Do we, as a society, retain an inalienable right to control our sovereignty? Or do foreigners and governments have the authority to claim jurisdiction in our country and obtain citizenship and the rights that come with it? These are important questions before us as we navigate our journey as a nation-state.
I have previously argued that even activist judges who misinterpreted the 14th Amendment found that establishing birthright citizenship for the children of legally “resident” immigrants meant that the children of illegal immigrants had no right to do so. They argued that it would not have expanded the rights. These individuals illegally enter the country or overstay their temporary visas in direct violation of U.S. law.
To claim that people who knowingly violate immigration laws and enter a country without authorization can establish jurisdiction over children defies all logic.
horace gray opinion justice Nishimura ekiuv. US (1892) and fong yue tingv. Us (1893) make it obvious when he ruledUSv. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that children born to legally “resident” immigrants were eligible for citizenship, and he would have been stubbornly opposed to granting the same rights to illegal immigrants.
Here I would like to focus on certain points. People from countries without legal status are not legally considered within the jurisdiction of the United States, even in a semi-literary sense, because they are in clear violation of multiple laws. Even if the 14th Amendment's directive to grant citizenship to people born in the United States was not qualified by the phrase “subject to its jurisdiction,” it would exclude people who violate immigration laws. Legally, it is as if such individuals were not physically present in the country.
Don't ignore precedent
in Shaughnessyv. UesEx rel. mezey(1953), the Supreme Court upheld a decision by the Truman administration to deny readmission to a Romanian immigrant who had lived in the United States for 25 years. After traveling to Europe to visit his dying mother, the government forbade him to return. No other country would accept him, so Ignaz Mezey was detained at Ellis Island for 21 months. The court ruled that the refusal of entry and his detention were lawful and did not violate his due process rights. It cited China's exclusion law and the extensive case law that has developed since then.
building Nishimura ekiu And a subsequent decision revealed that Mezey's temporary presence on Ellis Island denied him constitutional rights, even though he had previously lived in the United States legally for 25 years. did. The justice adjudicated is as follows:
Such temporary residence is an act of legislative grace and confers no additional rights. Congress carefully specified that such shelters would not be “considered landings,” nor that, if ultimately excluded, it would relieve ships of duty to transport aliens. And this court has long considered temporary arrangements that would not affect the alien's status. He is treated as if he were stopped at the border.
Justices Robert Jackson and Felix Frankfurter dissented, though they believed that a longtime lawful permanent resident should not be detained indefinitely without procedural formality and that he had no positive impact on remaining in the country. They should not be detained indefinitely, not that they had the right to do so. “Due process also does not vest foreign nationals with the right to enter the United States or confer upon those it recognizes the right to oppose the will of the people,” they wrote.
It wasn't until 2001 Zadvydasv. Davis The post-Constitutional Five Justices began mandating the release of criminal aliens from detention. But even those justices confirmed the validity of Shaughnessy And 100 years of precedent – but as Antonin Scalia observed against himthe case is now “unexplained and non-existent”, “obscured in a legal fog” and “obscured” by the court's activism.
But for our purposes, Shaughnessy It must be in the eyes of the legal profession, which idolizes it. stare decision. Especially with a good Supreme Court, we should not assume Zadvydas will stand
Jurisdiction was correctly understood
This principle makes clear that individuals residing in the United States cannot unlawfully meet the jurisdictional requirements outlined in the provisions of the Amendment.
1953 decision mentioned Kaplanv. Todd (1925), where the court denied relief from deportation to the daughter of a naturalized citizen who emigrated from Russia. On July 20, 1914, the Kaplan family arrived at Ellis Island and were reunited with their father, who had been working in the United States for several years. However, the 13-year-old daughter was deemed unacceptable for being “weak”. The outbreak of World War I delayed her deportation and placed her in the care of the Hebrew Aid Society. The Society arranged for her to live with her father until deportation was ordered in 1923.
By that time, her father had become a naturalized US citizen. He argued that because his daughter was under 21 and living in the United States at the time of his naturalization, she was automatically entitled to citizenship under long-standing law. In a brief ruling, the court denied the petition in its entirety.
Parental naturalization affects minor children only “if they reside in the United States.” …Appellant could not lawfully land in the United States in view of the express prohibition of the 1910 act.
The court upheld the concept that the daughter “lived within the United States.” That's because “she had never lived in the United States within the meaning of this law” because “she was still in the doctrine of the law at the border and had not gained a foothold in the United States.”
Naturalization Act and the 14th Amendment
Now, consider the language of the naturalization law for immigrant children seeking naturalization with their parents and compare it to the language of Section 14, which governs people born in the United States.
The 14th Amendment provides that children must be born in the United States and be “subject to its jurisdiction”. Even an interpretation in which “jurisdiction” is understood to mean territorial rather than political jurisdiction is an argument that makes the phrase redundant – the phrase “subject of jurisdiction” is used for purely geographical and remains undeniably more restrictive than the literal phrase. ”
This distinction is important. Everyone agrees that children born to members of Indian tribes and diplomats are excluded by the jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment, even though they are physically born on U.S. soil. Masu.
However, the court in 1925, based on uncontested precedent, held that individuals residing in the United States did not unlawfully meet the meaning or intent of “living in the United States.” This applies even if you are granted temporary permission to remain on humanitarian grounds. It defies all logic and national consent to claim that people who intentionally violate immigration laws and enter a country without authorization can establish jurisdiction over children.
Even the left recognizes this as a “settled law.” Illegal immigrants are considered “borderline” and have “not gained a foothold in the United States,” regardless of their current location.
Politicians, jurists, and judges who give full constitutional rights to illegal aliens and give full constitutional rights to children don't just debate the meaning of the 14th Amendment. They declare that the United States is no longer a nation-state ruled by a constitution established by the people.
