Are the children of illegal immigrants... (14th amendment)

[A18]

You keep dodging the issue of whether or not a citizen of another state is subject to a foreign power or not.

[Emsworth]

You keep dodging the issue of whether or not a citizen of another state is subject to a foreign power or not.

With the greatest possible respect, I don't think that this is a relevant issue. As far as American law is concerned, a child born here owes allegiance to the United States, and not to any foreign power whatsoever. So it does not really matter if a citizen of a foreign state is subject to American jurisdiction or not, as far as this discussion is concerned.

To answer your question: if American law recognizes an individual as a citizen of another state, then that person is subject to a foreign power. But a child born in the U.S. is not acknowledged, by the American law, as a citizen of another foreign power, excepting only the child of an untaxed American Indian (an exception clearly implied by the Constitution) or of an ambassador (an exception provided by common law).

[A18]

Identifying a common law concept is one thing. Saying how it applies to a given situation is another.

The Constitution mentions Indians only twice, and never are they excluded from citizenship.

[Emsworth]

Identifying a common law concept is one thing. Saying how it applies to a given situation is another.

Perfectly true. I am arguing that the common law concept applies entirely wherever possible. It does not apply to the Indian tribes, because the it cannot apply to the Indian tribes.

The common law dealt with the status of children whose parents are subjects of foreign states. There is no reason for which this part of the common law should not apply to the United States. Indeed, the courts have long recognized that it does apply.

However, Indian tribes are not foreign states, but alien nations within the territorial limits of the United States. They are unrecognized by the common law, but are rather a peculiarity of the American law. Therefore, the common law concept cannot be applied to them. That does not mean, however, that the common law rule should not be applied to all other children of alien parents. The status of normal alien parents is known to the common law, so the common law rule can there be fully applied; the status of Indian tribes is unknown to the common law, so the common law rule cannot be fully applied.

"The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words 'all persons born in the United States' by the addition 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,--children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state,--both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country." -- U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark

[A18]

Well, I'll have to concede that I lost this debate. I do think we should levy a 200% flat tax on these people until they renounce their citizenship, though.

[Emsworth]

Well, I'll have to concede that I lost this debate.

Hmm, so that brings it to about ten wins for you, and one win for me?

[ag]

Well, I'll have to concede that I lost this debate. I do think we should levy a 200% flat tax on these people until they renounce their citizenship, though.

How many provisions of US constitution would that violate?

[A18]

Except those ten were really just the result of one (due process). You also won on Incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

[A18]

Well, I'll have to concede that I lost this debate. I do think we should levy a 200% flat tax on these people until they renounce their citizenship, though.

How many provisions of US constitution would that violate?

Explicit or implied?

[Emsworth]

Except those ten were really just the result of one (due process).

Yes, but it retrospect, that was little more than stubborn adherence to a clearly incorrect doctrine on my part. Perhaps, it was the effect of turning the Constitution into what one wants it to be, rather than what it really is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, not really, because I rejected incorporation on the basis of the privileges or immunities clause just as you did.