Your Monday Morning Tea: Birthright Citizenship a two sided debate

[FCTP]

INTRODUCING MORNING TEA

"When you look at the world today,
What is your point of view?"

(Visit www.fctpcommunity.org for more details)

From My Point of View

Birthright Citizenship

YES – NO- and - WHY - OR - WHY NOT?

You have heard yes, you have no - Here are both sides of the debate

You decide

Credits:

Breitbart.com

The National Review

NBC News.com

Mark Levin

The Blaze

Wikipedia

Maggie’s Notebook

The Americanthinker

Let’s start with the 14^th Amendment.

Note Section 1 and Section 5

SECTION. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

SECTION. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

SECTION. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

SECTION. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

SECTION. 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Going back to the beginning

AND ONE SIDE OF THIS DEBATE

To not be overwhelmed by all the information below, please listen to Mark Levin as he so eloquently explains the 14^th Amendment,some history and birthright citizenship.

http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-congress-can-end-birthright-cit...

 Levin also points out:

URL: http://wp.me/p4yNKg-4Hx

Mark Levin spoke on birthright citizenship, injecting some history and information that make the intent of the actual author of the clause in question as well as the founders indisputable.

In May of 1866, Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan authored and described the intent of the provision which excludes foreigners and aliens, as well as diplomats and their families, in Howard’s own words. The Howard evidence against birthright citizenship was something Levin went into very specific detail earlier on his radio program.

He explains that the misinterpretation is not that at all, but a misrepresentation by people who are result oriented, who want to insist that the Constitution says something that it does not.

He also points out that the Supreme Court has never ruled that anchor babies are citizens and that even if it had, they can’t override the Constitution.

Levin points to Article one, section eight, clause four of the Constitution which states, “The Congress shall have power to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” He notes further evidence based upon that clause from the original exclusion of American Indians from citizenship and the subsequent reversal roughly sixty years later.

He notes that the power already exists for Congress to put the regime and the illegals in this nation on notice that no longer will they be awarded citizenship by virtue of having successfully slipped into this country and the manipulation of our laws and system of government. If there are a sufficient number of people who favor open borders, it is incumbent upon them to change the Constitution by amendment. It already supports the position that anchor babies are nothing more than illegal alien

I found these two articles to be of significant interest: From the National Review/New York Times and the Americanthinker

"In an article in the New York Times for August 24 explaining the original intent of the members of the Congress who drafted the 14th Amendment, John Eastman, the former dean at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law, focused on often-overlooked words of the amendment,  “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Eastman noted that the drafters of the clause modeled it on the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which grants citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.”

Chapman noted that Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the language of the clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be interpreted in the same way as the requirement of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which afforded citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.”

Since illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the country from which they emigrated, their children — whether born in the United States or elsewhere — would also be subject to that jurisdiction, just as the children of U.S. military members born overseas are still U.S. citizens subject to the authority of the United States. 

As Chapman wisely concludes:

The misunderstood policy of birthright citizenship provides a powerful magnet for people to violate our immigration laws and undermines the plenary power over naturalization that the Constitution explicitly gives to Congress. It is long past time to clarify that the 14th Amendment does not grant U.S. citizenship to the children of anyone just because they can manage to give birth on U.S. soil."

The Americanthinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/an_objective_guide_...

Except: ("Although some claim that merely being born in the U.S. makes one a citizen, neither the Constitution nor the Supreme Court supports that view.  The Fourteenth Amendment further specifies that one must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.  The critical question is whether the child of a resident illegal alien meets that requirement.")

FROM THE BLAZE: ( Continues the discussion of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”)

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/constitution-revolution-was-d...

 NOW FOR THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DEBATE

The other side says that Birthright citizenship was solved in 1898

NBC Article and the 14^th Amendment

Read the full story here

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/case-heart-birthright-cit...

Birthright citizenship has been considered "settled law" since March 28, 1898, said John Trasvina, the Dean of the University of San Francisco Law School in an interview with NBC News.

And it was all due to Wong Kim Ark, a Chinese American born in San Francisco in 1873.

In August of 1895, Wong was 22 and returning home to San Francisco after a visit to China, according to court records. But it was also an era when anti-Chinese sentiment was high, with the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1886, and its renewal in 1892.

When Wong was refused re-entry to America, it set up his legal battle that went all the way to the Supreme Court. In 1898, the High Court affirmed Wong's right that has continued to define citizenship birthright for 117 years.

The U.S. Supreme Court noted that the nation's founders adopted Anglo American law which itself dated back to 1608 to interpret the meaning of the 14th Amendment -- if you are born here, you are a United States citizen," said Trasvina.

He notes that the legal avenue to challenging and amending the Constitution would be "lengthy, divisive, and not likely to be successful."

OUTSTANDING ARTICLE.

http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2015/08/birthright-not-the-law-never...

The drastic economic costs of 'birthright' citizenship

Just a couple FACTS:

An August 2010 analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau’s March 2009 Current Population Survey by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center, noted:

Unauthorized immigrants comprise slightly more than 4% of the adult population of the U.S., but because they are relatively young and have high birthrates, their children make up a much larger share of both the newborn population (8%) and the child population (7% of those younger than age 18) in this country.

The … analysis finds that nearly four-in-five (79%) of the 5.1 million children (younger than age 18) of unauthorized immigrants were born in this country and therefore are U.S. citizens. In total, 4 million U.S.-born children of unauthorized immigrant parents resided in this country in 2009, alongside 1.1 million foreign-born children of unauthorized immigrant parents.

As The National Review writes

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422921/birthright-citizenship...

As The American Thinker writes:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/08/the_drastic_economic_co...

When you look at our world today what is "Your point of view?" If you would like to have your blog posted and shared for discussion please write it up and send it to us at [e-mail]

For future reference this information is available on the main page of the website at:
www.fctpcommunity.org

YOU DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE A FACEBOOK PAGE TO VIEW YOUR FCTP PAGE.

CLICK THE LINK BELOW OR CLICK ON THE "F" LINK UNDER HELPFUL LINKS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOME PAGE.

Visit us on your Facebook page for daily news and general information:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/First-Coast-Tea-Party-Inc/1174774949..

“If a policy is wrongheaded feckless and corrupt I take it personally and consider it a moral obligation to sound off and not shut up until it's fixed.”
― David H. Hackworth

[Carole McManus]

What an in depth study on this issue.  One to digest and understand as our country is being transformed right before our eyes.  Thank you for gathering this data and bringing it all together with focus.