Advertisement

Find answers, ask questions, and connect with our community around the world.

  • The Fourteenth Amendment

    Posted by Unknown Member on August 20, 2015 at 10:26 pm

    Passage of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution was a raucous matter that was required hardball tactics and temporary suspension of Confederate states rights. Regardless, it became law. The 14th Amendment states that:

    “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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    The birthright citizenship right granted under the citizenship clause was challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1898 in the United States v Wong Kim Ark. SCOTUS ruled in favor of Wong Kim Ark, establishing legal precedent and enshrining the clause. The Fourteenth Amendment is therefore law that is backed by legal and historic precedent. The law cannot be changed by a simple act of Congress or by executive fiat. Changing the law would require a Constitutional amendment. This is a high bar that entails ratification by 30 states and 2/3 of Congress.

    Ted Cruz, a brilliant constitutional lawyer who has actually argued an won Constitutional Cases in front of the U.S. Supreme Court has some sage advise for the GOP. He feels that even though it is a worthwhile endeavor to try to change the law, the GOP’s energies are better directed at the more achievable goal of controlling border security..

    The Trumpets would do well to listen. Republicans have a golden opportunity to win the presidency in 2016. Don’t let windbags and windmills turn victory into defeat.

    btomba_77 replied 1 year ago 6 Members · 30 Replies
  • 30 Replies
  • odayjassim1978_476

    Member
    August 20, 2015 at 10:48 pm

    The case of Julia Lynch 1844:
    The common law by which all person born within the king’s allegiance become subjects whatever were the situation of the parents.

    • suyanebenevides_151

      Member
      August 21, 2015 at 8:10 am

      Quote from Noah’sArk

      The case of Julia Lynch 1844:
      The common law by which all person born within the king’s allegiance become subjects whatever were the situation of the parents.

       
      In Monarchies, you are correct. That’s because Kings rule over geography. We aren’t one, and never were one. That’s where you fail. And why all sorts of people literally born here were never [b]always[/b] citizens, nor understood to be. There have always been exception.
       
      Richard Posner knows it, knows it can be decided by Congress, and has said this as well as how stupid that understanding of the law is. And he’s a big, famous liberal judge.

      • odayjassim1978_476

        Member
        August 21, 2015 at 8:27 am

        you missed the point CIG..the colonies accepted the king’s law…get governorship of the kids

  • kayla.meyer_144

    Member
    August 21, 2015 at 1:56 am

    “Hardball tactics?”
     
    That’s rather funny since the South lost the war.
     
    Might as well accuse the US of “hardball tactics” in post-war Japan and Germany too for ramming Democracy down their throats.
     
     

  • kayla.meyer_144

    Member
    August 21, 2015 at 4:51 am

    OMG! Jennifer Rubin sounding rational!
     
    [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/08/20/fourteenth-amendment-deniers/]https://www.washingtonpos…nth-amendment-deniers/[/link]
     

    For starters, it would reveal their idea to be unattainable. Amending the Constitution is very difficult; amending it for something this controversial would be impossible. In addition, conservatives are supposed to be careful, reasoned and take measured steps that respect law and tradition. Ripping up the Constitution when there are far more workable ways to defend against illegal immigration is radical, not conservative. Moreover, it reminds us what a morass this would be figuring out whose parents were illegal, how we handle non-citizens born in the states (they cant vote? can they serve in the military?), and a myriad of other complications that would require an intrusive and large bureaucracy. (Whats next demanding paternity tests to prevent citizenship fraud?)

    Unfortunately, the law the text of the Constitution, the legislative history, the legislative history of the civil rights statue that preceded it and over a hundred years of precedent strongly weighs in favor of the argument that only an amendment to the 14th Amendment could change the law. Having plowed through multiple scholarly works, including those by originalists, I can say the case, if not airtight, is overwhelming, thanks to examination of the debates, drafting and votes on the amendment. And even if youre not entirely convinced by all that, can anyone imagine this Supreme Court, which determined a constitutional right for gays to marry, would strip citizenship from millions of people?

