GOP Wants To Revisit Dred Scott

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Constitution
Posted on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 02:12:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The GOP continues to reveal itself:

Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told The Hill on Monday that Congress “ought to take a look at” changing the 14th Amendment[. . . .] McConnell’s statement signals growing support within the GOP for the controversial idea, which has also recently been touted by Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)In an interview, McConnell said the 14th Amendment provision should be reconsidered in light of the country’s immigration problem.

To refresh our memories, let's look at the first line of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is what Republicans are focused on now (they hate the whole thing of course):

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.

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in July 1868, by the Reconstruction Congress, and the line quoted above was intended to overturn the infamous Dred Scott decision which addressed this question:

Can a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves, become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen?

The Dred Scott Court answered that no, "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves" could not become citizens of the United States even though they were born in the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment overturned Dred Scott.

Today, the GOP wishes to revisit the question, reformulating the question as follows:

The question is simply this: Can a person whose ancestors were not in the country legally become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen?

The GOP would, like the Dred Scott court, answer in the negative. to wit, the GOP would have it that the status of the parents of a person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is determinative of whether someone born in the United States could be a citizen.

Now, in order to enact such a change, the GOP will have to use the mechanism created by Article V of the Constitution:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress [. . .]

To wit, two thirds of both the House and the Senate would have to approve this return to the rule of Dred Scott and then three fourths of the states (38 of 50) would have to vote in the affirmative for the adoption of the GOP's Dred Scott amendment. Seems unlikely to me. But when you are consumed with irrational hate, as the GOP has for Latinos (and of course other minorities), then this is what you do.

A revealing episode.

Speaking for me only

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | Reid On GOP Push To Return To Dred Scott >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

GOP Wants To Revisit Dred Scott | 99 comments (99 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Great Analogy (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by squeaky on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 10:22:26 AM EST

Both literal and implied comparison is right on. Very revealing episode, indeed.

Oh, well said! (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 10:23:16 AM EST

"The GOP would, like the Dred Scott court, answer in the negative. That the status of the parents is determinative of whether someone born in the United States could be a citizen."

I wonder if the Dems will be smart enough to add that to their talking points.

Anchor baby is a canard (5.00 / 3) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 11:33:56 AM EST

And there is no constitutional impediment at all.

You do not have to let the parents in and they can take their child out.

What there is is a POLITICAL impediment to the illegal immigrant movement because you do not want to be "anti-family."

Indeed, I see now that the GOP has chosen anti-Latino over "anti-family."

The anti-family argument is also a canard (none / 0) (#26)
by BTAL on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 11:47:34 AM EST

because it rests upon the citizenship claim of the child.

BTW, I didn't realize that only Latinos have babies in the US while in an undocumented status.


No one cares about (5.00 / 3) (#34)
by MKS on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 12:40:53 PM EST

the Irish or Canadians here illegally....

You would have to be blind to not see that it is the Latinos that causes all the reaction.


China, Philippines, India, Vietnam (none / 0) (#36)
by BTAL on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 12:56:58 PM EST

are the next four on the list after Mexico. Mexico has the obvious geographical benefit.

The top 10 countries make up ~53% of immigrants.


Nor do I see (5.00 / 1) (#51)
by MKS on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 01:39:19 PM EST

much concern in Arizona or elsewhere about too many Chinese, Phillipinos (probably lumped in with Latinos by many), Indians or Vietnamese.

No, no lynch mob trying to expel them.


: Ya, it is insidious that those who are against (none / 0) (#106)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:47:13 AM EST

illegal immigration focus on the group that makes up the vast majority of the illegal immigrants.

Will it be retroactive? (5.00 / 3) (#41)
by jeffinalabama on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 01:19:27 PM EST

How many folks came through Ellis Island without papers? I think My family came over, went through Canada, and then just moved to the US.

