American By Birth!

[froggy]

Should this be changed to something like: The parent must be legal citizens and reside in America for at least five years.

 

[ConHog]

Should this be changed to something like: The parent must be legal citizens and reside in America for at least five years.

A simple clarification to one parent must be a US citizen for the child to be a US citizen from birth would suffice. A time limit as you suggest could be used to fuck some people up, for instance two US citizens are living overseas for a few years and have a child , is that child a US citizen? Nor do I think it should read that one parent must be a US citizen for five years before any child they have is considered a US citizen.

 

[Luissa]

No!
The Constitution is very clear. Plus many of our ancestors would not have been citizens, one must remember that.

 

[ConHog]

No!
The Constitution is very clear. Plus many of our ancestors would not have been citizens, one must remember that.

Actually, the COTUS is very unclear . The 14th Amendment does NOT specify that the USG can unilaterally grant citizenship to any child who is born here by parents who have sneaked across the border.

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.

Much argument over what "subject to the jurisdiction" means.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No!
The Constitution is very clear. Plus many of our ancestors would not have been citizens, one must remember that.

Actually, the COTUS is very unclear . The 14th Amendment does NOT specify that the USG can unilaterally grant citizenship to any child who is born here by parents who have sneaked across the border.

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.

Much argument over what "subject to the jurisdiction" means.

It wouldn't allow me to add a rep....

1. In 1894, Wong Kim Ark, born and raised in the United States, visited China. His parents who had worked in San Francisco, had returned to China to live, and when Wong Kim Ark returned to California, he was“denied permission to enter the country "...because the said Wong Kim Ark, although born in the city and county of San Francisco, state of California, United States of America, is not, under the laws of the state of California and of the United States, a citizen thereof, the mother and father of the said Wong Kim Ark being Chinese persons, and subjects of the emperor of China, and the said Wong Kim Ark being also a Chinese person and a subject of the Emperor of China."
United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. “Citizenship, of course, does not exist by nature; it is created by law, and the identification of citizens has always been considered an essential aspect of sovereignty. Although the Constitution of 1787 mentioned citizens, it did not define citizenship. It was in 1868 that a definition of citizenship entered the Constitution, with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here is the familiar language: “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.” Thus there are two components to American citizenship: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.”

3. There is no Supreme Court decision squarely holding that children of illegal aliens are automatically citizens of the U.S. An 1898 decision, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, held by a vote of 5-4 that a child of legal resident aliens is entitled to birthright citizenship. Decided under the premise that the Fourteenth Amendment was based on the common law concept of birthright citizenship, Justice Gray, writing the majority decision, merely stipulated that “citizen” and “subject” were convertible terms—as if there were no difference between feudal monarchy and republicanism. Indeed, Chief Justice Fuller wrote a powerful dissent in the case arguing that the idea of birthright subjectship had been repealed by the American Revolution and the principles of the Declaration.

https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=07

(emphasis mine throughout)

4. My opinion is that, while it would be interesting to see a Supreme Court decision specifically dealing with the child of illegal immigrants, it would not be advisable nor politic to revise the current reading of the 14th amendment.
I am coming close to looking elsewhere for a solution to the problem, based on reality rather than a magic wand solution.

 

[Nosmo King]

No!
The Constitution is very clear. Plus many of our ancestors would not have been citizens, one must remember that.

My father would not be a citizen! Once the frightened, paranoid right gets on a kick and wants to change the constitution, watch out!

 

[Luissa]

No!
The Constitution is very clear. Plus many of our ancestors would not have been citizens, one must remember that.

My father would not be a citizen! Once the frightened, paranoid right gets on a kick and wants to change the constitution, watch out!

I have a few friends who grandparents would be in the same boat, along with my brother's father.

 

[Luissa]

No!
The Constitution is very clear. Plus many of our ancestors would not have been citizens, one must remember that.

Actually, the COTUS is very unclear . The 14th Amendment does NOT specify that the USG can unilaterally grant citizenship to any child who is born here by parents who have sneaked across the border.

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.

Much argument over what "subject to the jurisdiction" means.

Always seemed clear to me.

And subject to jurisdiction was more for slaves, so states could not deny them citizenship or other rights.

