Skip to main content

Mark Levin said on "Hannity" tonight that the 14th Amendment does not give citizenship to children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States.

He said that those claiming that the 14th Amendment allows birthright citizenship are dead wrong, pointing to Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, which grants absolute power to Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

Levin explained that means that Congress - not the president, the courts or U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement - has the power to regulate immigration in this regard.

"Of course Trump is right and Cruz is right and Sessions is right. They're all right," Levin said.

"If you want a policy of open borders, that anybody born here should become a United States citizen, you amend the Constitution. We don't have to amend the Constitution. It says what we say it says," Levin stated. "By statute, going forward, prospectively, Congress can in fact say ... 'No, you cannot make children of illegal aliens American citizens automatically.''

http://insider.foxnews.com/201...y-illegal-immigrants

 

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Levin is dead wrong; he is grasping at a straw in his utterly futile and failed attempt at constitutional law.

 

Article 1, Section 8 does not give the Congress "absolute power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." The Congress does not have the power to rescind the 14th Amendment,  which says, in its first sentence, that

 

"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."

The Congress can not constitutionally enact any law in conflict with the 14th Amendment, and it is that amendment that truly  is "absolute" in the very clear and unambiguous language of its first sentence.  To rescind or amend the 14th Amendment would require an action pursuant to Article 5 of the Constitution, which sets forth the lengthy and tedious requirements for amendment. The Congress can propose amendments, but they can be enacted only if "ratified by the Legislatures of  of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof...." Thus, that Congressional power that Levin cites is far from "absolute."

 

Levin the Loud once more shows himself to be a disordered ideologue whose arguments are shaped by the ample suite of biases that energize his practiced rage.

A couple of points.  Ann Coulter's recent column gives arguments that would counter the constitutional amendment requirement.

http://www.anncoulter.com/

 

Another not mentioned is the original intent -- the reason for the amendment was to ensure former slaves and their children became citizens.  The original intent was not to grant citizenship to the offspring of those here illegally citizenship  Original intent was the reason for the state firearm laws being shot down by the Supreme Court.  

Originally Posted by direstraits:

A couple of points.  Ann Coulter's recent column gives arguments that would counter the constitutional amendment requirement.

http://www.anncoulter.com/

 

Another not mentioned is the original intent -- the reason for the amendment was to ensure former slaves and their children became citizens.  The original intent was not to grant citizenship to the offspring of those here illegally citizenship  Original intent was the reason for the state firearm laws being shot down by the Supreme Court.  

____

In the case of John Elk, which Coulter twice cites and heavily relies upon to promote her case,  the Court's decision and reasoning were not as simple as she might have us believe.  Elk did not meet the citizenship criteria of the 14th Amendment, but NOT because he was not a former slave, but rather because he could not meet the allegiance test of the jurisdictional clause because he:

 

<<<“...owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe, a vassal or quasi-nation, and not to the United States. The Court held Elk was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth. “The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.">>>

Elk, 112 U.S. at 102

 

That which excluded Elk from citizenship benefits under the 14th Amendment does not apply in the case of children born in this country to parents who are illegal immigrants.

 

Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by direstraits:

A couple of points.  Ann Coulter's recent column gives arguments that would counter the constitutional amendment requirement.

http://www.anncoulter.com/

 

Another not mentioned is the original intent -- the reason for the amendment was to ensure former slaves and their children became citizens.  The original intent was not to grant citizenship to the offspring of those here illegally citizenship  Original intent was the reason for the state firearm laws being shot down by the Supreme Court.  

____

In the case of John Elk, which Coulter twice cites and heavily relies upon to promote her case,  the Court's decision and reasoning were not as simple as she might have us believe.  Elk did not meet the citizenship criteria of the 14th Amendment, but NOT because he was not a former slave, but rather because he could not meet the allegiance test of the jurisdictional clause because he:

 

<<<“...owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe, a vassal or quasi-nation, and not to the United States. The Court held Elk was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth. “The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.">>>

Elk, 112 U.S. at 102

 

That which excluded Elk from citizenship benefits under the 14th Amendment does not apply in the case of children born in this country to parents who are illegal immigrants.

 

____________________________________________________

American Indians, no taxed by the federal government, were specifically excluded by the 14th Amendment.  Elk met that exception.  

 

Original intent has never been litigated for the 14th. 

Dire, I believe I read you to  agree with me that Elk was excluded for reasons that do not reach the "anchor babies."

 

But I am a bit baffled by your broad statement that "American Indians, no(sic) taxed by the federal government, were specifically excluded by the 14th Amendment."  I find nothing in the amendment that makes specific mention of American Indians or that relies upon any principle of taxation to exclude them or others. Please elaborate.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that everyone born in the United States, with exceptions including certain Native Americans, was a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

 

Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ates_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

 

A case might be made for original intent because there were no illegal immigrants in 1868 because of the open door immigration policy; but nine lawyers in black robes created a precedent 30 years later.

