Tweet
Not only I agree with Trump and former assistant AG for Reagan, Mark Levine, I also believe that children of tourists, who come legally, are not entitled to US citizenship, if both parents are foreign citizens
Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
8/20/2015
Excerpt:
I was asked to comment on the issue of the birthright citizenship.
So, here is my response.
First of all, let’s look at the recent decision of the Supreme Court on Obamacare. The law stated that individuals covered by state exchanges can get subsidies from the federal government. It clearly stated “state exchanges”. However 5 of 9 judges of the Supreme Court did not go by the black letter law, rather, they went by the intend of the legislature. They claimed that the intent was to give subsidizes to everyone, not just ones, who enrolled through the state exchanges.
So, let’s look at the intent of the legislature at the time the 14 th amendment was passed into law. The legislature wanted to grant citizenship to blacks, who resided in this country for generations and did not have citizenship in any other country. The legislature did not envision citizens of foreign countries flooding this country and demanding US citizenship for their US born children. Just as children of the US citizens, born abroad, automatically get US citizenship based on “jus sanguinis,” the citizenship of their parents, similarly, citizens of Mexico, China and other countries automatically get citizenship of Mexico, China and other countries based on their “jus sanguinis,” the citizenship of their parents, even if they are born in the US.
Furthermore, Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the 1th amendement, specifically stated that it did not apply to foreigners and aliens.
So, the intent was clear, not to grant the US citizenship to children of foreign citizens.
Further, aside from the intent, the black letter law supports Trump’s, Walker’s, Cruz’s and Paul’s assertion. The fourteenth amendment clearly states that the child has to be born in the US and be subject to the US jurisdiction, not just be born in the US. Some are saying that the fact of being born in the US is sufficient for being subject to the US jurisdiction. If this would be the case, then the law would just state “born in the US”, it would not state “born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction”. Jurisdiction means allegiance. A child, born in the US, whose parents are both foreign citizens, has allegiance to the countries of origin of his parents and he is subject to the jurisdiction of those nations.
.................................................. ................
View the complete post at:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/not-only...eign-citizens/
Defend Our Freedoms Foundation
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
8/20/2015
Excerpt:
I was asked to comment on the issue of the birthright citizenship.
Virginia in VA
Submitted on 2015/08/19 at 6:44 pm
Orly, as a constitutional lawyer, can you tell us your view of whether “Birthright Citizenship” is constitutional and whether children of illegals can be citizens? It would be great to know your view.
Submitted on 2015/08/19 at 6:44 pm
Orly, as a constitutional lawyer, can you tell us your view of whether “Birthright Citizenship” is constitutional and whether children of illegals can be citizens? It would be great to know your view.
So, here is my response.
First of all, let’s look at the recent decision of the Supreme Court on Obamacare. The law stated that individuals covered by state exchanges can get subsidies from the federal government. It clearly stated “state exchanges”. However 5 of 9 judges of the Supreme Court did not go by the black letter law, rather, they went by the intend of the legislature. They claimed that the intent was to give subsidizes to everyone, not just ones, who enrolled through the state exchanges.
So, let’s look at the intent of the legislature at the time the 14 th amendment was passed into law. The legislature wanted to grant citizenship to blacks, who resided in this country for generations and did not have citizenship in any other country. The legislature did not envision citizens of foreign countries flooding this country and demanding US citizenship for their US born children. Just as children of the US citizens, born abroad, automatically get US citizenship based on “jus sanguinis,” the citizenship of their parents, similarly, citizens of Mexico, China and other countries automatically get citizenship of Mexico, China and other countries based on their “jus sanguinis,” the citizenship of their parents, even if they are born in the US.
Furthermore, Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the 1th amendement, specifically stated that it did not apply to foreigners and aliens.
So, the intent was clear, not to grant the US citizenship to children of foreign citizens.
Further, aside from the intent, the black letter law supports Trump’s, Walker’s, Cruz’s and Paul’s assertion. The fourteenth amendment clearly states that the child has to be born in the US and be subject to the US jurisdiction, not just be born in the US. Some are saying that the fact of being born in the US is sufficient for being subject to the US jurisdiction. If this would be the case, then the law would just state “born in the US”, it would not state “born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction”. Jurisdiction means allegiance. A child, born in the US, whose parents are both foreign citizens, has allegiance to the countries of origin of his parents and he is subject to the jurisdiction of those nations.
.................................................. ................
View the complete post at:
http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/not-only...eign-citizens/
Comment