Due to the unfortunate wording and lack of foresight on behalf of the Texas Legislator's who drafted the bill; the right to challenge the citizenship status of children born to illegal parents will most likely be denied in Court when this bill is inevitably challenged. One simple sentence added to the text of this bill could have, and can still, save it from certain doom.
The 14th Amendment does indeed state that all persons born in the United States are citizens, however it also stipulates those persons must be under the jurisdiction of the United States as well. In order to pass this bill and have it stand up to a Constitutional challenge, the legislature would need to amend it to include a clause which challenges the United States jurisdiction over the child. Granted, I am not a lawyer (nor even a college graduate), however from my experience reading Supreme Court ruling, I believe this to be true.
By challenging the United States jurisdiction over the child Texas could have a winnable case which would pave the way for other states to institute similar legislation which is sorely needed in this Country. There is sufficient case law to use as precedent in my opinion for this to be done.
In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) the decision quotes the Slaughterhouse cases:
Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, made this remark:The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States. (emphasis mine)
Aside from the above referenced exemptions, there are also exemptions for "Indians not taxed". I don't believe it would be very difficult to convince a panel of judges that an illegal alien who is not taxed should fall under the same criteria as an American Indian who is not taxed with regards to citizenship.
Win lose or draw, I applaud the legislature for proposing such a bill. It is nice to see a local Government do what is best for its citizens rather than caving to the politically correct crowd. If only our Federal Government would do the same.
Article comments
1 - Clavos
I believe there is a flaw in your thinking in that anyone resident in the United States is subject to its jurisdiction.
There are some exceptions, e.g.: foreign embassies, the UN building, some (but not all) Indian reservations, to name a few; but by and large, everyone else IS under US jurisdiction simply by being here, even illegally.
2 - STM
I bet they'll never introduce a Bill to challenge the Second Amendment ...
3 - Whiteboy Yankee Redneck (living in Europe)
I believe the 14th amendment should be repealed for many reasons, but I'm not so sure that denial of benefits is one of them.
Some are there by choice, but many are there resulting from lack of equal treatment. Are there not many non-illegals freeloading on the system? The solution is to turn them into happy taxpayers. I concede, there could be some conversion effect coming out of this type of legislation, but that avenue truly needs to exist.
For me, common sense dictates that if fair wages are paid to those that are working hard, there would be more money in the hands of people more likely to spend it rather than "invest" it. There will always be people who waste more energy into avoiding work than just doing the job, regardless of their nationality.
So immigration policy is very sensitive. I am not writing to judge the ends of this challenge, but rather to defend the right of the "State" to decide. France is a state. Germany is a state. So is Italy. Texas: Is a State? It certainly *was*
The 14th amendment is a good example of what can happen if lawyers are making the laws. It is obvious that this ammendmend's purpose was to consolidate, for themselves, a wider power over autonomous states. It "optionally" made us US citizens (by participation in social security, for example), instead of citizens of our home state, i.e., They turned most Americans into US citizens, with downright sneaky and dreadfully shameless legislation.
It's challenge (14th amendment)is absolutely necessary for each *State* to have the self-government that _Our_Founding_Forefathers_ had intended. Back then, the United States of America had an entirely different meaning. Each state deserves the power to decide it's own affairs, as it once was. The people deserve a government that is fair and just for all.
Closing remark: There are two kinds of people in the world; Texans, and those that wish they were Texans. I'll be the first in line for a Texas Passport.
4 - W.Y.R
Clarification. I know Social Security didn't exist then, rather is a modern-day catchall to legally make Americans "US" citizens by participation in federal programs.
The 14th amendment was, arguably, not legally ratified. The holdouts were strong-armed (actually, deposed may be the more appropriate term).
5 - Michael J. West
W.Y.R. - Another clarification.
Nobody, including the author of this piece, is suggesting the repeal of the 14th Amendment, which will never happen anyway. You seem to imply that Mr. Signorile is rooting for its repeal, but as far as I can tell, he is doing nothing of the kind.
6 - White Yankee Redneck
Greetings
Maybe I fumbled, due to the stress I undure when "the 14th" surfaces in any conversation. I reacted to the issue, and not the original post. I'm new to this blogging experience.