It's one thing to be conservative, the root there is to maintain a certain status quo. It's quite another to want to turn the clock back to those "glory days" from the 20s to the 60s when the US allowed almost no immigration, including turning away a ship of German Jewish refugees.

I hope this is the expressway to irrelevance for the current brand of the GOP.

Yup. I wonder about the Kyl, (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by ruffian on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 01:24:55 PM EST

Graham, and McConnell family trees.


: Yes, the Scots- Irishers (none / 0) (#76)
by Cream City on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 04:39:18 PM EST

often came to Canada first, including many of my forebears among the "famine Irish" -- as Canadians were incredibly generous to those turned away from the U.S. for reasons of poor health, poverty, etc. (That is, not everyone was welcome here, even then.)
I was reminded of this just a few days ago, when on the borderlands. We considered crossing the bridge to my ancestral homeland of Canada, which is easy to do from "the Soo" -- the city split by our winning the American Revolution (and not to the benefit of the part of the city on this side).
But then we looked at the looong lines of cars at the border station, awaiting entre back into the U.S. . . . and many in our group decided to just look longingly at lovely Canada across the locks.

Revisit Dred Scott (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by Boppa1 on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 03:05:44 PM EST

The author is right as far as he goes, the Congress and ratifying States wanted to overrule Dred Scott, but the intent was greater than Dred Scott. Review the debate on the 14th Amendment reveals discussions as to the Amendments effect on Chinese immigrants working on the railroad, which was a much bigger issue in the west than slavery. The debate then,as now,dealt with, in part, ethnic minorities being enticed into the country as cheap labor. The debate made clear that any person born in this country is an citizen. The lillputians of the Senate consider themselves smart and wiser than the giants that preceded them.

Jesus Christ (none / 0) (#3)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 10:25:48 AM EST

What's that one saying...then they fight you and then you win? I'd like to win but I may be too busy throwing up because the face of some "humanity" out there can make me that ill.

I do like to know what I'm dealing with though. It isn't as if I didn't know what was behind those smarmy toothy smiles and pudgy clutching sweaty handshakes. And it helps to see in detail what I'm up against....being stupid to some realities is only beneficial if you are extremely lucky. I'm not lucky. And now sick

A bit much (none / 0) (#4)
by BTAL on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 10:33:29 AM EST

But when you are consumed with irrational hate, as the GOP has for Latinos (and of course other minorities), then this is what you do.

Emotion overriding rational thought?

Referring to me? (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 10:38:36 AM EST

Well, I find it hard to believe you are not asking yourself the question why the GOP is doing this.

To placate their racist base? Why yes indeed I suppose.

But it strikes me as a incredibly stupid.

I wonder what Karl Rove thinks about this one.


As you noted the 14th was designed for a specific (1.00 / 1) (#15)
by BTAL on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 11:04:51 AM EST

post civil war issue. It correctly resolved that particular issue.

Now, it is being applied in an entirely different set of circumstances - immigration - which is not a racial issue. The use of race in the argument is a non sequitur.

The position regarding the 14th is that it will be the constitutional argument used to hinder any proper and just immigration reform.

Just for the record (have made mention of this before), Mrs. BTAL is a foreign citizen but went through the entire immigration process and has been a "registered alien" here for 27 years. Our daughter (my step-daughter) went through the same process then and became a US citizen just 3 weeks ago.


: Please be my guest (5.00 / 3) (#17)
by andgarden on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 11:09:54 AM EST

and go down that road. I am sure most Americans would agree that the 14th Amendment is totally inapplicable beyond Civil War concerns.

: Birthright citizenship (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by MKS on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 12:34:44 PM EST

goes back to Medievel England. The Fourteenth Amendment made sure that idea was extended to everyone, including former slaves.
The U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Wong (1898) describes the history of this concept well.

: Another false GOP talking point (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 01:17:21 PM EST

The issue of children of illegal immigrants was discussed at the time. In those days, it was Chinese laborers. There was the opportunity to restrict the citizenship to African slaves-- and it was conciously rejected.
Please go study your history instead of taking stenography from Sean Hannity.