     
    Irony:
    [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/08/18/birthright-citizenship-was-one-of-the-republican-partys-greatest-accomplishments-now-some-republicans-want-to-end-it/]https://www.washingtonpos…licans-want-to-end-it/[/link]

    But theres another historical irony here that was pointed out by renowned American historian Eric Foner: The 14th amendment and birthright citizenship rank among the great and defining accomplishments of the Republican Party, back when it was the Party of Lincoln.

    This was one of the historic achievements of the Republican Party, Foner, who has written extensively on Reconstruction and the meaning of American freedom, tells me. Theres plenty of irony here.

    Foner thinks that ending birthright citizenship would require changing the 14th amendment, which was passed and ratified after the Civil War to secure the citizenship of former slaves.

     
    Police State, USA, OMG! O’Reilly is also speaking reason!
    [link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trumps-demagogic-immigration-plan/2015/08/20/f84cdde2-475d-11e5-846d-02792f854297_story.html]https://www.washingtonpos…2792f854297_story.html[/link]

    Do you envision federal police kicking in the doors in barrios around the country and dragging families out and putting them on a bus? asked OReilly.

     
    OK, so long as the Federal agents & local police aren’t kicking in doors confiscating guns. Keep it only to kicking in doors of the Mexicans.
     
    But back to the topic.
     

    This is jarring, or should be. It is like Keeping Up with the Kardashians, but with divisive, politically motivated ethnic stereotyping. The Mexicans, according to Trump, are cunning. Latinos without papers are out to rape our women. They are predators and burdens. They are ruining the country. They. They.

    It is not easy, but now necessary, to start examining Trumps joyful, spontaneous combination of ignorance and malice. Lawyers, of course, can be made to say anything. But they cant prove the 14th Amendment means something other than what it says. In the debates surrounding the amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Republican sponsors of these transformational measures affirmed that citizenship covered children begotten of Chinese parents as well as the children of Gypsies the hated immigrants of their time.

     

    • suyanebenevides_151

      Member
      August 21, 2015 at 8:05 am

      You don’t need to change the Constitution. Aldadoc is wrong. He says:
       
      “The law cannot be changed by a simple act of Congress or by executive fiat.”
       
      It has been done historically, many times. Cruz has a conflict of interest, too, because he is not a NBC but wants the 14th amendment to make him that, too. Something it was never written to do, nor will it ever make it so.
       
      Also, you should read Wong Kim Ark again, because you don’t even know the details of it with regard to this issue.
       

      • julie.young_645

        Member
        August 21, 2015 at 8:10 am

        Cruz DOES fit the definition…why you don’t want that to be true, I don’t know…
         
        [link=http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/]http://harvardlawreview.o…-natural-born-citizen/[/link]
         
        [blockquote] While the field of candidates for the next presidential election is still taking shape, at least one potential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, was born in a Canadian hospital to a U.S. citizen mother.[size=”0″] [/size]Despite the happenstance of a birth across the border, there is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a natural born Citizen within the meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, because his father had also been resident in the United States, Senator Cruz would have been a natural born Citizen even under the Naturalization Act of 1790. Similarly, in 2008, one of the two major party candidates for President, Senator John McCain, was born outside the United States on a U.S. military base in the Panama Canal Zone to a U.S. citizen parent.
        Despite a few spurious suggestions to the contrary, there is no serious question that Senator McCain was fully eligible to serve as President, wholly apart from any murky debate about the precise sovereign status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCains birth.  Indeed, this aspect of Senator McCains candidacy was a source of bipartisan accord. The U.S. Senate [i]unanimously[/i] agreed that Senator McCain was eligible for the presidency, resolving that any interpretation of the natural born citizenship clause as limited to those born within the United States was inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the natural born Citizen clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congresss own statute defining the term natural born Citizen.[size=”0″] [/size]And for the same reasons, both Senator Barry Goldwater and Governor George Romney were eligible to serve as President although neither was born within a state. Senator Goldwater was born in Arizona before its statehood and was the Republican Partys presidential nominee in 1964,[size=”0″] [/size] and Governor Romney was born in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents and unsuccessfully pursued the Republican nomination for President in1968.20×[/sup]
        [/blockquote]

