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.
That IS the point, but not in the way you think. Aliens' US-born children are born subject to their parent's sovereign nation, therefore NOT birthright US citizens.
To revisit historical facts:
1) Article XXV Section 1992 of the 1877 Revised Statutes, enacted 9 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, which clarified exactly who are U.S. citizens at birth per the Constitution:
"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States".
2) U.S. Secretaries of State determinations as to exactly who has birthright US citizenship, after ratification of the 14th Amendment:
Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen (1881-1885) determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien father.
Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard (1885-1889) determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Immigrants came over on a boat in the 19th century, pass a physical, and we let in without citizenship. They may never had applied to be citizens or had children before they became citizens. Are these children citizens?
By 1877, the congress was a much different congress then the one that passed the 14th amendment. I would contend what they passed was unconstitutional.
Immigrants came over on a boat in the 19th century, pass a physical, and we let in without citizenship. They may never had applied to be citizens or had children before they became citizens. Are these children citizens?
By 1877, the congress was a much different congress then the one that passed the 14th amendment. I would contend what they passed was unconstitutional.
Not according to the anti-birthright crowd. Their descendants would not be either. Go back where you came from, I guess. Not to worry, though. The Great Trump, knower of all things including unknown middle-easterners, will clarify this.
Again, where does the 14th Amendment distinguish between green card holders (which did not even exist at the time it was drafted), temporary legal residents, visitors, and illegal immigrants?
Again, in the phrase, "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
It probably has to be done by Congress but it’s not unconstitutional . Congress has has specific power under the constitution to regulate immigration (this also shows that the 14th was not intended to give birthright citizenship).
Regardless of the disputed intention, there’s 150 years of practice to deal with.
And there are laws that gave parents of anchor babies the ability to bring the rest of their family in and a fast path to green cards and citizenship.
My own BC does not show the citizenship status of my parents. My kid’s BCs reflect my identification as a US citizen, not proof of citizenship. There are reportedly more than 14,000 state/ juristriction versions of the BC is existence, right now. Might be a good idea to start with a single federal form of BC, going forward.
I'll disagree. You don't need another Constitutional amendment for that. You need to take a second look at the 14th amendment and how it was originally interpreted. That's what the Supreme Court does.
No.
First the "Supreme Court" is made up of 9 justices and all of them look to different philosophies, most (if not all) all take into account precedence.
The 14th amendment is vague, but moreso, it was never used in the manner you describe. Precedence over vague splitting of the meaning of one clause will win every single time.
Legal precedence is an important thing. If you don't want birthright citizenship, it's time to pass a constitutional amendment.
Yep, you're gonna have to amend. The 14th Am. language is just too tricky to get around, even with sophistry.
How about the Dem states agree to rescind the 14th Amendment re. "all persons born ..." if the Repub states agree to amend the 2nd to state gun-bearing & owning rights only apply to states where, say, a simple majority of 51% support them. A 28th Amendment would reduce a whole lot of friction.
In the context of the Fourteenth Amendment, I interpret "subject to the jurisdiction" to mean that the Constitution recognizes all persons as citizens who do not owe allegiance to some other government.
So, if two illegal immigrants have a child, born in the US, that child would carry(inherit) the allegiance of his/her parents, and are therefore NOT eligible to automatically be US citizens.
Subject to the jurisdiction is about the government's ability to tax, prosecute, or otherwise apply American law to those persons. Your version of "jurisdiction" is seriously being stretched when you talk about their allegiance.
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.
