This Just In--Of the Hermit Kingdom and Hermits

North Korea is really mad at South Korea. It seems the South is using very large and loud speakers to blast stuff into the North. For once, I think the North has a point--if I had to hear Gangnam Style all day and all night, I'd go bonkers too.



Speaking of the Hermit Kingdom, they are also really mad about the joint military exercises going on involving the South and the USA. And the North has threatened retaliation. And it is pretty serious: We're talking the release of Dennis Rodman serious



Presidential candidate Bobby Jindal, LA governor, agrees with Donald Trump that people born in the USA of parents not citizens are also not citizens of the USA, the 14th Amendment notwithstanding. Jindal has done us all a service by reducing the number of candidates for President by one--because Jindal himself was born in the USA of parents not citizens. Not a citizen, can't be President. Thanks Bobby!



Back to hermits: UT AD Chris Hill thinks the media is to blame for stirring up a FB game between UT and BYU. Thanks goodness! Apparently when we just leave things to Hill we get Utah versus Weber State!

BoiseBYU wrote:
Presidential candidate Bobby Jindal, LA governor, agrees with Donald Trump that people born in the USA of parents not citizens are also not citizens of the USA, the 14th Amendment notwithstanding. Jindal has done us all a service by reducing the number of candidates for President by one--because Jindal himself was born in the USA of parents not citizens. Not a citizen, can't be President. Thanks Bobby!

The author of the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, during debate on the 14th Amendment assured his concerned fellow Senators that the 14th Amendment did not reach what we now term "anchor babies". He said, "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." Senators were concerned that the Amendment might be misconstrued from its intent (overruling Dred Scott decision and giving citizenship to previously non-citizen slaves and blacks) and be used to grant citizenship upon immigrants, legal or illegal, and upset the naturalization scheme already in place for them. The "subject to the jurisdiction" language meant something different then than it does in modern legalese--that clause was meant to actually exclude persons solely subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign country, i.e. "subjects" of foreign nations. Read properly, the 14th Amendment excludes "subjects" of foreign countries from birth-citizenship. It's not enough to be born here, you need to be born here and be a non-citizen. In fact, that original interpretation was applied up until the 1920s as to Native Americans--persons born within the US, but not its "subjects". Congress changed that with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.



People arguing for a flat "born-here = citizen-here" reading of the 14th Amendment make the mistake of applying the modern definition of "jurisdiction" to the citizenship clause and miss the intended, documented, and originally accepted meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction".



Not to say Trump would win on that point in today's Constitution-divorced Supreme Court, but he's actually on pretty dang solid ground here. His ground is far firmer than the ground 2nd and 1st Amendment opponents occupy.

Thanks Sno. Good thoughts and cites. I do think it fair to say that for at least 70+ years the jurisprudence contradicts Trump.



In 1939 the U.S. Supreme in Perkins v. Elg addressed a very similar issue. The Supreme Court said the citizen at issue was an American citizen by birth alone, quoting at length from an 1875 opinion by the U.S. Attorney General. That 1875 opinion was about a certain Arthur Steinkauler, who had been born in Missouri in 1855, a year after his father was naturalized a U.S. citizen. When he was four years old, though, the father returned to Germany with the boy and both had stayed there ever since. The father subsequently relinquished his American citizenship. When the boy turned 20, he was about to be drafted into the German army. The AG was asked by the SOS what the boy’s situation was. The US Attorney General stated (and what the Supreme Court quoted):



"Under the treaty [of 1868 with Germany], and in harmony with American doctrine, it is clear that Steinkauler the father abandoned his naturalization in America and became a German subject (his son being yet a minor), and that by virtue of German laws the son acquired German nationality. It is equally clear that the son, by birth, has American nationality, and hence he has two nationalities, one natural, the other acquired... Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of 21, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States .... I am of opinion that when he reaches the age of 21 years he can then elect whether he will return and take the nationality of his birth, with its duties and privileges, or retain the nationality acquired by the act of his father.

A few questions - and I am curious, if the intention of the writer(s), and the original Legislators that passed the 14th Amendment was - for anyone born within the jurisdictional boundary to be automatically a U.S. citizen - then -



1. Why are not the children of foreign ambassadors and diplomats who have children born on U.S. soil - to this day - are not U.S. citizens. Why is that?



2. The (though the 14th Amendment had 5 numerical parts, or paragraphs) first paragraph is the one that generates all the controversy. The controversial part reads:



"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ...."



Why did it simply not read:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, are citizens of the United States..."



Why did the original author include "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? That is the crux of the entire 14th Amendment controversy.



So, again, why are not the children of foreign Ambassadors and diplomats born in the USA not U.S. citizens? They never have been - and still are not - given U.S. citizenship. Why?

Ddawg wrote:
A few questions - and I am curious, if the intention of the writer(s), and the original Legislators that passed the 14th Amendment was - for anyone born within the jurisdictional boundary to be automatically a U.S. citizen - then -



1. Why are not the children of foreign ambassadors and diplomats who have children born on U.S. soil - to this day - are not U.S. citizens. Why is that?



2. The (though the 14th Amendment had 5 numerical parts, or paragraphs) first paragraph is the one that generates all the controversy. The controversial part reads:



"1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ...."



Why did it simply not read:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, are citizens of the United States..."



Why did the original author include "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? That is the crux of the entire 14th Amendment controversy.



So, again, why are not the children of foreign Ambassadors and diplomats born in the USA not U.S. citizens? They never have been - and still are not - given U.S. citizenship. Why?

Those are good questions. I am no expert but tried to do a little reading over the weekend. What I came up with is that the Supreme Court in an 1890's case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, said that the Fourteenth Amendment affirmed the traditional "jus soli" (or birthright citizenship) rule, but included exceptions for children born to foreign diplomats, and to hostile occupying forces or on foreign public ships. The Court added a new exception for children of Indians because they thought they owed their direct allegiance to their tribes. (Congress changed that some 20 or 30 years later, bestowing citizenship on Native Americans) The Court further held that the "Fourteenth Amendment ... 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" and that it is "throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to allay doubts and settle controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship."

The clause in the 14th A we've been discussing was put in to overrule the Dred Scott decision that held that slaves and their children (even of freed slaves) were not US citizens.



If this is in error I hope someone will correct, but it seems that the answer to your Q is that it is because of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 14th A some 100+ years ago. So if people do not like that, they will either have to amend the 14th A OR persuade the Supreme Court to overrule that case.

Thx Boise - and your post is exactly the point. The babies of foreign diplomats and ambassadors who have children on U.S. soil are NOT granted U.S. citizenship because their parents are still subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power, and so are their children. That's where their loyalties are.



So, an Asian on a baby vacation (from China, S. Korea, Japan, etc.), or a Hispanic gets into the U.S. 2 weeks before they deliver. Once the baby is born, those mothers are still citizens of a foreign country - and how can you, as a newborn baby, declare which country you are loyal to? You cannot. So our Supreme Court assumes that foreign newborn will be loyal to the U.S.? It's crazy thinking. The SCOTUS has made bad decisions before - and will again.



Yes, the 14th Amendment was written to correct the horrible decision in the Dred Scott case (1857) - it is the Citizenship Clause and it is broad. It was not written to confer U.S. citizenship of a flood of illegal immigrants sneaking into the U.S. to circumvent our immigration laws. The Congress that wrote and passed the 14th Amendment had no idea we would be invaded by 100,000's of illegal immigrants - and now millions of illegal immigrants living within our borders and taking advantage of a broad clause that was never intended to address the current situation. It's not Ok. It's a loophole in our system. It does need to be addressed and corrected - not ignored.