The Libertarian Party has reversed a recent update to its website, removing a section that suggested the party endorsed ending birthright citizenship. According to a statement shared on social media, the language was included in error.
“There was a revision oversight on one of our new website ‘Issues’ pages regarding birthright citizenship, which has been brought to our attention. While every topic is up for debate, the LP is not calling for an end to birthright citizenship,” the party clarified Tuesday morning.
As was first reported on Monday, the Libertarian Party made significant updates to its website last week, including a complete redesign and an overhaul of its policy issues section. Among the changes was a rewrite of the immigration policy section that included a call to end birthright citizenship—a stance not previously espoused by the party or included in its platform. News of the update quickly drew attention on social media, prompting the party” response.
As of this article’s publication, the reference to birthright citizenship has been removed from the immigration policy page. However, broader updates to the immigration section, which frame the issue as a “crisis” and emphasize stricter conditions for residency and citizenship, remain unchanged. The Libertarian Party has not provided further clarification about how the oversight occurred or whether it plans to revise other sections of its website.
First Roman-wannabibi-Shukhevich, then Northrop-Grundmann, now Solipsistic Dunglfy. Is it open season for antisemitic and nazi trolls at IPR, or something?
Why couldn’t it be knowledgeable, polite and interesting to talk to regardless of whether you agree or disagree with them interlocutors, like Mark Seidenberg, Jim Riley or Richard Winger? When are they in season?
Your handle must be ironic. We’ve discussed in some details what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means since the ahistorical misinterpretation that it means “arrestable by” would render the phrase superfluous and unnecessary. Why do you think those words are in there? You also ignored the antecedent language, several samples of which were quoted below.
Then there’s the logical absurdity of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens, particularly in a welfare state, and the perverse incentives it creates. It might be nice if you were polite but not necessary. Logic and history are what you lack by way of argument, and name calling and flat assertion is a poor substitute for those.
X must mark the spot for stupidity. It’s clear that birthright citizenship IS in the Constitution, in the Fourteenth Amendment. No misinterpretation involved.
Ahh, yet another reason to visit this site even less.
Person comes off like somebody else’s politer younger brother.
That’s a good blog post. Where has all that diligence with respect to accuracy and integrity disappeared to 16-17 years later when it comes to the the Libertarian National Convention and Caryn Ann Harlos?
Seidenberg hit the nail on the head there about why McCain was not a natural born citizen and therefore ineligible to be president:
“John McCain was not born on a military base nor even in the Canal Zone. John Sidney McCain III was born at the Colon Hospital, located at Avenida Melendez and 2nd Street, Manzanillo Island, City of Colon, Republic of Panama. The time of birth on the birth certificate issued by Panama Railroad Company (which owned the Colon Hospital) was 5:25 PM and the day and date of birth was Saturday, August 29, 1936.
At the time of John Sidney McCain III’s birth he was born an alien. That was because at the time of his birth, viz., August 29, 1936, the terms of Revised Statute # 1933 did not apply to that location in the Republic of Panama, because the island of Manzanillo was under the jurisdiction of the United States, but external to the territory of the Canal Zone.”
McCain had birthright citizenship (jus sanguinis), but was not a natural born citizen, since that requires both a US citizen parent (formerly necessarily the father) AND birth on US soil (which can include US military bases, embassies, consulates, ships, planes, etc.), not just either one as with birthright citizenship.
I would have thought it would be obvious from context but I quoted the 1790 act because Andy opined about “originally” so I was asking for how far back he wanted to go with that. I also mentioned British antecedents going back even further, to 1608. More originally than that?
As for subsequent, an 1844 supreme court case decided that a woman born to temporary visitors from Britain who returned home with her as a baby soon after she was born was a US Citizen by birth. I think the case was incorrectly decided.
The court opined “Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents; could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.”
And
“Upon principle, therefore, I can entertain no doubt, but that by the law of the United States, every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen. It is surprising that there has been no judicial decision upon this question.”
However, her parents had no allegiance to the US, so I don’t see why she would be presumed to have any such allegiance.
But they did have allegiance to the UK, so I don’t see any reason why she wouldn’t be presumed to also have allegiance to the UK when she arrived there with them as a baby merely because they happened to be visiting the US at the moment when she was born. And conversely I don’t see why the reverse wouldn’t also hold.