The phrase to be reckoned with is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", meaning the US.
The _United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)_ case, the parents were lawfully in the country, so the case did not explicitly decide whether children born to illegals were under the jurisdiction of the US, but did clearly state that children born to aliens who are --lawfully-- inside the United States are.
In _Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)_ (decided together with _Texas v. Certain Named and Unnamed Alien Children_), it was decreed (in footnote #10): "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"
We would still have "due process" without the 14th amendment. The 14th Amendment was the death of the original Constitutional Republic and the birth of a new form of government. An illegal form of government. Illegal jurisdiction, which is the core issue.
Total repeal of the 14th (even though it is illegal) is not really necessary. The 14th created US citizens, which did not previously exist. It would suffice only to dump the cited citizenship clause that begins Mr. Signorile's piece.
The removal or modification of this single clause would have a MUCH wider impact than just the eligibility of "anchor-babies" for public benefits.
7 - STM
"There are two kinds of people in the world; Texans, and those that wish they were Texans."
Lol. That should read Australians, not Texans. Get it right, White Yankee Redneck.
8 - White Yankee Redneck
"There are two kinds of people in the world; Texans, and those that wish they were Texans."
"Lol. That should read Australians, not Texans. Get it right, White Yankee Redneck."
Exactly! Though, I woke up the other day thinking it would be really cool to be Swedish.
That was a bit of lol satire aimed at those who actually believe they are above others. Immigrants, even illegal ones, are vital to the current and future economy. We are ALL equal, which comes from a higher law than that made by congress.
But again, I reiterate that I may disagree with the *apparent* motives of the proposed bill, I still contend that it is (under the 14th, *was*) fully within each state's right to decide these issues. Texas does this, Utah does that, California does both... it will all work out in the wash.
Consider this: I would only want to become a Texan, in order to burn my US passport. Texas probably wouldn't have me, though. Their loss.
9 - Michael J. West
One other thing, WYR, to return to your earlier post.
It's challenge (14th amendment)is absolutely necessary for each *State* to have the self-government that _Our_Founding_Forefathers_ had intended. Back then, the United States of America had an entirely different meaning. Each state deserves the power to decide it's own affairs, as it once was. The people deserve a government that is fair and just for all.
Now you seem to be pretty familiar with the history of the 14th Amendment, so you no doubt know that a large part of the reason behind it was responding to the Black Codes that were intended to make life for blacks in the Southern states "as near to slavery as possible." In other words, it was introduced precisely because state governments in the south REFUSED to be fair and just for all.
You don't have to like the Fourteenth Amendment or its ratification process (or lack thereof), but let's not pretend that it's what stands in the way of government being "fair and just for all." If government had been "fair and just for all" in the first place, the 14th Amendment wouldn't even have been written.
10 - Bull--Winkle
RE:: Fourteenth amendment and equal rights
The Fourteenth was needed in the post civil war era, just as it is needed today - to stop crap legislation like HB-28 dead in it's tracks.
I find it difficult to imagine how things would have turned out had the 14th *not* been enacted. Or what could have been done in it's place to preserve states' autonomy.
Prior to it's ratification, most the sacred Bill of Rights was considered "N/A" to the states. -- It is commonly understood that the Bill of Rights was not originally intended to apply to the states, though except where amendments refer specifically to the Federal Government or a branch thereof (as in the first amendment, under which some states in the early years of the nation officially established a religion), there is no such delineation in the text itself.
--
Source:Wikipedia
Looks to me that the 14th truly made the US constitution the supreme law of the land. Was this a bad thing? I think not.
My $0.02
11 - Matt
The United States by law is located in the district of Columbia. All states are nations according to the "Law of Nations (Vattel) ... the 14th Amendment usurped these nations citizens by making them all federal citizens as if they were born in the district. SO they are now subjects of the government, like Russia. The feds wanted all peoples under the power of Article I, sec.8, clause 17+18.... have a nice night
12 - Richard
The 14th amendment was written with the intent to only provide birth citizenship to kids born of at least one parent that was a citizen or legal immigrant (ie: subject to the jurisdiction....). It has been misinterpreted for years and needs to be clarified by the supreme court. Allowing instant citizenship to "anyone" born on U.S. soil is just plain stupid.