whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:Sam Lowry said:whiterock said:
your ability to just make things up to fit your case is indeed amusing. Here's the INA section on acquistion/transmission of citizenship:
Chapter 3 - U.S. Citizens at Birth (INA 301 and 309)
A. General Requirements for Acquisition of Citizenship at Birth
A person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a U.S. citizen at birth, to include a child born to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
That definition of that phrase in bold has NOT been ruled upon by SCOTUS.
Neither is it further delineated in that section of the INA.
Trump is going to force the court to define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It is hardly unreasonable to believe that the phrase has no meaning if it includes everyone who happens to be standing within the physical boundaries of US borders (regardless of their citizenship status in another country).
Just make things up is what you're hoping the Court will do. What you're trying to say is that they have never held on the issue. I doubt they've ever held that Christianity is a religion within the meaning of the First Amendment, either, but they have always made decisions on that basis. Those decisions are part of the law.
Congress didn't need to define every term in the statute. They understood jurisdiction according to its ordinary public meaning at the time, which was that children born to illegal immigrants were under US jurisdiction. We know this because those children had been recognized as citizens for nearly a quarter-century (ever since Congress passed the Undesirable Aliens Act and created unlawful immigrant status as we know it) before the INA was passed.
As for citizenship status in another country, Wong Kim Ark addressed that directly. "Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."
..because they were here LEGALLY. Wong Kim Ark did NOT address the US born children of illegal aliens.....per classroom instruction given by that bastion of the MAGA movement known as the US Department of State.
Now, if I had to bet $20, I would plunk it down on the square that says "Trump loses this case." But I suspect you will not see them base it on the reasoning you use. I suspect they will cite decades of bureaucratic tradition as de facto law. (which will allow Congress to address the issue via statute).
Because they were here, period. That is the essence of jurisdiction.
Congress cannot take away what the Constitution provides. See again Wong Kim Ark: The power of naturalization, vested in Congress by the Constitution, is a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away. "A naturalized citizen," said Chief Justice Marshall,
"becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the National Legislature is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue."
Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827. Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the Constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of Congress, a fortiori no act or omission of Congress, as to providing for the naturalization of parents or children of a particular race, can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the Constitution itself, without any aid of legislation. The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.
If that were the true, it would not be legal for ICE to deny entry to an arriving visitor and put them on the next plane home. We would have to admit them, incarcerate them, then deport them...."because they are here." We don't do that because they are not under the jurisdiction of the USA until an official of the USG puts and arrival stamp in their passport.
And the word "naturalized" does not mean what your argument imputes. A person who acquires citizenship at birth is a "natural born" US citizen (born in the jurisdiction of USA). The term "naturalized" applies to a citizen of another country who satisfied statutory requirements to become a US citizen. (again, a simple concept straight from USG training on consular affairs).
Arriving visitors are not here, as a matter of law. Illegal immigrants are here, albeit unlawfully. I suspect you're conflating the two, but they are different and distinct concepts.
The argument isn't really about naturalized citizens. It's about birthright citizens, to whom the same reasoning applies a fortiori:
Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the Constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of Congress, a fortiori no act or omission of Congress, as to providing for the naturalization of parents or children of a particular race, can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the Constitution itself, without any aid of legislation. The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.