Arizona Republicans to deny birth certificates to "anchor babies"!

[Bricker]

@John_Mace

Which cases were these? I thought they had only ruled on situations where the parents were in the country legally.

@ruadh

US v Wong Kim Ark examines in great detail the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, and concludes that it applies to everyone except the children of aliens who are either diplomats or hostile occupiers. Wong’s interpretation of the clause was reaffirmed in Plyler v Doe. Neither of these cases dealt directly with the issue of “anchor babies” (Wong was the child of migrant workers and the kids in Plyler were immigrants themselves), but the important thing is that the Court held that - outside of the two exceptions mentioned above - the clause refers to physical location and not status. Therefore it must be presumed that the children of illegal immigrants are covered by it, unless and until the SC decides to carve out another exception.

To borrow my own words from another recent thread:

@Bricker

Correct as to the diplomat; incorrect as to the illegal immigrant mother.

The law on this subject is clear. You may say that the Constitution doesn’t support this view, but in fact it does. “Subject to the jurisdiction” of a court of law means that the court may issue and enforce orders against a person. The diplomat is free from such jurisdiction; the illegal immigrant is not. If the dilpomat were to go on a killing spree, she could be expelled from the country, but not tried for murder; if the illegal immigrant went on a killing spree, she could be arrested, prosecuted, and jailed.

If a person is required to obey the orders of a court, they are under the jurisdiction of that court.

And the Supreme Court has answered these questions directly. In US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), as Really Not All That Bright mentioned above, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to the child of legal resident aliens. They didn’t go quite as far as RNATB suggested, since their holding applied to legal residents. But that’s not the end of the discussion: In Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), the Court addressed the jurisdiction question head on:

@SCOTUS

Use of the phrase “within its jurisdiction” thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State’s territory. That a person’s initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State’s territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State’s civil and criminal laws.

Finally, in INS vs. Rios-Piñeda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985), the Court answered your precise claim: a child born in this country to illegal immigrants is a citizen.

@SCOTUS

Respondents, a married couple, are natives and citizens of Mexico. Respondent husband illegally entered the United States in 1972. Apprehended, he returned to Mexico in early 1974 under threat of deportation. Two months later, he and respondent wife paid a professional smuggler $450 to transport them into this country, entering the United States without inspection through the smuggler’s efforts. Respondent husband was again apprehended by INS agents in 1978. At his request, he was granted permission to return voluntarily to Mexico in lieu of deportation. He was also granted two subsequent extensions of time to depart, but he ultimately declined to leave as promised. INS then instituted deportation proceedings against both respondents. By that time, respondent wife had given birth to a child, who, born in the United States, was a citizen of this country.

(emphasis added)