Originally Posted by Contendahh:

Dire, I believe I read you to  agree with me that Elk was excluded for reasons that do not reach the "anchor babies."

 

But I am a bit baffled by your broad statement that "American Indians, no(sic) taxed by the federal government, were specifically excluded by the 14th Amendment."  I find nothing in the amendment that makes specific mention of American Indians or that relies upon any principle of taxation to exclude them or others. Please elaborate.

 

From the 14th Amendment and Coulter's article.

 

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”

 

“Huh. In 1884, 16 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, John Elk, who -- as you may have surmised by his name -- was an Indian, had to go to the Supreme Court to argue that he was an American citizen because he was born in the United States. 


He lost. In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not grant Indians citizenship. “

 

American Indians were not made citizens until 1924. Lo those 56 years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, Indians were not American citizens, despite the considered opinion of Judge Napolitano. 

Of course it's easy for legal experts to miss the welter of rulings on Indian citizenship inasmuch as they obtained citizenship in a law perplexingly titled: "THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924." 

 

In short, there were specific exclusions for most Indians -- those living on reservations subject to tribal national authority.  

 

Showing that there were exceptions and , by your statement concerning allegiance, the original intent should definitely apply.

 

Originally Posted by Stanky:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that everyone born in the United States, with exceptions including certain Native Americans, was a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

 

Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ates_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

 

A case might be made for original intent because there were no illegal immigrants in 1868 because of the open door immigration policy; but nine lawyers in black robes created a precedent 30 years later.

 

From Coulter's article:

 

"It is true that in a divided 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court granted citizenship to the children born to legal immigrants, with certain exceptions, such as for diplomats. But that decision was so obviously wrong, even the Yale Law Journal ridiculed it. 

The majority opinion relied on feudal law regarding citizenship in a monarchy, rather than the Roman law pertaining to a republic -- the illogic of which should be immediately apparent to American history buffs, who will recall an incident in our nation's history known as "the American Revolution." 

Citizenship in a monarchy was all about geography -- as it is in countries bristling with lords and vassals, which should not be confused with this country. Thus, under the majority's logic in Wong Kim Ark, children born to American parents traveling in England would not be American citizens, but British subjects. "

 

Originally Posted by direstraits:
Originally Posted by Stanky:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that everyone born in the United States, with exceptions including certain Native Americans, was a U.S. citizen. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

 

Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to Chinese parents around 1871, had been denied re-entry to the United States after a trip abroad, under a law restricting Chinese immigration and prohibiting immigrants from China from becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. He challenged the government's refusal to recognize his citizenship, and the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that the citizenship language in the Fourteenth Amendment encompassed essentially everyone born in the U.S.—even the U.S.-born children of foreigners—and could not be limited in its effect by an act of Congress.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ates_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

 

A case might be made for original intent because there were no illegal immigrants in 1868 because of the open door immigration policy; but nine lawyers in black robes created a precedent 30 years later.

 

From Coulter's article:

 

"It is true that in a divided 1898 case, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court granted citizenship to the children born to legal immigrants, with certain exceptions, such as for diplomats. But that decision was so obviously wrong, even the Yale Law Journal ridiculed it. 

The majority opinion relied on feudal law regarding citizenship in a monarchy, rather than the Roman law pertaining to a republic -- the illogic of which should be immediately apparent to American history buffs, who will recall an incident in our nation's history known as "the American Revolution." 

Citizenship in a monarchy was all about geography -- as it is in countries bristling with lords and vassals, which should not be confused with this country. Thus, under the majority's logic in Wong Kim Ark, children born to American parents traveling in England would not be American citizens, but British subjects. "

 ____

From the opinion of the Court in  U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark: 

 

<<<In the forefront both of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the fundamental principle of citizenship by birth within the dominion was reaffirmed in the most explicit and comprehensive terms. The Civil Rights Act, passed at the first session of the Thirty-ninth Congress, began by enacting that "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.">>>

Act of April 9, 1866, c. 31, § 1; 14 Stat. 27.

 

That Act preceded the adoption of the 14th amendment by over two years. The opinion continues:

 

<<<The same Congress, shortly afterwards, evidently thinking it unwise, and perhaps unsafe, to leave so important a declaration of rights to depend upon an ordinary act of legislation, which might be repealed by any subsequent Congress, framed the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, and, on June 16, 1866, by joint resolution, proposed it to the legislatures of the several States, and on July 28, 1868, the Secretary of State issued a proclamation showing it to have been ratified by the legislatures of the requisite number of States.>>>>.

14 Stat. 358; 1 Stat. 708.

 

So much for legislative intent, then.  In the Won Kim Ark case case we have been discussing, and upon which Coulter relied so strongly, the Supreme Court itself interpreted legislative intent lying behind the act of Congress that initiated  the Article V process that concluded with the adoption of the 14th Amendment.    In so doing, they explicitly recognized the prior Civil Rights Act of 1866, with its all-subsuming language:   all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, and such citizens, of every race and color...."

 

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×