You seem like you’ve dug into this a lot more than I have or would want to, but if anyone else reading is interested and doesn’t already know that case was Lynch v Clarke.
The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens…”
That was repealed that in part on 29 January 1795, and the rest was repealed on 14 April 1802. So it doesn’t apply.
I went over this back in 2008 with dealing with Panama John McCain: https://muddythoughts.blogspot.com/2008/02/panmanchurian-candidate-mccain.html
I suggest that everyone take a look at the Law of Nations by de Vattel, especially Chapter 19 (https://famguardian.org/Publications/LawOfNations/vattel_01.htm#%C2%A7%20211.%20What%20is%20our%20country) and sections 211-219.
IMO, given the precedents set by US territorial law, it is up to Congress to determine which territories are “incorporated” and who, thus. qualifies for birthright citizenship.
It would seem that all US states are considered “incorporated”, but there might be an exception for native tribal lands. I believe that the tribal “nations” of Oklahoma were not considered “incorporated” until Oklahoma became a state. I suppose that if Native American tribes wanted full autonomy, they could ask Congress to be “disincorporated.”
It’s interesting to note that Palmyra Island was once part of the Territory of Hawaii, but was separated from it when Hawaii became a state. Thus, Palmyra Island is still considered an “incorporated” territory of the US, even tho no one lives there. In theory, anyone born on Palmyra Island has birthright citizenship.
Well, then, it makes even less sense to claim this that children of illegal invaders and temporary visitors who just happen to be born in the US should have birthright citizenship.
During the time that Alaska and Hawaii were US territories, they were considered “incorporated” territories, and those born there had birthright citizenship. However, none of the current territories (Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern Marianas, and American Samoan) have EVER been considered incorporated territories.
People born in Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Northern Marianas, and Guam have been granted birthright citizenship by acts of Congress, but those born in American Samoa have NOT been, and remain US nationals today, unless they immigrate to the US, and apply for citizenship, like an immigrant.
In American Samoa, certain tribal leaders have special representation in the territorial legislature, like nobles in the House of Lords, and DON’T want US citizenship because their legislative privileges might be revoked as unconstitutional.
During all the time that the Philippines were a US territory, their native residents were never granted blanket citizenship. They were classed as “US nationals”, and were only granted US citizenship if they came to the “incorporated” territory of the US, and applied for US citizenship, like an immigrant.
When Trump annexes Greenland, and Panama (and maybe even Canada), will the residents get US citizenship, or given the “US national” status of American Samoans?
That’s a separate subject, but if you want to go there, why not? How original do you want to go?
The Naturalization Act of 1790 provided that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens…”
Britain, Calvin’s Case, 1608: “]f any of the King’s Ambassadors in foreign nations, have children there of their wives, being English women, by the common laws of England they are natural-born subjects, and yet they are born out of the King’s dominions.”
British nationality act of 1730
“for the explaining the said recited Clause in the said Act . . . [t]hat all Children born out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, or which shall hereafter be born out of such Ligeance, whose Fathers were or shall be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the Time of the Birth of such Children respectively … are hereby declared to be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever”
Foreign Protestants Naturalization Act of 1708
“That the Children of all natural born Subjects born out of the Ligeance of Her Majesty Her Heires and Successors shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be natural born Subjects of this Kingdom to all Intents Constructions and Purposes whatsoever”
The original and correct definition of Natural Born citizen should be restored, in that it only applies to people born in the USA to American citizen parents.
The prequel to 14th amendment citizenship was the civil rights act of 1866 which includes the 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.”
Illegal aliens are subjects of foreign powers, unlike either natural born citizens or legal immigrants. Foreign tourists, temporary residents, diplomats, invading enemy combatants, and (until subsequently changed) members of American Indian nations are all subjects of foreign powers, so their children born in the US are not within the original intent of birthright citizenship.
Natural born citizens, naturalized citizens, and legal permanent residents are not subjects of foreign powers, so their children have birthright citizenship. They remain US subjects even when outside of the US, not foreign subjects, so their children have US birthright citizenship even if born outside the US.
