I was glad to see your comment on this, professor. I think your analogy with the 2nd amendment captures the situation perfectly and should cause the major media sites to blush with embarrassment. Timothy Snyder's point on "Do not obey in advance" is obviously lost on many.
Seth, you know that I hold you in the highest regard, but you yourself know, you are no Johnathan Turley. The bases of The Presidents EO are the words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Our President is correctly pointing out that illegal aliens, being illegal aliens, are not citizens and therefore not subjects of the jurisdiction (The United States). Seems simple enough to anyone that reads it, the illegal aliens are subjects of what ever fourth world country they came from.
The Supreme Court has ruled directly and explicitly on whether "illegal immigrants" are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. In Wong Kim Ark v. United States in 1898, the Supreme Court explained that "the “real object” of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language was to exclude from its coverage exactly three classes of individuals: children of Native American tribes born on reservations “standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government;” “children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation” during wartime; and “children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State.” That was it. Otherwise, anyone born on U.S. soil was entitled to birthright citizenship regardless of how they got there or the immigration status of their parents—including Wong Kim Ark, who had been born in San Francisco in the 1870s to Chinese immigrant parents.
The Wong Kim Ark case is still valid. In 1982, the Supreme Court not only reaffirmed its holding, but made express what it had held implicitly—that the Citizenship Clause applies to children of undocumented immigrants, specifically. As the Court explained in Plyler v. Doe, “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” And three years later, the court was even more explicit. Referring to the married, undocumented immigrants at issue in that case, the court noted that they “had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of the country.”
There's a lot more, if you want to look it up. Trump and Turley (and the Claremont folks who've been hammering on this for a while) are hoping that the Supreme Court overrules these longstanding precedents. It might, but most likely it won't, and unless and until it does, children of "illegal immigrants" who are born in the US are US citizens.
Geoff, well stated as to the current legal interpretation. However being precedent is not carved in stone and as with Dred Scott and others an enlightened Supreme Court can reverse prior poor decisions, even those from the 1800’s.
You mean if a policeman stops them, or they receive a tax bill, or they are ordered to leave or sent to prison, they can just ignore it, since they aren't subject to U.S. jurisdiction? Hunh. Interesting.
No, because the first order of business will be that they are locked up and subsequently thrown out of the country. You yourself said “they are stoped by the police” should be the beginning the process of removal. That has been the problem the last four years, being illegal aliens the first order of business should be their removal and that has been sorely lacking.
"The last four years"? There were no "illegal immigrants" in the US when Trump left office? I had no idea.
Biden actually deported more people than Trump, by a considerable amount. Obama deported more people than Trump too. The number of people trying to cross the border is proportionate to the state of the US economy - when jobs are plentiful, a lot of people try to come here. In an expanding economy, more people try to cross, and more get detained or deported.
If you think we have "open borders" there are hundreds of thousands of deportees who'd beg to differ.
I was glad to see your comment on this, professor. I think your analogy with the 2nd amendment captures the situation perfectly and should cause the major media sites to blush with embarrassment. Timothy Snyder's point on "Do not obey in advance" is obviously lost on many.
Superb. And utterly depressing that legacy media has caved.
Seth, you know that I hold you in the highest regard, but you yourself know, you are no Johnathan Turley. The bases of The Presidents EO are the words “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Our President is correctly pointing out that illegal aliens, being illegal aliens, are not citizens and therefore not subjects of the jurisdiction (The United States). Seems simple enough to anyone that reads it, the illegal aliens are subjects of what ever fourth world country they came from.
The Supreme Court has ruled directly and explicitly on whether "illegal immigrants" are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US. In Wong Kim Ark v. United States in 1898, the Supreme Court explained that "the “real object” of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language was to exclude from its coverage exactly three classes of individuals: children of Native American tribes born on reservations “standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government;” “children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation” during wartime; and “children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State.” That was it. Otherwise, anyone born on U.S. soil was entitled to birthright citizenship regardless of how they got there or the immigration status of their parents—including Wong Kim Ark, who had been born in San Francisco in the 1870s to Chinese immigrant parents.
The Wong Kim Ark case is still valid. In 1982, the Supreme Court not only reaffirmed its holding, but made express what it had held implicitly—that the Citizenship Clause applies to children of undocumented immigrants, specifically. As the Court explained in Plyler v. Doe, “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” And three years later, the court was even more explicit. Referring to the married, undocumented immigrants at issue in that case, the court noted that they “had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of the country.”
There's a lot more, if you want to look it up. Trump and Turley (and the Claremont folks who've been hammering on this for a while) are hoping that the Supreme Court overrules these longstanding precedents. It might, but most likely it won't, and unless and until it does, children of "illegal immigrants" who are born in the US are US citizens.
Geoff, well stated as to the current legal interpretation. However being precedent is not carved in stone and as with Dred Scott and others an enlightened Supreme Court can reverse prior poor decisions, even those from the 1800’s.
The 14th Amendment was a direct refutation of Dred Scott, and understood to be so at the time.
You mean if a policeman stops them, or they receive a tax bill, or they are ordered to leave or sent to prison, they can just ignore it, since they aren't subject to U.S. jurisdiction? Hunh. Interesting.
No, because the first order of business will be that they are locked up and subsequently thrown out of the country. You yourself said “they are stoped by the police” should be the beginning the process of removal. That has been the problem the last four years, being illegal aliens the first order of business should be their removal and that has been sorely lacking.
The reason they would be arrested for breaking the law is that they would be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S.
"The last four years"? There were no "illegal immigrants" in the US when Trump left office? I had no idea.
Biden actually deported more people than Trump, by a considerable amount. Obama deported more people than Trump too. The number of people trying to cross the border is proportionate to the state of the US economy - when jobs are plentiful, a lot of people try to come here. In an expanding economy, more people try to cross, and more get detained or deported.
If you think we have "open borders" there are hundreds of thousands of deportees who'd beg to differ.
Crazy-making.