Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Section 1 of the 14th amendment:
ALL PERSONS BORN or naturalized in the United States are CITIZENS of the United States.
That simple.
I notice you have overlooked the most salient section – “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Illegal aliens are not citizens. Thus, they can legally hold no allegiance to this country. They are citizens of a foreign nation; likewise, their children.
Citizens of this country are eligible to work, vote, and participate as jurors -- to name a few. NONE of these are applicable to illegal aliens.
Should children of non-citizens (illegal aliens) be granted automatic citizenship by virtue of having been born on U.S. soil? This would appear to be a no-brainer, given that one must first be a “citizen” of this country for one’s offspring to enjoy said designation; at least that was the intent of the framers of the Constitution. However, our government has ‘ignored’ the intent of the framers, just as it has conveniently ‘ignored’ our immigration laws.
Clearly, the 14th Amendment has been egregiously manipulated, as evidenced by the statements made during the 39th Congress. If our politicians can ignore our Constitution with impunity vis-a-vis Birthright Citizenship, what will be the next issue twisted to support a political agenda?
The original intent of the 14th Amendment is as follows:
Source: The Library of Congress. . Maybe now the bizarre insistence of a certain poster that the 14th Amendment has something to do with the 1965 Immigration Act will finally cease.
Why do you insist on continually bringing up the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 when it has absolutely nothing to do with the 14th Amendment? I pulled up and compared the two the last time you pretended the two were interrelated in some way. There is nothing even remotely mentioned about slavery or birthright citizenship in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
Adding insult to injury what good ole Teddy claimed wouldn't destroy this country is doing just that. Had the above monstrosity not been passed America wouldn't be in this mess. Thanks Teddy.
Hmmmm....wow!
1. Can you please point out where the insult is?
2. In case you didnt know, wikipedia is edited by any internet sufer that wants to change it. It changes day to day, therefore, it is not a reliable source. Thank you Benicar for using a good reliable source. You picked the best one.
3. Let me recommend that you get a law book and The Constitution of the United States of America. The constitution is given free of charge in your local state government agencies. Also, any law book will do.
There is nothing wrong with our Constitution. Nor should it change, nor will it change. I guarantee the supreme court will rule out a revision of our sacred constitution.
The 14th Amendment- Under "Citizenship"
"Section 1. 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."
First of all, Government 101-nothing superceeds the Constitution, except for the bill of rights and the Articles of Confederation. The acts are laws created to give rights to but cannot superceed the bill of rights.
The "subject to the jurisdition thereof", basically means that the courts have interpreted "anyone" (no matter parents legal status) born on US soil to be American citizens, with the added Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
2. In case you didnt know, wikipedia is edited by any internet sufer that wants to change it. It changes day to day, therefore, it is not a reliable source. Thank you Benicar for using a good reliable source. You picked the best one.
3. Let me recommend that you get a law book and The Constitution of the United States of America. The constitution is given free of charge in your local state government agencies. Also, any law book will do.
There is nothing wrong with our Constitution. Nor should it change, nor will it change. I guarantee the supreme court will rule out a revision of our sacred constitution.
The 14th Amendment- Under "Citizenship"
"Section 1. 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."
First of all, Government 101-nothing superceeds the Constitution, except for the bill of rights and the Articles of Confederation. The acts are laws created to give rights to but cannot superceed the bill of rights.
The "subject to the jurisdition thereof", basically means that the courts have interpreted "anyone" (no matter parents legal status) born on US soil to be American citizens, with the added Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
decree? see: Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
Do you now see the association between an act and the constitution?
I dont think it can get much clearer than that.
There are numerous definitions of “jurisdiction.” However, the phrase, “jurisdiction thereof” as indicated by the framers of the Constitution, was quite explicit. Please explain why ‘some’ foreigners, such as diplomats, can have children born on U.S. soil, but their children are not granted citizenship. Diplomats are legal invited guests; whereas, illegal aliens are residing in this country in violation of our laws. The law is being manipulated to support a political agenda, and it’s an absolute disgrace.