If, however, subjects of the US or subjects of foreign powers were distinguished by physical location at any given moment, even the children of natural born US citizens wouldn’t have birthright citizenship if born abroad – after all, their parents can be arrested by the government of whatever country they’re in, and can’t be arrested by the US government unless and until they return to the US.
The language which has been misinterpreted is
“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. ”
If subject to the jurisdiction thereof was equivalent to “potentially subject to being arrested”, the phrase would be superfluous. Anyone who is physically in the United States is potentially subject to being arrested. Tourists can be arrested. Enemy combatants can be taken as prisoners of war. Diplomats can only be expelled, but even they can be detained for questioning and confined to their embassy, residence or temporary residence such as hotel room until expelled.
The fact that American Indians were not originally considered subject to the jurisdiction illustrates that those words have a meaning other than “potentially subject to arrest.” That meaning was more like “owing allegiance to,” which citizens of other countries (including, at that time, of American Indian tribes) who are in the US temporarily or illegally do not.
In the analogy, the equivalent would be an illogical misinterpretation of the joint ownership deed by a rogue court to create absurd and unintended incentives for trespassers that would dilute and devalue the ownership stakes, all because of an interpretation which was never intended by those who wrote the deed.
The fact that a majority of the owners don’t approve of this interpretation isn’t even the point here.
You can be very nonrestrictionist in your preferences – say, a home for unwed mothers with plenty of space and a very large endowment grant. But even in that case, space is still not unlimited, the endowment grant runs into limits at some hypothetical point, and the mothers and children have to leave at some point – they don’t get to stay for the rest of their lives at the owners expense and become owners themselves, with the right extended to all descendents in perpetuity.
If that were the case, the owners are not owners, and if the joint ownership is in the form of a sovereign nation, they thus cease to be a sovereign nation – even if the process takes a number of decades to play out to its inevitable conclusion.
Even if you agree with the misinterpretation that birthright citizenship is in the US Constitution, it’s still perfectly logical to support ending it because it leads to such absurd outcomes. In that case, ending it would be more difficult as it would require a constitutional amendment, but the statement in question doesn’t get into the details of what mechanism would be used to end birthright citizenship, only that it should be ended.
The misinterpretation of the language in question is historically wrong and logically absurd, and, even if it wasn’t, would still lead to absurd outcomes. Thus, birthright citizenship needs to be ended, by whatever means necessary, if the nation is to survive – and that’s true of any nation ever.
1. The other people on the deed express their preferences through a political process which determined how many people are let in and under what conditions. That process ranges from congressional and presidential elections to the Constitutional amendment process, which means that gubernatorial and legislative elections are also relevant.
2. The Constitution agrees with my preferences, and disagrees with theirs. Birthright citizenship is not in the Constitution and was never the intent of the language which was subsequently misinterpreted to permit it; see details in other people’s comments below.
More fundamental than what level of restrictions you want is *who gets to decide and how*. The home ownership analogy is not flawed, and the number of owners is not fundamental to it. Most homes are jointly owned (by married couples), but for this purpose we can suppose a larger number of owners – for example, a large publicly traded apartment complex rental agency.
The point is that ownership rights are fundamentally destroyed if any woman who has a child on that property gains joint ownership rights for her child simply by giving birth there (and according to most of those who advocate this, permanent residency for herself and her whole family too), even if she was on the property illegally when it happened or merely visiting.
Such a rule would be illogical and counterproductive. It would incentivize the homeless and jobless to have lots of unprotected sex and break into homes and apartments, squat, give birth there, and become unevictable. It would encourage other people to quit their jobs or cut back their work hours, concentrate on conceiving children, and stop paying their rent or mortgage since having a child would make them de facto owners.
This would be even more true if it additionally qualified them for a wide range of benefits – educational, medical, food aid, protection/security, etc.
No sane society would have such home ownership rules, and no sane country would have such citizenship rules, for exactly those same reasons.
The home analogy is badly flawed.
Among other problems, the biggest is that you imagine yourself and other restrictionists as the sole “owner”. A lot of people who disagree with you are also on the “deed” and think your ideas suck. Our joint ownership has a contract associated with it, called the Constitution, and among other things it (a) provides that you can’t violate the contract by simple majority vote, and (b) specifies who gets to live in the house, and that specification does not agree with your preferences.