: Not a textualist I see (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 11:16:17 AM EST

Anyway, how precisely do you see this? "The position regarding the 14th is that it will be the constitutional argument used to hinder any proper and just immigration reform." How does it do that exactly?

Rationality...which is a product (none / 0) (#6)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 10:43:57 AM EST

of humanity and subject to each individual verses just plain old humanity. This is not rational, actually believing that Dredd Scott isn't settled is racsim.


Yeah... (none / 0) (#7)
by kdog on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 10:46:39 AM EST

some are so down on the brown they wanna change the freakin' constitution to strip away citizenship rights.

Though I'm not sure if it is genuine hate emotions or just political ambitions overriding reason here.


: Which is more noble (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 10:51:03 AM EST

To express underlying racism for political ambition or to be a racist? And does it matter?

Not really. (none / 0) (#9)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 10:51:17 AM EST

The 14 does not extend citizenship to all born in the US, but born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It would seem that the children of visiting diplomats and transiting illegals can be considered subject or not subject as a matter of law rather than constitutional amendment.

Clearly the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was added to make birth alone insufficient for citizenship. Otherwise what purpose does that phrase serve?

regarding children of illegal immigrants (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by CST on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 10:56:19 AM EST

the court has already extended it to the children of those immigrants in this case:

"In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth."

and:

"Wong was a U.S. citizen, regardless of the fact that his parents were not U.S. citizens (and were, in fact, ineligible ever to become U.S. citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act). "

Emphasis mine.


a little more background (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by CST on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 10:58:29 AM EST

"In 1882, the Congress of the United States had enacted a law, known as the Chinese Exclusion Act, prohibiting persons of the Chinese race from coming into the United States or becoming naturalized U.S. citizens."

emphasis mine.

His parents were illegal immigrants.


: "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (none / 0) (#33)
by MKS on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 12:37:59 PM EST

is the Common Law concept going back to England.

Well (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by jbindc on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 11:08:19 AM EST

Even if someone is here illegally, they are still subject to the jurisdiction of our laws. We just had a case here in VA over the weekend - a man who is here illegally was in jail for multiple DUI's. He is awaiting deportation, but got out of jail. He then got drunk and had an accident (oh, by the way, he killed a 60+ year old nun). Think he can't be tried for vehicular homicide here? (a diplomat couldn't),


That really is the bottom line (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by MKS on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 12:46:16 PM EST

Is the person born where he or she is subject to the laws and susceptible to arrest if he or she does not comply?

Diplomats, no. Everyone else, yes.


Seems pretty basic to me. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by jbindc on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 01:08:15 PM EST

What would you say if the author of the 14th (none / 0) (#39)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 01:08:43 PM EST

disagreed with you?

Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.
I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion.
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.
This 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 persons.
It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.
This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]

You're begging the question (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by andgarden on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 01:24:12 PM EST

To begin with, you have to demonstrate what your quoted passage meant in 1866.

That presupposes that I care what he thought. Scalia wouldn't.


I think the definition of "aliens" (none / 0) (#48)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 01:32:06 PM EST

in 1866 was pretty clear. Which explains why you, apparently, don't care what the author of the 14th meant when he used the word...


This is an interesting exercise (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by andgarden on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 01:35:38 PM EST

but it is irrelevant. The meaning of the 14th Amendment in this context is well-settled, and in a way that comports with common sense.

But we can go as far down this road as you like. You can start by brining me evidence of what every member of Congress and state legislator who voted on the language thought it meant.


: I agree, it is an interesting exercise. (none / 0) (#54)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 01:45:55 PM EST

It has no bearing on the question, as the SUPREMES have made their decision. It is, however, interesting, to me to me, anyway, to read what Howard said/wrote back then.
I'm not at all interested in the silliness of your second paragraph...

By the way, do you realize (none / 0) (#50)
by andgarden on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 01:38:11 PM EST

that this is probably mostly a question of international law?