 

[ConHog]

No!
The Constitution is very clear. Plus many of our ancestors would not have been citizens, one must remember that.

Actually, the COTUS is very unclear . The 14th Amendment does NOT specify that the USG can unilaterally grant citizenship to any child who is born here by parents who have sneaked across the border.

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.

Much argument over what "subject to the jurisdiction" means.

Always seemed clear to me.

And subject to jurisdiction was more for slaves, so states could not deny them citizenship or other rights.

Actually, there is very little ancillary writings to the 14th and so we don't really know what was meant by under the jurisdiction of. A leading legal view is that only those who are legal residents are under the jurisdiction of the united states.

Oh PS - You're fears that your grandma will suddenly lose her citizenship are unfounded because no law or ruling can be applied retroactively

 

[Luissa]

Actually, the COTUS is very unclear . The 14th Amendment does NOT specify that the USG can unilaterally grant citizenship to any child who is born here by parents who have sneaked across the border.

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.

Much argument over what "subject to the jurisdiction" means.

Always seemed clear to me.

And subject to jurisdiction was more for slaves, so states could not deny them citizenship or other rights.

Actually, there is very little ancillary writings to the 14th and so we don't really know what was meant by under the jurisdiction of. A leading legal view is that only those who are legal residents are under the jurisdiction of the united states.

Oh PS - You're fears that your grandma will suddenly lose her citizenship are unfounded because no law or ruling can be applied retroactively

I wasn't worried. For one my ancestors have been here since the 1600's, my father's side came over in 1619, and my mother's side were Quakers, and the ones who were not were Native. My brother's have different Grandparents.
And it doesn't say anything about parents, just the person who is born here.

 

[ConHog]

Always seemed clear to me.

And subject to jurisdiction was more for slaves, so states could not deny them citizenship or other rights.

Actually, there is very little ancillary writings to the 14th and so we don't really know what was meant by under the jurisdiction of. A leading legal view is that only those who are legal residents are under the jurisdiction of the united states.

Oh PS - You're fears that your grandma will suddenly lose her citizenship are unfounded because no law or ruling can be applied retroactively

I wasn't worried. For one my ancestors have been here since the 1600's, my father's side came over in 1619, and my mother's side were Quakers, and the ones who were not were Native. My brother's have different Grandparents.
And it doesn't say anything about parents, just the person who is born here.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia explicitly brought the question of parents into the equation; and that is the entire crux of the situation. is there a difference between children born of legal immigrants and children born of illegal immigrants. The fact that you just admitted you didn't understand that shows that you are clearly not qualified to be discussing this topic.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Should this be changed to something like: The parent must be legal citizens and reside in America for at least five years.

Are you talking about "anchor babies"?

If so I would like to just say that the "anchor baby" laws were put in place so that the children of freed slaves would not have to worry about being deported.

That was the law's purpose. It was not put in place so any citizen of any country could come to america, give birth, and thus make their child an american citizen.



if anyone wants to debat this with me I'd love to.

 

[Luissa]

Actually, there is very little ancillary writings to the 14th and so we don't really know what was meant by under the jurisdiction of. A leading legal view is that only those who are legal residents are under the jurisdiction of the united states.

Oh PS - You're fears that your grandma will suddenly lose her citizenship are unfounded because no law or ruling can be applied retroactively

I wasn't worried. For one my ancestors have been here since the 1600's, my father's side came over in 1619, and my mother's side were Quakers, and the ones who were not were Native. My brother's have different Grandparents.
And it doesn't say anything about parents, just the person who is born here.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia explicitly brought the question of parents into the equation; and that is the entire crux of the situation. is there a difference between children born of legal immigrants and children born of illegal immigrants. The fact that you just admitted you didn't understand that shows that you are clearly not qualified to be discussing this topic.

Obviously you are not either.
jurisdiction means region or location of power or influence. And Like I said before it is just provides them equal protection of the laws of the state and country, meaning in any state they are considered to be equal to any other citizen. So I like I said it was mostly put in place to protect former slaves.

 

[Modbert]

Should this be changed to something like: The parent must be legal citizens and reside in America for at least five years.

There are plenty of flaws with that idea.