I think the “oversight” was along the lines of “we didn’t think people would react negatively.”
..separation or adulthood.
I don’t know if you are an anarchist. I understand some libertarians are, others are not. But either way, it’s just like personal property rights.
Supposing you own a home, you can rent it out or invite someone to stay there with you on a short term or long term basis. Supposing that someone is a woman who is pregnant or becomes pregnant, once her child is born, that child has the same conditional right to remain in your home as the mother. If you marry her or adopt the child, additional rights are conveyed until a divorce, separation of adulthood.
If you rent out a home as an airbnb a child who is born there doesn’t magically become a resident. If a pregnant woman breaks into your house and gives birth, the baby doesn’t have any more right to remain there than the trespassing mother. If you let a pregnant woman in during an emergency and she gives birth, that does not convey a responsibility to permanently shelter either one after the emergency.
If it was otherwise, you can’t really be said to own your home.
Likewise, a nation can not be said to be sovereign if illegal invaders and trespassers convey citizenship on children who are born there because their mothers are invading or trespassing or given temporary permission to be there.
* does not make her baby a citizen of…
Yes. Tourists can be arrested as well, just like US citizens visiting whatever country they are visiting. That doesn’t make children born to tourists citizens of whatever country they are born in.
Prisoners of war can be taken during a military invasion, but a POW or enemy combatant soldier giving birth does not make her baby of the country she is invading or held prisoner in.
Logically, children of illegal invaders and trespassers aren’t more entitled to citizenship of the country where they are a fetus inside an illegal invader/trespasser. They are not like natural born citizens or legal immigrants. The distinction is fundamental to national sovereignty.
If someone is not under the jurisdiction of the U.S., can he or she be arrested and/or prosecuted?
“In the early years, it was never interpreted that way”
Ron Paul hit the nail on the head there.
Back in the good old days, any disagreements in interpreting the Constitution only arose as a result of different understandings of the literal meaning as written and the original intent with which it was so written.
But with the rise of legal positivism in America – curse you, Oliver Wendell Holmes! – that sincerity and honesty has given away to attempts at trying to see how far one can get away with stretching and distorting interpretations in the name of the Constitution being “outdated” and “needing a modern re-interpretation”.
Until respect for the Constitution and the Founding Fathers is restored, we cannot afford to even entertain any changes in interpretation, and must be guided strictly by previous interpretation – the older the better, for the most part.
“The national office can’t just change party stances.”
True. Nor can it – much less one rogue member – dictate which candidates its state affiliates nominate. It can only vote to disaffiliate them, or to retain their affiliation.
“as well as millions more self deported by then”
Perhaps after the US becomes even more impoverished and overrun with street crime, some of those not running the country will? But I doubt it. Even all the leftists celebrities who perennially say they will emigrate if the election doesn’t go their way, hardly ever do so, unfortunately. How much less then, will the less pampered and privileged career criminals voluntarily leave.
Ron Paul is of course correct, but the policy position was not supported by anything in their platform. The national office can’t just change party stances. Hopefully, their next convention will pass something much closer to the Constitution Party’s immigration platform plank.
Also hopefully, millions of illegals will be deported, as well as millions more self deported by then, especially the criminal gangs, cartels, terrorists, lunatics, rapists, murderers, welfare leeches, pedophiles, and others actively destroying our quality of life.
There was a revision oversight…
Yeah, right.
The oversight was that they forgot about the negative reactions and lack of understanding of the issue.
Kind of sad. This is a proposal that was championed by Ron Paul when he was in Congress.
Ron Paul: [Birthright citizenship where children born here should not automatically be US citizens] was the 14th Amendment. It wasn’t in the original Constitution. And there’s confusion on interpretation. In the early years, it was never interpreted that way, and it’s still confusing because individuals are supposed to have birthright citizenship if they’re under the jurisdiction of the government. And somebody who illegally comes in this country as a drug dealer, is he under the jurisdiction and their children deserve citizenship? I think it’s awfully, awfully confusing, and, matter of fact, I have a bill to change that as well as a Constitutional amendment to clarify it.
https://ontheissues.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm
Source: Meet the Press: 2007 “Meet the Candidates” series , Dec 23, 2007