I'll leave it for you to figure out why.


Still (none / 0) (#52)
by lilburro on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 01:40:15 PM EST

the "director's cut" of the Amendment. Such language is not actually in the Constitution.


Additional explaination of terms used (none / 0) (#78)
by BTAL on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 04:44:01 PM EST

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

- Senator Edward Cowan from the time.

During the period of enactment, the US was effectively open immigration without limits. Hence, the concept of an illegal alien/immigrant was not in the scope being addressed by the 14th. It was a pure reconstruction amendment.


I would say he's incompetent (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by waldenpond on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 01:28:49 PM EST

He should have written a broader exception instead of an exception for diplomats alone. He may have tried to define it to be a declaration of his personal beliefs but it wasn't in actuality.


You clearly are not reading this correctly (5.00 / 2) (#55)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 01:50:29 PM EST

To wit - "This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."

Who would that NOT include? You seem to believe the following changes the above formulation:

"This 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 persons."

EXCLUDED are persons who are "foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States."

Obviously persons born in the United States who are not "foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." Why? Because they are not subject to the laws of the United States.

Is this stupidity doing the conservative chain circle? Because, honestly, it takes an idiot to not understand the point.


Dunno, I found it by googling (none / 0) (#57)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 01:55:04 PM EST

"and subject to their jurisdiction." You could do it too.


: Ok (none / 0) (#59)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 01:59:12 PM EST

At least one idiocy has been avoided.

Read Wong v. U.S. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by MKS on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 01:55:09 PM EST

In 1898, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with all these questions.....

The issue has been settled law for more than a hundred years that the U.S. follows English Common Law going back to at least the 1500s on this issue. You got one quote from one Senator that appears to mangle the concept. The Wong court disagreed.

Leave it to activist conservatives to overturn 500 hundred years of precedent because they see too many brown people and hear too much Spanish being spoken.


foreigners and/or aliens (5.00 / 5) (#69)
by Molly Pitcher on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 03:37:37 PM EST

Which read properly, says "...who are foreigners, (that is to say, aliens), who belong to the families of ambassadors...." In this sentence aliens is a parenthetical 'doubling' of the word 'foreigner.' There are not two sets of people (foreigners and aliens) who are exempt from birthright citizenship.

Please: "Aliens" should not refer to little green folks from Mars--nor to brown, black, or yellow folks from Mexico, China, or Africa, either. The only people exempted from birthright citizenship would appear to be children born to those temporarily assigned by foreign governments to work in the US.


: Well, absent bias, (none / 0) (#74)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 04:25:40 PM EST

I'm not sure the correct reading of what Howard said/wrote is not what I outlined in comment #64.

I would say (none / 0) (#43)
by jbindc on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 01:24:45 PM EST

Debate on the proposed Fourteenth Amendment opened in the Senate on May 23. Because Senator Fessenden was absent due to illness, Senator Jacob Howard represented the Joint Committee on Reconstruction by opening the debate and steering the Fourteenth Amendment through the Senate. On May 29, Howard moved to amend Section One by adding a citizenship clause to read, "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." In addition, the Senate Republican Caucus decided to strike the disfranchisement clause from Section Three, and Senator Howard presented a substitute with that omission, which was approved by the full Senate, 32-10, on May 31.

I'd say (none / 0) (#45)
by CST on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 01:25:37 PM EST

once again, for the umpteenth time, the supreme court has decided this case. Exactly this case.

Although if we want to argue semantics:

there is no "and" anywhere in that sentance. Meaning that the commas could just be used as descriptive terms for people born as foreigners who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.

Because if you are born here otherwise, you are not born as a foreigner or alien. In otherwords, it doesn't say born "to" foreigners, it says "persons born... who are foreigners".

Now I grant you, I doubt that's what he meant. But it could have been. We don't really know. In any event, aren't we all glad that the supreme court has already clarified this and we now know how it should be applied.


