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.
The law IS the law, but you'd have to go back and research it to know what the laws INTENT was. The author of the 14th Amendment was VERY clear on the laws intent, the problem has originated with an irresponsible SCOTUS interpretation of it.
The law IS the law, but you'd have to go back and research it to know what the laws INTENT was. The author of the 14th Amendment was VERY clear on the laws intent, the problem has originated with an irresponsible SCOTUS interpretation of it.
Some 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 Jacobs 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? I'm sure that he assumed that the Amendment would be executed with a modicum of common sense.
The United States of America is the ONLY industrialized nation in the world which hands out birthright citizenship like Halloween candy. In every other civilized country in the world, one must have one citizen parent in order to receive citizenship in that country.
The Fourteen Amendment has been twisted in a manner never intended by the original framers. In order to know this though, you would have to research the history and reasoning behind the Fourteenth Amendment.
I would venture to say that Senator Jacobs is probably rolling over in his grave.
The law wasn't well written and its intent is NOT for illegal immigrants to borne legal immigrants by the fact that they were here. They never thought our government would allow such disregard of our borders, if they did, it would of been worded much differently. Too bad nobody has the backbone to make the law much more clear about its intent.
Why do you want it to be changed? I thought the law was the law and it should be enforced?
The law IS the law, and probably SHOULD be enforced...(even the law about immigrating here illegally--yes, even THAT law should be enforced). But "law" is certainly a man-made construct. It can be, and sometimes is, changed. (For example, the law providing for the return of runaway slaves is now pretty much a moot point).
"Birthright Citizenship" may have had a noble purpose (I haven't researched it), but today it also OBVIOUSLY serves as an enabler of huge cases of 'chain migration" which I'm SURE wasn't its original intent,
Perhaps a fair question might be, "Why SHOULD a newborn, coming from foreign citizens here illegally, simply be given American citizenship? Exactly what would be the 'grounds' for extending this privilege to a minor child, as opposed to his just being regarded as 'belonging' to his parents, and inheriting THEIR citizenship"?
In other words, maybe there's a REASON for it, but let's spell it out. How is this person "deserving" of citizenship, as opposed to anyone else?...
Why do you want it to be changed? I thought the law was the law and it should be enforced?
Well, I would live with it better were it reciprocated by other countries.
Example:
I had a German roomate during graduate school. She had US citizenship and thus a US passport as her parents had studied at UCLA and she was born in LA. She could enjoy all the benefits of American citizenship while preserving her German citizenship.
Now, that's really not such a big deal, but it would be nice if Germany granted the same kind of rights to all the children born there from American parents serving in the armed forces.
Otherwise, why should we grant rights that others are unwilling to grant? Especially when the child is born to parents who have little if any connection to this country?
Well, I would live with it better were it reciprocated by other countries.
Example:
I had a German roomate during graduate school. She had US citizenship and thus a US passport as her parents had studied at UCLA and she was born in LA. She could enjoy all the benefits of American citizenship while preserving her German citizenship.
Now, that's really not such a big deal, but it would be nice if Germany granted the same kind of rights to all the children born there from American parents serving in the armed forces.
Otherwise, why should we grant rights that others are unwilling to grant? Especially when the child is born to parents who have little if any connection to this country?
And some Americans are against your friend having dual citizenship.
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.
). But "law" is certainly a man-made construct. It can be, and sometimes is, changed. (For example, the law providing for the return of runaway slaves is now pretty much a moot point).
