My example is a an article from Time Magazine entitled: "History Shows Why Birthright Citizenship is so Important". The gist of this article is that the purpose of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that freed black slaves were considered American citizens, which is amply supported by the debates over the Amendment. But the article then suddenly asserts that import of the clause goes well beyond that goal. Specifically, the author asserts that the 14th Amendment "only made three exceptions to the ironclad guarantee of birthright citizenship: children born to foreign diplomats in the U.S., children born in U.S. territory occupied by enemy soldiers, and Native Americans."
This is, of course, a lie. The citizenship clause provides: "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." There is no express exception for children of foreign diplomats, invaders, or American Indians, nor is the exception provided limited to only those three classes. Rather, those are recognized exceptions derived from the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" language because they were classes of persons still subject to the jurisdiction of other governments. As would be citizens of Mexico, Guatemala, Venezuela, or any other foreign country who for whatever reason, legal or illegal, found themselves upon American soil. The Time article tacitly recognizes this reasoning, because it explains that "[t]he exclusion of Indigenous people was out of deference to their citizenship in their own Native nations."
The original limitations were based on recorded discussions and debates in Congress before the Amendment was ratified. That clearly gives Congress the right to dictate what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. They should consider a bill, and could require a formal registration of their residence and formally foreswearing all allegience to their former countries of residence, with notice to those countries. China and Mexico allow their former citizens to vote - which is not allowed to all American citizens, therefor impermissably discriminatory in the US. A formal abandonment of those "rights" delivered to their embassy, along with an acknowledged loss of US citizenship if they ever again exercise them, would be a good step forward.
ReplyDeleteWhen illegal Mexicans commit murders, and the death penalty is a possibility, the Mexican government will go to bat in support of their citizen criminals. The Mexican government otherwise supports their citizens in the US with 52 (or 85, depending on how you want to count them) consulate offices throughout the US. ( See https://www.gob.mx/sre/documentos/list-of-mexican-consulates-in-the-united-states?idiom=en)
ReplyDeleteThe Mexican government wants the American denaros to hold up their economy.
Of course they're lying. Their lips are moving.
ReplyDeleteDon't you know? Rules only count when convenient.
ReplyDelete