There are numerous definitions of “jurisdiction.” However, the phrase, “jurisdiction thereof” as indicated by the framers of the Constitution, was quite explicit. Please explain why ‘some’ foreigners, such as diplomats, can have children born on U.S. soil, but their children are not granted citizenship. Diplomats are legal invited guests; whereas, illegal aliens are residing in this country in violation of our laws. The law is being manipulated to support a political agenda, and it’s an absolute disgrace.
You should check what happens if a diplomat, or their direct family, murders/rapes/commits any other crime. They are outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. so they do not go to a criminal trial. They get kicked out of the country, and sent back, no trial, no sentence, no jail.
If illegal aliens were outside of the U.S. jurisdiction, when they commit a crime they would only be deported and not tried for the crime that they committed.
So:
-If they are outside U.S. jurisdiction they are not included in the 14th Amendment but we cannot try them in a U.S. court.
-If they are inside U.S. jurisdiction they are included in the 14th Amendment but we can try them in a U.S. court.
Do you really want to argue that they are not within the U.S. jurisdiction? If this was true, then they would be immune to any charges, just like diplomats and their families are.
Don't want birth right citizenship? Then change the 14th Amendment.
You should check what happens if a diplomat, or their direct family, murders/rapes/commits any other crime. They are outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. so they do not go to a criminal trial. They get kicked out of the country, and sent back, no trial, no sentence, no jail.
If illegal aliens were outside of the U.S. jurisdiction, when they commit a crime they would only be deported and not tried for the crime that they committed.
So:
-If they are outside U.S. jurisdiction they are not included in the 14th Amendment but we cannot try them in a U.S. court.
-If they are inside U.S. jurisdiction they are included in the 14th Amendment but we can try them in a U.S. court.
Do you really want to argue that they are not within the U.S. jurisdiction? If this was true, then they would be immune to any charges, just like diplomats and their families are.
Don't want birth right citizenship? Then change the 14th Amendment.
Hey Einstein. Diplomats are here under specific guidelines and rules under treaties and government cooperation. Illegal Aliens have no outlined rights or treatise. They are in violation of U.S. law the second they come across our border and have now special rights and unlike a person legally here who cannot be expunged (deported) out, have no rights to citizenship or sovereignty. If I steal something and get caught, the law will apply to me in only a punitive fashion. I will be arrested etc. I cannot however claim possession of the item I stole, under "Possession is nine-tenths of the law".
Prov. If you actually possess something, you have a stronger legal claim to owning it than someone who merely says it belongs to him or her.
You should check what happens if a diplomat, or their direct family, murders/rapes/commits any other crime. They are outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. so they do not go to a criminal trial. They get kicked out of the country, and sent back, no trial, no sentence, no jail.
If illegal aliens were outside of the U.S. jurisdiction, when they commit a crime they would only be deported and not tried for the crime that they committed.
So:
-If they are outside U.S. jurisdiction they are not included in the 14th Amendment but we cannot try them in a U.S. court.
-If they are inside U.S. jurisdiction they are included in the 14th Amendment but we can try them in a U.S. court.
Do you really want to argue that they are not within the U.S. jurisdiction? If this was true, then they would be immune to any charges, just like diplomats and their families are.
Don't want birth right citizenship? Then change the 14th Amendment.
Apples and oranges. That is due to “diplomatic immunity” – an agreement made between foreign nations. We have not entered into similar agreements with foreign governments regarding their citizens who choose to illegally reside in our country. Thus, albeit citizens under the jurisdiction of their countries of origin, they are not afforded this privilege. Why should they, they are here in violation of our laws; thus, we may prosecute them accordingly.