It would be the best reading (5.00 / 2) (#47)
by andgarden on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 01:29:43 PM EST

of the whole statement IMO. That is, if he really means that the point is to preserve common law.

But we don't need to revisit the issue: the Republicans have already conceded the debate by backing this amendment.


That is obviously what he meant (5.00 / 2) (#56)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 01:51:36 PM EST

How in Gawd's name is it possible to read it otherwise?

That would make the entire preceding paragraph a nullity.


: The same method is used (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by MKS on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 02:08:36 PM EST

more than once by conservatives....
A snippet here, a snippet there....

I agree with you, (none / 0) (#53)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 01:40:50 PM EST

in that I also doubt that's what he meant.

fwiw, indeed, the SUPREMES have made their decision about it, and I'm fine with it. They are not and should not be bound by what the author of the 14th intended.


Especially as (none / 0) (#61)
by jbindc on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 02:11:45 PM EST

The author amended it to what it says today.


well (none / 0) (#62)
by CST on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 02:19:31 PM EST

it is interesting that in the same paragraph in one case he uses "are" foreigners, aliens, and then immediately after uses "who belong to" ambassadors, etc...

It's possible that it could have been intentional.


You know, your comments are the most interesting (none / 0) (#64)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 02:28:40 PM EST

of the bunch, so far. What he intended by what he said (wrote?) is unclear.

This:

could, without bias, easily be shorthand for:

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, who are aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or who belong to foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States"


For lack of a following "and," (5.00 / 2) (#80)
by Peter G on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 04:52:34 PM EST

the commas around "aliens" indicate an apposition, not a series. In other words, the sentence: "This 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" means "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners (in other words, aliens) who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States." And in this plain-language reading, the phrase "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States" qualifies and limits the preceding reference to "foreigners" ( a term explained, so as to avoid any misunderstanding, as meaning "aliens" -- that is, foreigners who are citizens of another nation and do not owe allegiance to the U.S.).


Your opinion is noted. (none / 0) (#82)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 04:59:54 PM EST

And of course, in the land of right wing extremism (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by Peter G on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 08:06:55 PM EST

and Fox Newsery, refutation of a misleading suggestion, based on logic, evidence, or even (as here) the simple ability to read carefully and apply the rules of English syntax, is reduced to a matter of "opinion" -- like climate change, I suppose, or perhaps evolution -- in which one opinion is by definition as good as another. Dare I say that I disagree?


: Disagreement noted. (none / 0) (#100)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 11:56:38 PM EST

Moot- (none / 0) (#70)
by MKS on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 03:46:30 PM EST

Scalia tells you look no further than the text....

Wong settles it.....


Of course. Like I have said several time now. (none / 0) (#72)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 04:19:30 PM EST

Interesting nonetheless.


: So, to go into mootness, (none / 0) (#83)
by MKS on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 05:03:56 PM EST

the Wong case, iirc, explained that the French gave up birthright citizenship after the French Revolution--and frankly have been frenzied about all things French and not diluting same.
Before the Fourteenth Amendment and the Wong case, there were those who did not think the U.S. would adopt English Common Law on this point.....(but we did so on almost every other legal rule.)
The English formulation was "natural born subjects" and the U.S. wanted nothing to do with being "subjects".....

needless to say (none / 0) (#73)
by CST on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 04:24:33 PM EST

I did not read that literally at first either.


Heh (5.00 / 3) (#18)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 11:14:27 AM EST

Yes because if you are in the U.S., you are not subject to its jurisdiction. Riiight.

My friend, that references foreign ambassadors who in fact are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.


And depending on the circumstances, (5.00 / 3) (#20)
by andgarden on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 11:17:04 AM EST

american indians.


: Good point (none / 0) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 11:18:28 AM EST

Cool.. are you saying that my (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by observed on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 11:59:22 AM EST

illegal immigrant friends can sell dope and drive across your lawn at night with impunity, because they are not under the jurisdiction of US laws?


