From Newsgroup: rec.arts.tv
On Nov 25, 2025 at 1:30:46 AM PST, "Ubiquitous" <
weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
lcraver@home.ca wrote:
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
In article <10fan9f$3nopl$1@dont-email.me>, ahk@chinet.com wrote:
Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
Not just detaining, some citizens have been deported.
We've heard of deported mothers taking their American-born children with >>>> them. Obviously there were aliens with papers sent out of the country.
Their children aren't Americans. You really need to stop repeating that lie.
[Kerman's incorrect formatting fixed.]
On what grounds does a US-born baby get denied citizenship?
Babies born on US soil with foreign parents do not get citizenship.
People who claim they do are misinterperetting an amendment which
was created to keep Democrats from denying former slaves their citizenship.
I agree it's a bad law (so far as I know the ONLY US-born kids who
don't are the children of foreign diplomats) but the US is the best
known "birthright citizenship" though there was an item in our local
paper (in Canada) about a child born at 35000 feet in a jetliner that
was overflying Canada (but had not originated or landed at a Canadian
airport.
I have an explaination better than I cana rticulate somewhere.
I'm not much of a fan of accomplishing the goal of ending the insanity of birthright citizenship via 'interpretation'-- amending the Constituent
directly to eliminate it is a much better way to go-- but there is precedent for such a position:
Even if one believes that United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.
649 (1898) was rightly decided, thereby creating a definitive floor
for citizenship within the Constitution, outside Congress'
regulatory power, for kids born to all immigrants, there is no way
that can apply to people who come here without the legal consent of
the nation.
It's absurd to assert that people who are supposed to be off our
soil can, strictly by trespassing on it, achieve the ultimate
benefit of citizenship for their kids.
The 14th Amendment stipulates two requirements for birthright
citizenship: that the individual be born "in the United States and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Let's put aside the debate
over what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. Nobody can
unilaterally assert jurisdiction against the collective will of the
nation. But even if the 14th Amendment didn't contain the second
condition and only stipulated that the child must be "born in the
United States", it is beyond settled law that if you are here
without consent, it is quite literally as if you are not present in
this country. This concept should not only shut down the phony
birthright citizenship debate once and for all, but end this notion
that illegals can come here and demand other benefits or standing in
court for specific status against the will of the political branches
of government simply because they successfully landed on our soil.
No foreigner or foreign entity can control the destiny of our nation
and force upon us prospectively an outcome for citizenship, judicial
standing, or any other benefit against the will of the president or
Congress. It's obvious that a country can never be forced to issue
citizenship against its will, for if that were the case, it would
cease to be a sovereign country "free from external control", as the
term is defined by Webster's dictionary.
Nobody can dispute that a president has the power to keep out anyone
seeking entry for any reason. As Justice Thomas wrote in his
concurrence in Trump v. Hawaii, "Section 1182(f) does not set forth
any judicially enforceable limits that constrain the president. Nor
could it, since the president has inherent authority to exclude
aliens from the country."
Yet I've been asked what happens if, after we close the points of
entry, a caravan sneaks onto our soil between the points of entry.
The answer is simple, because nothing trumps sovereignty. Therefore,
for anyone who breaks into our country without consent or overstays
the terms of his or her entry, it's as if they are physically not
present on our soil. Constitutional rights on our soil, much less
the ultimate prize of citizenship, only apply if you come here with
consent. That is deeply rooted in social compact theory and settled
law. As the Court said long ago in United States v. Ju Toy, 198 U.S. 253
(1905), "a person who comes to the country illegally is to be regarded
as if he had stopped at the limit of its jurisdiction, although physically
he may be within its boundaries".
Already as far back as the 1950s, the Supreme Court had already
said, "For over a half century this Court has held that the
detention of an alien in custody pending determination of his
admissibility does not legally constitute an entry though the alien
is physically within the United States." [Leng May Ma v. Barber,
357 U.S. 185 (1958)]
In the notorious Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) case, the
court reiterated that any alien "paroled into the United States
pending admissibility" without having "gained [a] foothold" has
"not effected an entry".
The most important case that sheds light on this debate is Kaplan v.
Tod, 267 U.S. 228 (1925), when the court denied citizenship and
relief from deportation to the daughter of a naturalized citizen
who emigrated from Russia.
On July 20, 1914, the Kaplan family came to Ellis Island to
reunite with the father of the family, who had been working
in the country for a few years. The 13-year-old daughter was
deemed inadmissible for being "feeble minded", but because
of the outbreak of World War I, her deportation was delayed.
She was handed over to the custody of the Hebrew Aid Society,
which had her live together with her father until she was
ordered deported in 1923.
In the meantime, the father had become a citizen three years
earlier, and asserted that because his daughter was under 21
at the time of his naturalization and was living in the United
States, she should be automatically granted citizenship
alongside him, pursuant to long-standing law. But in a
unanimous and terse decision, the Court swatted down the
petition:
"Naturalization of parents affects minor children only
if dwelling in the United States'. The appellant could
not lawfully have landed in the United States in view
of the express prohibition of the Act of 1910 just
referred to, and until she legally landed 'could not
have dwelt within the United States.'"
The Court backhandedly rejected the notion that she "dwelt within
the United States" even though she physically lived with her father
for nine years on American soil, partly with temporary permission
from the government. That is because "she was still in theory of law
at the boundary line, and had gained no legal foothold in the United
States" and had never "been dwelling in the United States within the
meaning of the Act". Now stop for a moment and compare the language
of the naturalization statute for those immigrant children seeking
naturalization together with their parents to the wording of the
14th Amendment governing those born here.
The 14th Amendment requires that the child be born here and "subject
to the jurisdiction thereof". It is indisputable that even according
to those opinions in which jurisdiction means territorial
jurisdiction and not political jurisdiction (absurdly rendering the
phrase superfluous), the language of "subject to the jurisdiction"
is certainly more restrictive than the purely geographical and
literal phrase "dwelling in the United States". After all, everyone
concedes that Indian tribes and children born to foreign diplomats
were excluded by this phrase, even though they are physically born
on our soil.
Yet, the Court ruled in 1925, based on uncontested precedent, that
those living here unlawfully don't even satisfy the meaning and
intent of "dwelling in the United States"-- even in a case where
they were granted temporary permission to live here on humanitarian
grounds. It is therefore simply preposterous to assert that those
who willfully violated our laws and snuck into the country without
permission can secure jurisdiction for their children against the
consent of the nation. As the Left would say, it's "settled law"
that illegal immigrants are considered "at the boundary line and
have gained no legal foothold in the United States", irrespective of
where they reside now.
The reality is that there was never a formal decision, much less a
piece of legislation or a court case, mandating automatic
citizenship for people who break into our country. Wong Kim Ark was
about those invited in on immigrant visas. Justice Horace Gray, the
author of Wong, referred to "domiciled" immigrants on twelve
occasions in the case. Those promoting citizenship for illegals
conveniently ignore his opinion six years earlier in Nishimura Ekiu
v. United States, 142 U.S. 651 (1892), which clearly held that an
alien not legally domiciled in this country is legally as if he is
standing outside our soil as it relates to even due process rights,
much less the right to assert jurisdiction on behalf of his child.
Bottom line, it would not be that radical of an interpretation for the Court
to rule that the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship clause does not apply to illegals. There seems to be substantial SCOTUS precedent for that
position.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2