Dr. John C. Eastman "Birthright Citizenship" Part 1

[Sleeko11]

@treefres Would care to cite the specific law broken by European immigrants....Didn't think so.

[Sleeko11]

"[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person."........ Jacob Howard, author of the 14th Amendment

[scotthead61]

What about Obama, He doesn't fit the 14th ammendment. He was born under British Jurisdiction.

[christoJihad2]

Too bad, we won. And we'll win this fight too. Count on it. Get over it, get an education and provide for your family instead of remaking the Southwest into Mexico. If you love Mexico so much, why don't you live there? The illegals are generally the least educated in Mexico, and the best of their education system isn't well regarded to say the least. Don't blame us for all your ills. Drugs, gangs, etc. I don't get it, man, why do you guys glamorize gangs? What good have they done for your race?

[illegaldestroyer]

Fourteenth Amendment

Section 1 All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[ratbstard718]

My posts in this thread need to be read in the order that they were posted.

[ratbstard718]

As applied to aliens, this meant those aliens who first declared their intent to become citizens of the United States, and who had renounced their allegiance to some other sovereignty as required under U.S. naturalization laws.

[ratbstard718]

Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said this language meant "every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."

[ratbstard718]

Sen. Trumbull felt the words, "That all persons born in the United States and owing allegiance thereto are hereby declared to be citizens" would be more than sufficient to fulfill this goal. However, after investigation it was found the United States had no authority to make citizens of those temporarily residing in the United States who owed only a "temporary allegiance."

[ratbstard718]

Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law that it was the goal to "make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States."

[ratbstard718]

If anyone needs any confirmation of the above conclusion, need only to view Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress had adopted as national law in the year 1866: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States."

[ratbstard718]

Many make the silly mistake of confusing temporary allegiance to a countries laws under the law of nations with that of allegiance to a nation. In school we pledge allegiance to the flag and the "Republic for which it stands," not pledge our allegiance to local traffic laws. No one during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries confused owing allegiance to the laws with that of owing allegiance to a nation.

[ratbstard718]

In other words, there is no such thing as American citizenship without allegiance to the nation. Why make citizens of those who owe no allegiance to the country, who might join the forces of another country against you? This goes to the core of American allegiance.

[ratbstard718]

So what was to be the premise behind America's first and only constitutional birthright declaration in the year 1866? Simply all children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States, that is to say, not only must a child be born within the limits of the United States, but born within the complete allegiance of the United States as a nation - not merely its laws only.

[RalphNelson]

Whether the issue is immigration, economics or little league baseball, biased hacks interpret laws and rules so it reinforces their pre-drawn conclusions. I can't believe I wasted my time listening to this guy. I'd be better off watching Amy Winehouse.

[3Haydens]

Oh, but YOU know better, Ralph? WHAT can't, or do you REFUSE to understand about "under the juridiction, thereof"? They are NOT!!!!!!! citizens except in the minds of anti Americans like Ralph Nelson.

[RalphNelson]

The only problem is that every Supreme Court decision that opined on the issue disagrees with you.

[3Haydens]

EVERY? How many is that, Ralph? Two? The 14th Amendment was for SLAVES who were under the jurisdiction. The TWO Supreme Court decisions he discusses were unique in their own right. The fact that NO illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of the US or ANY state is tantamount in the argument. Anchor baby citizenship WILL be revoked, and rightfully so. Thank God for true Americans like Dr. Eastman.

[RalphNelson]

Too bad the Supreme Court disagrees with you. Plyler vs. Doe found that illegal aliens were under the jurisdiction of the state in which they reside. You can disagree with the SCOTUS. But that won't change the facts.

[3Haydens]

Typical of the Liberal's attempt at spin, Ralph!!! The Constitution DOES say that ALL children, not ONLY citizens, be given an education. NO WHERE does it say they are citizens!!! Plyler vs Doe NOWHERE says the children, NOR their illegal parent's are under ANY jurisdiction, it just allows the illegal and/or anchor baby to get an education, NOT citizenship. They ONLY have children to get social services, IF education, already constitutionally mandated, was ALL they got, they'd take a pass.

[RalphNelson]

Plyler vs. Doe found that the illegal alien was under the jurisdiction of the state in which he resided. Don't like it? Tough.

[3Haydens]

NO it didn't, it guaranteed the CHILD an education and mandated the parent GET that child in school until a certain age. NOWHERE does it mention citizenship, period, Ralph. Just like Eastman is saying IF you have a child here you have to follow the laws of the land that is temporary or partial jurisdiction. NO illegal claims/owes ANY allegiance to the US. Ergo, NOT a citizen, NOR are their anchor babies. YOU are the one who dislike AMERICAN laws, Ralph.

[RalphNelson]

You're partially right. I guaranteed an education to the illegal child. And it doesn't mention citizenship. It did however find that the illegal child was under the jurisdiction of the state in which he resided.

And you're right. Immigrants, both legal and illegal, don't owe the US any allegiance. They're not required to wear socks either. Of course neither has nothing to do with citizenship or jurisdiction.

[3Haydens]

well...if you owe your allegiance to another country as ALL illegal aliens do, you are NOT a citizen of the USA, period. As such, you are NOT entitled to the rights of citizenship like social services. The constitution mandates that ALL children living in the US go to school, period, just like you have to obey traffic laws. THAT is not "under the jurisdiction, taking the oath of allegiance that all AMERICAN citizens take" that makes them citizens, as Eastman explains.

[RalphNelson]

One doesn't have to be a citizen nor owe allegiance to the US to be under its jurisdiction. Illegal aliens aren't citizens. Legal aliens aren't citizens. Visitors aren't citizens. Tourists aren't citizens. But they are under the jurisdiction of the US while they are here.

[3Haydens]

NOT citizens, that's the issue!!! Illegal aliens DEMAND that their anchor babies are citizens, so they can rip off ALL the social services possible.  Subject the jurisdiction thereof meaning subject, permanently, to the laws and rights of citizens of the USA. Can't have it both ways, like YOU and the illegal aliens want, Ralph. Not a citizen? NO BENEFITS!!

[RalphNelson]

Not a citizen no benefits. Right. I agree. Of course those born to parents who are under the jurisdiction of the US are citizens. And the Supreme Court found that illegal aliens are under the jurisdiction of the US while they are here. Anchor babies are citizens until the decision is reversed.

[legalatina]

Not so..Plyer was an equal protection case, not a 14th amendment case brought by MALDEF. The decision was not based on law it was an activist judge and this too, will be overturned.

[bill4justice2]

Yes, that makes perfect sense (sarcasm noted). Under current interpretation of the US Constitution, If a woman is on vacation in the US from a foreign country and gives birth, presto....the baby is US Citizen. Which is why a friend of mine from Taiwan told me that Taiwanese women come to the US to give birth to gain citizenship for their child, they then return to Taiwan. When the child is grown and ready to go to college..they don't have to deal with any Visa Issues. Great job Supreme Court!

[ddstatler]

No, Plyler vs. Doe stated that they were due a public education as a resident of the state.

[RalphNelson]

And the reason is because the child was under the state's jurisdiction