: Not at all (none / 0) (#31)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 12:05:17 PM EST

I am saying that the 14th contains an exception for born in the US. I am making no assertion as to the application of that exception, rather only noting that it exists.

How are they not? (none / 0) (#12)
by waldenpond on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 10:58:40 AM EST

I read the argument on the phrase and it seems weak. Could you show me how they are not subject to US jurisdiction? Only diplomats are not and I do not see how that extends to someone illegally in the country.


Legislation (none / 0) (#30)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 12:03:00 PM EST

Could you show me how they are not subject to US jurisdiction?

That would be a matter for Congress to resolve through legislation. In any case, the phrase is clearly intended to provide an exception.


Yes (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by jbindc on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 01:07:49 PM EST

To diplomats et al.


: Exactly (none / 0) (#101)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 08:49:06 AM EST

And it is 100% appropriate for Congress to define "et al"

I think it means... (none / 0) (#13)
by kdog on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 11:00:07 AM EST

if you're born here and subject to our laws, you're a US citizen.

That would leave out diplomats kids born here while on diplomatic assignment, and include the kids of the undocumented who are most definitelt subject to our laws...no? Though I suppose even a diplomats kid would have a case for citizenship if they wanted it.


Interesting point (none / 0) (#14)
by ruffian on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 11:01:31 AM EST

Is citizenship currently determined based upon whether ones parents are 'officially' migrant seasonal workers, analogous to diplomat status? I think some level of registration of seasonal workers was one of the provisions in the comprehensive immigration reform bush proposed. (maybe something like that already exists) I never thought about it in relation to citizenship rights.


I can think of (none / 0) (#27)
by CST on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 11:48:14 AM EST

a few people (commenters) who probably wouldn't be happy until there was a "Mexican Exclusion Act" to go along with fixing the "anchor baby" situation.

Honestly, these battles have been fought in this country a hundred times over already with every different immigrant group.

Guess it doesn't apply (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by jbindc on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 11:51:17 AM EST

To Cubans - a big voting blic for the R's


I know you're just (none / 0) (#104)
by Socraticsilence on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 10:32:35 AM EST

throwing up chaff, but- the 14th isn't the general path of Cuban-American citizenship- since the adoption of the dry-foot policy Cubans simply need to reach the US mainland to attain citizenship- then they're children as the children of US citizens would automatically attain citizenship at birth even in a pre- or post-14th environment.


: Kinda the point (none / 0) (#105)
by jbindc on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 11:16:07 AM EST

No, they don't reach citizenship just by making it to land, but their cases are expedited to apply for legal residency. Any children they bear while here ARE citizens because of the 14th amendment.
That was my point - they get special treatment and the R's back this and they (as a bloc) support Republicans,

drop and leave (none / 0) (#63)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 02:26:54 PM EST

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told Fox News' Greta Van Susteren last night that he plans to push a constitutional amendment to remove "birthright citizenship" for children of immigrants born in the U.S.:

"People come here to have babies," he said. "They come here to drop a child. It's called "drop and leave." To have a child in America, they cross the border, they go to the emergency room, have a child, and that child's automatically an American citizen. That shouldn't be the case. That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons."

: Wonder why Sen. Graham thinks (none / 0) (#67)
by oculus on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 03:12:46 PM EST

the parents leave?

Riiiight....... (none / 0) (#65)
by kmblue on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 02:58:42 PM EST

Graham KNOWS it's called "drop and leave" because he heard it from his gardener.

What a jerk--and I don't mean Graham's hired help.

Jerry Brown must be sleeping very (none / 0) (#68)
by oculus on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 03:23:57 PM EST

well these days. Bring it on!

Didn't the "dead enders" stay with him (5.00 / 1) (#96)
by andgarden on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 10:15:51 PM EST

right up to the end? It was something like 20%.

It's not surprising that a few have an obnoxious sticker like that.