      • kayla.meyer_144

        Member
        August 21, 2015 at 8:32 am

        Quote from Cigar

        You don’t need to change the Constitution. Aldadoc is wrong. He says:

        “The law cannot be changed by a simple act of Congress or by executive fiat.”

        It has been done historically, many times. Cruz has a conflict of interest, too, because he is not a NBC but wants the 14th amendment to make him that, too. Something it was never written to do, nor will it ever make it so.

        Also, you should read Wong Kim Ark again, because you don’t even know the details of it with regard to this issue.

        Tired of guessing what you mean. Maybe you should explain unless you are not able.
         
        Cruz is covered by statute. He is a legal Presidential candidate even though he was born in Canada.
         
        Wong Kim Ark’s case relates directly to the 14th Amendment. If you disagree, explain or post a link to an explanation.

        • suyanebenevides_151

          Member
          August 21, 2015 at 2:01 pm

          Ok, I explained what aldadoc said. That proves it right there. Historically, the Congress has changed precisely who is and isn’t a citizen. Of course, to the extent that someone has a citizen parent is debatable, and can also change, it is clear from our history and tradition that those who are illegal intruders (not even legal residents) certainly cannot and never have been able to have birth as a bestower of citizenship. Back to the Ark decision:
           
          It was debatable that Wong Kim Ark’s parents were legal citizens, but that title, mutable in the past and not much talked of, was a very gray issue. Justice Gray considered them to be permanent residents/LEGAL residents. As such, they were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
           
          Wikipedia as background:
          “The Supreme Court’s 1873 [i][link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughterhouse_Cases]Slaughterhouse Cases[/link][/i] decision[link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark#cite_note-60][60][/link][/sup] contained the statement that “The phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction,’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States.”[link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark#cite_note-Woodworth_1896_537-61][61][/link][/sup] However, since the [i]Slaughterhouse Cases[/i] did not deal with claims of birthright citizenship, this comment was dismissed in [i]Wong Kim Ark[/i][link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark#cite_note-Wong_Kim_Ark_678-62][62][/link][/sup] and later cases as a passing remark ([i][link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obiter_dictum]obiter dictum[/link][/i]) lacking any force as a controlling [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent]precedent[/link].[link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark#cite_note-Woodworth_1896_538-63][63][/link][/sup][link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark#cite_note-Semonche_1978_112-64][64][/link][/sup] As to whether the Court in [i]Slaughterhouse[/i] was correct on this point, or instead the Court in [i]Wong Kim Ark[/i] was correct, modern scholars are divided.[link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark#cite_note-Epps_2010_348-65][65][/link][/sup][link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark#cite_note-66][66][/link]”[/sup]
           
          Obiter dictum is also why O’Reilly’s recent claim that the 1985 INS vs. Rios-Pineda settles the issue is wrong. Ironically, that case was about sending family back and allowing INS to control immigration. In passing it says something about a citizen at birth but the case has nothing to do with that issue proper, nor the decision.
           
          Dalai,
           
          If others can claim you, you are not a NBC. Your Harvard Law review is poor in its scope, and also denies the Naturalization Act of 1795, only showing 1790 (which it trumped), due to its poor argumentation as well.
           
          [b]Beyond that[/b], the 14th amendment has nothing to do with the NBC clause, which was created in Article 2, and which differentiates a NBC from a “citizen.”
           
          There are all types of citizens, but a natural born citizen is one in which ONLY the United States can claim. Why should such a person only be allowed to be president?
           
          He has allegiance to only one country, without [b]any [/b]doubt.
           
