ones per a description from 1870, or those who acquired it via the Dawes Act) didn't get US citizenship until as recently as 1924.
So the matter is not really circular at all. The whole question is whether birth on US soil by itself in circumstances not convered by these traditional exceptions always automatically grants citizenship to any other kind of newborn. If it does, the infant is automatically legally present in the US. If it doesn't, then, yes, the infant is not authorized to remain in the country.
Ed Erler produced some excellent and persuasive scholarship on this question, and several years ago Heritage, Claremont, and Michael Anton hosted several events and symposia in which he was given the opportunity to present his findings and make his very solid case.
Foreign diplomats have to get visas and are present in the US legally but can be ejected, but if their children are born on American soil, those children do not obtain US citizenship. American Indian children whose ancestors have all been born within the current boundaries of the US since before there was a US likewise have no constitutional right to citizenship, it is purely statutory. Any purportedly coherent legal theory that nevertheless gives superior anchoring rights to illegally present aliens ought to presumed suspect at best.
any baby born here who is not the child of a diplomat is subject to our jurisdiction. the fact that lay people don’t understand isn’t really the issue. courts and judges have reinforced birthright citizenship from the earliest days of the republic, and then it was further encapsulated in the fourteenth amendment.
if that person is subject to our laws then they are subject to our jurisdiction.
honestly i’d expect better of these arguments. this exec order will fail.
Falls was an invention of Ted Kennedy in 1963 immigration law
What about persons who have survived abortion when the mothers are citizens of the United States?
If the child has been born alive by a "failed" abortion, then that child should be a citizen with the protection of the 14th Amendment.
Two dear friends of mine are abortion survivors, and both of them are international speakers. They managed to survive, and they are witnesses to why we should have a law that gives medical care to those still alive after abortion. Otherwise, we have made it a capital offense for a baby to survive abortion.
Gianna Jessen is in her 40s (I think) and she has cerebral palsy from the attempt to kill her in the womb.
Melissa Ohden is in her 40s and is married with two daughters. She has founded The Abortion Survivors Network consisting of some 500 members.
Knowing that Ferguson was one of the course instructors I would have bet all of my chips too ! While in college (Ole Miss-Pharmacy, 1976) I took every opportunity to hear the best of the best at sponsored speeches and seminars and I benefited from it immensely. I am keeping my eye on UATX for my grandchildren. Only got about 5-6 years to wait !
Helpful
Thank you very much. well done!