: It does seem crazy (none / 0) (#102)
by jbindc on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 08:49:09 AM EST

That with the stars aligning for the Republican Party this fall, they are destined to detail themselves by letting theit crazies have the spotlight. I thought only Democrats did that!

Guess the GOP isn't planning (none / 0) (#71)
by Anne on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 03:58:51 PM EST

on revisiting sanity anytime soon...

And really, how seriously can we take Lindsay Graham now on immigration reform? Not too, I'm thinking.

Progressive talk show host (none / 0) (#75)
by brodie on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 04:30:49 PM EST

and author Thom Hartmann apparently takes Huckleberry Graham seriously.

Caught a portion of today's show where he said he was increasingly "coming over to the pov" of Graham.

Though he covered for this anti-immigrant stance for his liberal audience by suggesting a Dem trade-off: they accept the Graham amendment if the Rs accept an amendment making the 14th Am applicable only to "natural" persons.


What are "natural" persons? (none / 0) (#77)
by nycstray on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 04:41:19 PM EST

It's a jab at the Supreme Court's (5.00 / 1) (#81)
by Peter G on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 04:56:00 PM EST

campaign-spending decision, which is based on treating corporations as "persons" with constitutional rights, because, in statutory corporate law, they are treated as "artificial persons" that can sue, make contracts, etc.


Thanks :) (none / 0) (#86)
by nycstray on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 06:05:23 PM EST

Not to mention the SupCt (none / 0) (#88)
by brodie on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 06:17:35 PM EST

jurisprudence developed since 1886 and the controversial Santa Clara County v SoPac RR decision, which allegedly proclaimed corporations are persons for the purposes of the 14th Am.

Hartmann has written a book on this subject so was probably ultimately thinking of the 19th C decision, which he finds to be a major Court screw-up (or deliberate one, given the "track" record of the court reporter who wrote, or miswrote, the head notes which later got quoted uncritically) which has greatly favored the corporation ever since.


: Much better answer than mine, Brodie (none / 0) (#91)
by Peter G on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 07:45:52 PM EST

Yes, I'm sure your right. Hartmann was undoubtedly speaking ironically, with tongue in cheek, and subtly promoting his excellent book on this subject.

hmmm (none / 0) (#79)
by squeaky on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 04:46:25 PM EST

Somehow, I do not think it means crunchy granola types...


I seem to recall from reading interpretations (none / 0) (#84)
by jeffinalabama on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 05:30:25 PM EST

of English Common Law (For a class on the intellectual history of Europe I took more years ago than I care to say) that 'natural persons' were illegitimate children, not entitled to inherit titles.

I could be wrong, though.


What happens if the GOP (5.00 / 2) (#87)
by nycstray on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 06:06:52 PM EST

gets their way and a child is born to both a documented and undocumented parent?


What about C sections, also? (none / 0) (#89)
by jeffinalabama on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 06:30:28 PM EST

What if your surrogate was an illegal alien? (none / 0) (#90)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 06:55:02 PM EST

Or visa versa?


You'd have illegally employed two illegal aliens (none / 0) (#99)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 11:55:57 PM EST

and would be in double trouble?


Two wrongs make a right, :) (none / 0) (#103)
by republicratitarian on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 10:09:43 AM EST

: Are surrogates covered by H1B visas? (none / 0) (#107)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Aug 04, 2010 at 01:50:49 PM EST

From WiKi (none / 0) (#85)
by squeaky on Tue Aug 03, 2010 at 05:40:37 PM EST

Natural person
In jurisprudence, a natural person is a human being, as opposed to an artificial, legal or juristic person, i.e., an organization that the law treats for some purposes as if it were a person distinct from its members or owner.

For example, such legal provisions as Amendment XIX to the United States Constitution, which guarantees a woman's right to vote, or Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees equality rights, apply to natural persons only. In many cases fundamental human rights are implicitly granted only to natural persons; for example a corporation cannot hold public office, but it can file a lawsuit.