          It’s not only the obvious reading, it is pure common sense in any reading. Many conservatives have lost their noodle on this, including those here, sadly.

          • eyoab2011_711

            Member
            August 21, 2015 at 3:31 pm

            The words are plain and simple…if you are born in the United States and there is jurisdiction over you, you are a citizen.  The only one’s we do not have jurisdiction over are diplomats and Native Americans who are under tribal law.  If you are here illegally or legally, we have jurisdiction (the power to deport) over them.  Children born in the US meet both criteria and thus are citizens of the US.
             
            Funny that Cigar now is trying to claim the Constitution does not mean what it plainly says and under Cigar’s reading neither Bobby Jindal or Marco Rubio would be citizens.
             
            Beyond all that this is course is a trivial part of the illegal immigration issue

            • suyanebenevides_151

              Member
              August 24, 2015 at 8:29 am

              Funny that you won’t read Jacob Howard, who actually wrote the 14th amendment, who said,
               
              “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
               
              I ask again, can we take people on vacation in the United States into our draft, if we need them to fight? Of course we can’t. They aren’t subject to our jurisdiction in the ultimate sense. [b]Of course[/b] they have to obey our [civil] laws, but this example proves without a doubt that our complete and utter “jurisdiction” is not … complete. Why? They are subject ultimately to their country of origin. As such, they bestow that citizenship on their children IF they are not American citizens. Therefore, their children are subject ultimately to another’s jurisdiction, particularly regarding citizenship.
               
              Also, if the Constitution so plainly says that all people born here are citizens, why do we have [b]many[/b] exceptions, as even you yourself enumerate? That [b][i]proves[/i][/b] once again, that being birthed in the “magic” soil and boundary of the USA does NOT bestow citizenship on you. It’s also common sense.

              • btomba_77

                Member
                August 24, 2015 at 8:40 am

                The point is that the Constitution has been interpreted as conveying citizenship on those born here with a few exceptions (which of been discussed). That is the current state of constitutional law.

                In order to change that law you would need to set a new precident in the courts, eventually the Supreme Court.

                Someone could pass a new law stating it differently or could simply try to enforce the law based on the interpretation of the 14th amendment does not convey birthright citizenship.

                Either way, it is going to end up back in the courts. It is possible that the Supreme Court would be willing to reconsider the current precident. But it is unlikely.

                • eyoab2011_711

                  Member
                  August 24, 2015 at 8:45 am

                  Cigar the only exception is those whom we do not have jurisdiction over…that is hardly many.  As for Howard, if he truly wanted to exclude birthright citizenship he should have plainly stated it. 
                   
                  Funny how a group that wanted to take an vague statement out of context and assign it meaning not wants to make a crystal clear statement somehow vague

                  • btomba_77

                    Member
                    August 24, 2015 at 10:34 am

                    [link=http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422894/birthright-citizenship-fourteenth-amendment-constitution-supreme-court]http://www.nationalreview…titution-supreme-court[/link]

                    A nice review on the current state of constitutional law with regard to the 14th amendment in the national review

              • kayla.meyer_144

                Member
                August 24, 2015 at 1:05 pm

                Quote from Cigar

                Funny that you won’t read Jacob Howard, who actually wrote the 14th amendment, who said,

                “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. [u]This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, [b]but will include every other class of persons.[/b][/u] 

                You’ve answered your own question, by the author’s own words, the clause includes “every other class of person” & declares them citizens.

                • suyanebenevides_151

                  Member
                  August 25, 2015 at 7:26 am

                  Umm, can you read, Frumious? Persons born to foreigners and aliens are not citizens.
                   
                  And congressional law, legislative law, or flat out indifference is not Constitutional law. Congress can, and will, change who they give it to. They’ve done it multiple times [b]before and after[/b] Ark, as I’ve enumerated — in detail. I’ve also stated why this was possible (Ark was a particular person to particular, domiciled immigrants).
                   