 

[Luissa]

Should this be changed to something like: The parent must be legal citizens and reside in America for at least five years.

Are you talking about "anchor babies"?

If so I would like to just say that the "anchor baby" laws were put in place so that the children of freed slaves would not have to worry about being deported.

That was the law's purpose. It was not put in place so any citizen of any country could come to america, give birth, and thus make their child an american citizen.



if anyone wants to debat this with me I'd love to.

That might not have been the intention, of course they didn't really have too many immigration laws back then, but it doesn't mean it isn't protecting "anchor babies". And the fact you don't see the similarities between slaves who were not considered full citizens, and illegals, is somewhat funny.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Should this be changed to something like: The parent must be legal citizens and reside in America for at least five years.

There are plenty of flaws with that idea.

For example my friend who has lived here illegally for 7 years kids would qualify.

 

[Luissa]

Actually, there is very little ancillary writings to the 14th and so we don't really know what was meant by under the jurisdiction of. A leading legal view is that only those who are legal residents are under the jurisdiction of the united states.

Oh PS - You're fears that your grandma will suddenly lose her citizenship are unfounded because no law or ruling can be applied retroactively

I wasn't worried. For one my ancestors have been here since the 1600's, my father's side came over in 1619, and my mother's side were Quakers, and the ones who were not were Native. My brother's have different Grandparents.
And it doesn't say anything about parents, just the person who is born here.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia explicitly brought the question of parents into the equation; and that is the entire crux of the situation. is there a difference between children born of legal immigrants and children born of illegal immigrants. The fact that you just admitted you didn't understand that shows that you are clearly not qualified to be discussing this topic.

And furthermore, how does a case that has to do with legal aliens, that never mentioned illegal aliens, have to do with this? And was he found to be a citizen?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Should this be changed to something like: The parent must be legal citizens and reside in America for at least five years.

Are you talking about "anchor babies"?

If so I would like to just say that the "anchor baby" laws were put in place so that the children of freed slaves would not have to worry about being deported.

That was the law's purpose. It was not put in place so any citizen of any country could come to america, give birth, and thus make their child an american citizen.



if anyone wants to debat this with me I'd love to.

That might not have been the intention, of course they didn't really have too many immigration laws back then, but it doesn't mean it isn't protecting "anchor babies". And the fact you don't see the similarities between slaves who were not considered full citizens, and illegals, is somewhat funny.

When the 14th ammendment was ratified in 1868 (which is what we are talking about) the United States did not limit immigration. "Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of immigration laws was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified."



You will enjoy reading this link The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution lots of good and accurate info about the 14th ammendment. (BTW the part I italicized in my post above is from the link)

 

[Luissa]

Are you talking about "anchor babies"?

If so I would like to just say that the "anchor baby" laws were put in place so that the children of freed slaves would not have to worry about being deported.

That was the law's purpose. It was not put in place so any citizen of any country could come to america, give birth, and thus make their child an american citizen.



if anyone wants to debat this with me I'd love to.

That might not have been the intention, of course they didn't really have too many immigration laws back then, but it doesn't mean it isn't protecting "anchor babies". And the fact you don't see the similarities between slaves who were not considered full citizens, and illegals, is somewhat funny.

When the 14th ammendment was ratified in 1868 (which is what we are talking about) the United States did not limit immigration. "Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of immigration laws was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified."



You will enjoy reading this link The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution lots of good and accurate info about the 14th ammendment. (BTW the part I italicized in my post above is from the link)

So in reality, unless we change the laws, any person born here(unless restricted by certain citizenship laws) they are a citizen. And " subject to jurisdiction thereof" has nothing to do with illegal aliens.

 

[ConHog]

Should this be changed to something like: The parent must be legal citizens and reside in America for at least five years.

There are plenty of flaws with that idea.

Besides the obvious flaws of

1. He says parent and then refers to citizens so I'm not sure if he means one parent or both parents and I would be against it being both parents

and

2. The five year time line

What other flaws do you see?

It seems obvious that SOMETHING has to change here. I'm not sure of the answer, but we can not continue to be a dumping ground for illegal immigrants to have babies on just to have them become citizens, that was NEVER the intent, I think you realize that.