tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post1185030195511828741..comments2024-03-25T13:42:25.771-05:00Comments on Advance Indianaâ„¢: Fox 59 News Explores Instant Citizenship--A New Class Of Natural Born CitizensGary R. Welshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-37204310257318909942012-02-23T12:01:38.093-05:002012-02-23T12:01:38.093-05:00I think it's reasonable to argue "lawful&...I think it's reasonable to argue "lawful" versus "unlawful presence" in terms of the language's reach. An alien consents to jurisdiction of the U.S. when he or she applies for lawful entry into the U.S. and agrees to enter subject to the laws governing their approved entry. You also should distinguish between those admitted lawfully for permanent resident purposes as opposed to those admitted temporarily. I thought they use to screen pregnant women applying for travel visas abroad and denied them tourist visas at one point to prevent this very thing from happening, unless they were traveling here to receive a specialized medical care needed for the delivery of their child due to complications that was not available in their country.Gary R. Welshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-79521109032880585062012-02-23T11:17:15.400-05:002012-02-23T11:17:15.400-05:00Great post and thanks for the response.
I appreci...Great post and thanks for the response.<br /><br />I appreciate the idea, but I have no idea how a "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" limits here. If an "anchor baby" is born to a mother under the influence of drugs, is anyone going to argue that the U.S. has no jurisdiction to prevent the baby's going home with potentially unfit parents?<br /><br />The only people I can think of that are not subject to U.S. laws when in the U.S. are foreign diplomats (diplomatic immunity). Is that a possible interpretation of the "subject to" phrase? It seems silly to me, but I really have no idea. <br /><br />Do we have any information regarding the thoughts of the framers of the 14th Amendment regarding the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase? That would be meaningful and potentially dispositive.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12365201409903003274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-20138935863478981712012-02-23T10:47:07.687-05:002012-02-23T10:47:07.687-05:00I should add that in many countries that child cou...I should add that in many countries that child could not be considered a citizen of his parent's country unless the child gave up citizenship claim in another country.Gary R. Welshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-43481782981135312332012-02-23T10:45:38.970-05:002012-02-23T10:45:38.970-05:00The 14th Amendment requires that you not only be b...The 14th Amendment requires that you not only be born within the U.S. but also be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It's those words that have never been fully explored by the Supreme Court, which I assume is why Scalia used the words "presumed American citizen" to describe Hamdi. If aliens simply come here to give birth to their children and then return to their country of citizenship, it's hard to argue their child is someone over whom the U.S. has jurisdiction. The Wong Kim Ark decision didn't decide that question as some might suggest for illegal aliens or persons only temporarily visiting the U.S. The parents in the Wong Kim Ark case were both lawful permanent residents when their child was born in the U.S.Gary R. Welshhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-55836982515351956982012-02-23T10:21:23.493-05:002012-02-23T10:21:23.493-05:00There appears to be some good reasons to modify th...There appears to be some good reasons to modify the 14th Amendment. That being said, the 14th amendment seems pretty clear on this. As someone who believes in strict construction whenever possible, any modification of the 14th amendment should probably come through the Amendment process, not the Supreme Court, yes?Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12365201409903003274noreply@blogger.com