                  Yes, it could go back to the courts, and these brainless would probably rule against it — but it should go back to them, OR … they should just deny it, which would allow for the immediate refusal to grant anchor baby citizenship. If it’s a political question, that’s more likely, actually to happen (like you can’t challenge anyone on the presidential ballot for eligibility, another brainless part of our stupid, bought judges and legal system).

                  • kayla.meyer_144

                    Member
                    August 25, 2015 at 8:40 am

                    Quote from Cigar

                    Umm, can you read, Frumious? Persons born to foreigners and aliens are not citizens.

                    Um, I’m sure you can enroll in a reading comprehension course at a local school in your area. Complete your sentence as in the quote.
                     
                    [u][/u]

                    [u]This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, [b]but will include every other class of persons.[/b][/u]

                     
                    The exceptions are those children who are born to ambassadors or foreign ministers. And the quote goes on to say that except for these few exceptions, the 14th Amendment applies to “[b]every other class of persons.[/b]”
                     
                     

                    • suyanebenevides_151

                      Member
                      August 25, 2015 at 8:51 am

                      Ron Paul with another point which has been utilized, I don’t know, for the history of the United States. Oh, where does it derive? Yes, the Constitution, Article I:
                       
                      “Congress has within its power the authority to clarify the 14th Amendments definition of citizenship by making it clear that it does not grant citizenship by birthright. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is very clear: Congress has the power, To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States. This power has been used in the past to clarify birthright citizenship, including for the children of diplomats born on US soil and foreign prisoners who may give birth while in jail. There is no reason Congress cannot provide further clarification of what the 14 Amendment means when it refers to subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
                       
                      [b]There are all sorts of exceptions to the “born on our soil, automatic citizenship” idea[/b] — it has never been static. NEVER. I’m not sure what’s so hard to understand about that idea, that contextual history, that Constitutional REALITY.

                    • btomba_77

                      Member
                      August 25, 2015 at 8:55 am

                      And the reality is that [i]any[/i] law passed by Congress would be challenged in the courts.  And it would be the [i] courts [/i] determining the constituionality of the congressional action.
                       
                       
                      Unless, of course, the move was change the 14th Amendment itself through the Amendment process.
                       
                       
                      Congress could pass a new law today, “clarifying” that the Civil Rights Act didn’t apply to gays.  The courtswould strike it down.  It would still be unconsitutional.

                    • eyoab2011_711

                      Member
                      August 25, 2015 at 9:00 am

                      And Article 1 Section Eight has been clarified by the 14th amendment… but Yes Congress can further clarify it by amending the Constitution.  That is the option…as you are presumably aware, they could not repeal prohibition through a law

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      August 25, 2015 at 9:24 am

                      Sure, easy argument & win for the GOP, just a matter of “interpretation.” Isn’t “interpretation” & “living document” supposed to be a squishy Liberal argument?
                       
                      Now back to “original intent” and as spelled out by the author of the Amendment.

                    • suyanebenevides_151

                      Member
                      August 25, 2015 at 11:04 am

                      Quote from Thor

                      And Article 1 Section Eight has been clarified by the 14th amendment… but Yes Congress can further clarify it by amending the Constitution.  That is the option…as you are presumably aware, they could not repeal prohibition through a law

                       
                      What don’t you guys get about not having to repeal anything?
                       
                      Are all those born on American soil, without exception, citizens?
                       
                      [i][b]No.[/b][/i]
                       
                      You are wrong. Again. How many times do you have to be shown that to not recognize that the 14th Amendment is not, and has never been, a carte blanche ticket to citizenship?

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      August 25, 2015 at 11:16 am

                      You are leaving out critical clauses from the Amendment in the definition of who is & who isn’t. People like Native Americans & those born in US territories were added by laws separate from the constitution & those are easy, relatively anyway by comparison, to change, amend, repeal. An Amendment however has to be ratified by the majority of States. And that’s only after it passes through Congress.
                       
