ConHog
Rookie
- Jun 4, 2010
- 14,538
- 951
- 0
- Banned
- #21
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.
Yes, duh, that is exactly is what is being said, and a SCOTUS ruling on the matter would effectively change the 14th from teh current view, which is that the 14th doesn't differentiate legal from illegal.
Which is exactly why I said that there is plenty of controversy and debate and you replied with "there is no debate" and then rambled on.