Legal Aspects of Diplomatic Immunity and Privileges (http://www.state.gov/m/ds/immunities/c9127.htm - broken link)
Some legal scholars assert that the 14th Amendment requires that we grant citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. Other legal scholars disagree, arguing that the children of illegal aliens, like the children born to foreign diplomats stationed here are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States as required by the 14th Amendment.
One of the Fourteenth Amendment's key authors, Michigan Senator Jacob Howard explained in 1866 that the citizenship clause, intended to ensure the rights of former slaves and their children, "would not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are the children of foreigners, aliens, or who belong to families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States..."
Senator Howard made his intentions for this Amendment perfectly clear. This Amendment was never intended to write a blank check to the children of people in this country illegally. How could anyone in 1866 could have forseen the situation that we are in today with regards to illegal foreign nationals and their illegal anchor babies? Most assuredly, the good senator assumed that the Amendment would be executed with a modicum of common sense, which of course, it has not been.
The citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has been rendered purposeless. Those children of slaves for whom the Amendment was framed are long in the grave. I feel certain that the abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment by illegal foreign nationals would most definitely leave a bad taste in their mouths.
I completely agree with you Benicar. However, because there are a number of definitions, I think it would be wise going through each one. Also, a basic dictionary serves no purpose to a judge or a lawyer. Each one has its own dictionary to be able to practice in their field. I also have to use the one designed for my own profession. If we are discussing law and practice, wouldnt you agree that the proper thing would be to check with a law dictionary vs a basic dictionary?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar
However, the phrase, “jurisdiction thereof” as indicated by the framers of the Constitution, was quite explicit.
I think there are different opinions about this one. I respect your opinion.
If we were to write the sentence without the " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"...that would be very explicit and you would be right. However, the clause, in my opinion, was added as ...there are exceptions to the law and the Supreme court has power to grant or deny.
Let me give you an example: In The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the "jurisdiction thereof" allowed for Mexicans occupying the land to become US citizens. Without the clause, the US would have occupied the land but the people would have continued to be non-citizens. Again, even with a treaty, nothing superceeds the constitution. Nothing can be implied when documented. If it is not legally documeted properly, it is not valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar
Please explain why ‘some’ foreigners, such as diplomats, can have children born on U.S. soil, but their children are not granted citizenship. Diplomats are legal invited guests; whereas, illegal aliens are residing in this country in violation of our laws. The law is being manipulated to support a political agenda, and it’s an absolute disgrace.
I respectfully disagree with you. I dont see it as a manipulation to support a political agenda or disgrace but maybe its because I am not that well informed on this one. An illegal immigrant who is also a foreign diplomat, happens to have a child on US soil, that child is denied citizenship also, as how it is written in our constitution.
Lets also remember that not all foreign diplomats are "guests". I'm making up this scenario but hear me out. Do you remember Noriega? He was a foreign diplomat who we incarcerated in a federal penetenciary for, if I remember correctly, 10 years. Even prisioners have basic human rights. Unless a violent criminal, he would have the right to congugal visits with his wife. Lets say, he happens to get his wife pregnant and the child is born on US soil. Dont you think this is a high risk for us? How about diplomats from North Korea and Iran? This can get potentially dangerous for our country but who knows. I'm just throwing it out there. On the other hand, illegal immigrants come to this country, mostly poor, have no political influence in their country. Therefore, they do not present to be a threat to us. The wording is correct, imho.
I've noticed that the pro-illegal crowd is quick to latch on the the ambiguous phase "subject to the jusidiction of" and twist it to suit their end but what about this part:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele
..."would not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are the children of foreigners, aliens,..."
How can you seriously dispute the meaning of that part of the amendment?
I've made posts pointing this out before and of course it always seems to be ignored by the pro-illegal side as I'm sure this also will be. But I'm asking in all seriousness for the pro-illegal side to address that part and tell us how you can deny it's meaning. How can that be twisted around to say that we DO allow the children of foreigners and aliens to be citizens.
I am honestly curious about this because it really seems pretty clear to me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