                      The Constitution is deliberately made difficult to modify.

                    • btomba_77

                      Member
                      August 25, 2015 at 12:13 pm

                      [b]What Conservatives Get Wrong about Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution[/b]
                       
                      ((from the link above))

                      Consider that the 1866 Civil Rights statute, enacted two years before the 14th Amendment and largely the work of Howard and Trumbull, began with this statement: All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power . . . are citizens. That clearly excludes aliens. But that phrase was replaced with the more ambiguous subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the amendment. Why? Did the amendment mean something broader? It would seem so.

                      Then the Supreme Court weighed in. In Slaughter-House Cases (1872), which did not concern the citizenship clause, the Court stated in passing that the clause excluded citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States. [b]A quarter century later, however,  in a monumental ruling (United States v. Wong Kim Ark) in 1898 about the citizenship of a child of legal Chinese immigrants born in California, the Court handed down the current interpretation of the citizenship clause. According to the ruling, everyone born on U.S. soil is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. except the children of foreign diplomats and enemy soldiers in wartime. [/b] No political allegiance to the U.S is required. True, the decision did not concern the children of illegal immigrants, but the interpretation of the citizenship clause plainly includes them. [b]Conservative commentators who claim the Supreme Court has never considered the question are just wrong.[/b]
                       
                      Some jurists, such as Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, believe a statutory fix to the problem will be enough. He evidently thinks federal judges will share his judicial realism and not adhere to outdated precedent. I disagree and think the lower courts would reject a legislative end to birthright citizenship. [b]Certainly, the statute would instantly be challenged by the ACLU and litigious Hispanic groups like La Raza. A challenge to such a law would very likely be accepted by the Supreme Court. (It only takes four votes to grant certiorari.) [/b]
                       
                       
                      Additionally, Article I, Section Eight of the Constitution provides that Congress has the power to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization. Does that trump the 14th Amendment? The 1898 decision gave that provision short shrift. But I think Scalia would be receptive to an act of Congress designed to solve a pressing national problem which is plainly not motivated by racial animus. And this would put the five liberal justices in a difficult position. Do they decide the case by following an 1898 precedent interpreting the 14th Amendment? They ended the last term by doing just the opposite, ruling that gay marriage was mandated by the 14th Amendment because the meaning of the text had evolved over time. If our current understanding of the concepts of due process and equal protection can evolve in a way that suits liberals, could it be that the citizenship clause can evolve in a way that reflects the border crisis and allows Congress to act accordingly? It would be a blockbuster decision.

                       
                       
                       
                      But no matter how you slice it …. it would be going to the courts.
                       
                       

                    • suyanebenevides_151

                      Member
                      August 25, 2015 at 12:51 pm

                      Quote from dergon

                      [b]What Conservatives Get Wrong about Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution[/b]

                      ((from the link above))

                      Consider that the 1866 Civil Rights statute, enacted two years before the 14th Amendment and largely the work of Howard and Trumbull, began with this statement: All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power . . . are citizens. That clearly excludes aliens. But that phrase was replaced with the more ambiguous subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the amendment. Why? Did the amendment mean something broader? It would seem so.

                      Then the Supreme Court weighed in. In Slaughter-House Cases (1872), which did not concern the citizenship clause, the Court stated in passing that the clause excluded citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States. [b]A quarter century later, however,  in a monumental ruling (United States v. Wong Kim Ark) in 1898 about the citizenship of a child of legal Chinese immigrants born in California, the Court handed down the current interpretation of the citizenship clause. [/b]

                      But no matter how you slice it …. it would be going to the courts.

                       
                      Probably. OR, they wouldn’t take it, and it would stand as Congressionally passed. Or, the impotent Republican Congress wouldn’t bother because they are all talk no action. So who knows.
                       
                      What I do know is that above decision, Wong Kim Ark was born to legal domiciled parents in the USA.
                       
                      That’s not the case for the main objection to anchor babies.
                       
                      I will never concede that the Constitution isn’t already clear — Howard and Congressional acts which prove provide exception to the magic soil idea are obvious that it can’t exist. But beyond that, how can anyone say that it’s in anyone’s interest, or ever was an intent that, for example, a chinese woman would fly into the US pregnant just to have a baby and that automatically confers citizenship. Such an idea is as asinine as it lacks common sense — especially for anyone who believes in some sort of living, breathing document!
                       
                      Delusion runs strong on this issue … with Republicans too.

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      August 26, 2015 at 6:06 am

                      It’s not in the US interest?
                       
                      We have a perfect example in the issue of the Dominican Republic and Haiti. The DR wants to expel its “Haitian citizens,” which includes people who left Haiti decades ago, as in the 1920’s & who have had generations of children born in the DR. But DR does not recognize birthright citizenship so it is threatening to deport these children who speak spanish, not french, who never new life in Haiti all their lives, “back” to Haiti. The DR deems these people born in the DR as “illegal.” It is a crisis happening now in Haiti & the DR, one that we have avoided for generations, up until now.

                      [link=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/world/americas/migrant-workers-in-dominican-republic-most-of-them-haitian-face-deportation.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…-face-deportation.html[/link]

                      The tensions peaked in 2013 when a constitutional court moved to strip the citizenship of children born to Haitian immigrants in the Dominican Republic as far back as 1929. Many of the people affected by the ruling had lived their whole lives in the Dominican Republic and knew nothing of Haiti, not even the language.

                       

                    • suyanebenevides_151

                      Member
                      August 26, 2015 at 7:20 am

                      So now, you want to tell other countries what they should or shouldn’t do. Why don’t you tell Mexico to actually take care of their citizens, instead of lopping all of the costs on us?
                       
                      That would be helpful if you cared about our country. 
                       
                      But you don’t.

                    • btomba_77

                      Member
                      June 26, 2023 at 9:50 am

                      [h2][link=https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4068144-desantis-vows-to-end-birthright-citizenship-as-part-of-immigration-plan/]DeSantis vows to end birthright citizenship as part of immigration plan[/link][/h2] We will take action to end the idea that the children of illegal aliens are entitled to birthright citizenship if they are born in the United States, the plan, which is titled No Excuses, reads. 
                       
                      Dangling the prize of citizenship to the future offspring of illegal immigrants is a major driver of illegal migration. It is also inconsistent with the original understanding of 14th Amendment, and we will force the courts and Congress to finally address this failed policy. 
                      Like DeSantis, former President Trump [link=https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4026334-trump-pledges-to-end-birthright-citizenship-on-first-day-in-office/]vowed last month[/link] to end birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who entered the country illegally.  The former president also [link=https://www.axios.com/2018/10/30/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order]pledged to end the practice[/link] with an executive order during his administration in 2018. 
                      However, most immigration experts argue that a president does not have the authority to end birthright citizenship because it is enshrined in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment grants citizenship to those born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
                       

                    • suyanebenevides_151

                      Member
                      August 25, 2015 at 12:42 pm

                      Quote from Frumious

                      You are leaving out critical clauses from the Amendment in the definition of who is & who isn’t. [b][i]People like Native Americans & those born in US territories were added by laws separate from the constitution & those are easy, relatively anyway by comparison, to change,[/i][/b] amend, repeal. An Amendment however has to be ratified by the majority of States. And that’s only after it passes through Congress.

                      The Constitution is deliberately made difficult to modify.

                       
                      Separate from the Constitution? No person in the USA is separate from the Constitution, and you prove my point — the idea of exceptions. US Code currently, and historically, has exceptions for those born on US soil.
                       
                      [b]There is no modification[/b]. It is the understanding, as proved by US Code. You seem to agree with this. Your points are contradictory.

                    • kayla.meyer_144

                      Member
                      August 25, 2015 at 12:44 pm

                      Take a remedial reading comprehension course. Now.