"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[DGS49]

"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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.

 

[Cosmos]

"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."

I've always taken that clause to mean that the parents were at a minimum legal residents or citizens of the United States. The misinterpretation of this clause that has resulted in "anchor babies" has been a huge mistake that should have been rectified long ago, imo.

 

[Cosmos]

Not tourists. Not diplomats. And certainly not illegal aliens that came in illegally simply to exploit our system.

Legal residents or citizens.

 

[DGS49]

What 8216 Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof 8217 Really Means
I'm RIGHT, by golly. Read the article.

The 14th Amendment was phrased as it was in contra-distinction to the English principle of citizenship by birth (wherein the King claimed ownership of anyone born within the realm). Subject to the jurisdiction referred to aliens on U.S. soil who had renounced their citizenship abroad, and owed no allegiance to any other country.

The Anchor Baby phenomenon is based on a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Cosmos]

I believe the only way to fix this is to win a test in court. Can you claim you have been harmed by anchor babies to the degree that you can bring a lawsuit?

 

[LilOlLady]

Anchor Baby’ Outrage:
Americans Pay BILLIONS for Illegal Alien Births (Video)

If Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto’s wife gave birth in a Washington, D.C. hospital, no one would ever argue that the child was an American citizen.

Similarly, it is ludicrous to state that a Mexican citizen, such as the woman in the story below, who illegally swims across the Rio Grande in labor and gives birth in a Texas hospital, has sired an American citizen. But that’s what we currently do, because of a shameful perversion of the 14th Amendment.

Some inaccuracies in the video. It grossly underestimates the annual costs for U.S. taxpayers, and the impact on hospitals. Medicaid alone paid $2.2 billion last year to partially reimburse hospitals for unpaid illegal alien delivery bills, double the news report’s estimate.

And the amount not reimbursed to hospitals is in the tens of billions. A staggering 84 hospitals in California alone, have been forced to close their doors because of unpaid bills by illegal aliens. Hospitals which manage to remain open, pass the unpaid costs onto the rest of us, which translates into more out-of-pocket expenses and higher insurance premiums for Americans.

8216 Anchor Baby 8217 Outrage Americans Pay BILLIONS for Illegal Alien Births Video Top Right News


Nothing good about illegal immigration for US or Mexico. Anchor babies are also ciizens of Mexico and is Mexixco's future. Take them away and Mexico is suffers. Mexico is capable of taking care of their own. We need to invade is as we did Iraq and change things so the people an can stay home and build Mexico's economy
Nevada just got 6 billion for pre schooler and most of them of children of ilegal aleins and not guarentee they will become productive to the eoncomy or end up in prison or in gangs.
Immigration reform fixes nothing.

 

[DGS49]

A court challenge would require a suit by a state attorney general - say of Texas - who sues the federal government for reimbursement of costs spent to educate and otherwise care for anchor babies. The claim would be that the Feds have erroneously declared these fukkers to be citizens, and eligible for state benefits.

Uphill battle, to be sure, even if the USSC were populated by people who take the Constitution seriously. Which it is not.

 

[Unkotare]

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change....

That is not the case.

 

[Syriusly]

"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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.

 

[Syriusly]

We need to invade is as we did Iraq and change things so the people an can stay home and build Mexico's economy
.

Great- another conservative who wants us to invade another country.

This time Mexico....like we invaded Iraq.......

 

[Oldglory1]

"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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.

Nope! They are subject to their parent's country. Any foreigner is subject to our laws while here so that is a moot point. Yes, it is quite clear with the qualifier word of "and" subject, etc. If they were automatically subject to our jurisdiction then there would have been no need for the qualifying word of "and". No need for an amendment. It just needs to be re-addressed by the Supreme Court and re-interpreted the way it was meant to be.

 

[Syriusly]

"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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.

Nope! They are subject to their parent's country. Any foreigner is subject to our laws while here so that is a moot point. Yes, it is quite clear with the qualifier word of "and" subject, etc. If they were automatically subject to our jurisdiction then there would have been no need for the qualifying word of "and". No need for an amendment. It just needs to be re-addressed by the Supreme Court and re-interpreted the way it was meant to be.

You mean reinterpreted in a way you find acceptable.

The plain language of the 14th Amendment is quite clear. Anyone born here and who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Children of diplomats.

If the Ambassador of Mexico has a child while he is hear, the child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Pretty much everyone else is.

 

[Oldglory1]

"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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.

Nope! They are subject to their parent's country. Any foreigner is subject to our laws while here so that is a moot point. Yes, it is quite clear with the qualifier word of "and" subject, etc. If they were automatically subject to our jurisdiction then there would have been no need for the qualifying word of "and". No need for an amendment. It just needs to be re-addressed by the Supreme Court and re-interpreted the way it was meant to be.

You mean reinterpreted in a way you find acceptable.

The plain language of the 14th Amendment is quite clear. Anyone born here and who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Children of diplomats.

If the Ambassador of Mexico has a child while he is hear, the child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Pretty much everyone else is.

No, it's not about me but what the writer's intent was. Yes, the language is very clear that one has to be subject to our full jurisdiction in order to gain birthright citizenship. I already mentioned the qualifier of "and" subject to the jurisdiction. No qualifier would have been necessary if anyone born on our soil was deemed a citizen. You actually think that the children of diplomats would be excluded but not children of illegal aliens? Are you really this stupid? It is because in both cases the children's parents were subject to a foreign country not ours.

 

[Roadrunner]

What 8216 Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof 8217 Really Means
I'm RIGHT, by golly. Read the article.

The 14th Amendment was phrased as it was in contra-distinction to the English principle of citizenship by birth (wherein the King claimed ownership of anyone born within the realm). Subject to the jurisdiction referred to aliens on U.S. soil who had renounced their citizenship abroad, and owed no allegiance to any other country.

The Anchor Baby phenomenon is based on a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.

The Amendment needs to be repealed, and at best replaced with a version not passed at bayonet point.

It is a monstrosity of the monstrosity of Reconstruction.

 

[Conservative65]

"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."

I've always taken that clause to mean that the parents were at a minimum legal residents or citizens of the United States. The misinterpretation of this clause that has resulted in "anchor babies" has been a huge mistake that should have been rectified long ago, imo.

That clause was designed to address former slaves. It was written with the intention of classifying them as citizens instead of property as the Dred Scott decision had done just a few years before.

 

[Conservative65]

"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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.

"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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.

The intent was not to do what you said. It doens't take an Amendment to change something that wasn't meant to be the way you apply it. It simply has to be APPLIED the correct way not the bleeding heart way you want it to be applied.

 

[Conservative65]

What 8216 Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof 8217 Really Means
I'm RIGHT, by golly. Read the article.

The 14th Amendment was phrased as it was in contra-distinction to the English principle of citizenship by birth (wherein the King claimed ownership of anyone born within the realm). Subject to the jurisdiction referred to aliens on U.S. soil who had renounced their citizenship abroad, and owed no allegiance to any other country.

The Anchor Baby phenomenon is based on a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.

The current interpretation of that clause in no way matches the intent behind it being there.

 

[Syriusly]

"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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.

"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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.

The intent was not to do what you said. It doens't take an Amendment to change something that wasn't meant to be the way you apply it. It simply has to be APPLIED the correct way not the bleeding heart way you want it to be applied.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If the writers of the 14th Amendment didn't intend for its language to say what it says- then they should have written it differently.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment

 

[Syriusly]

"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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.

The language is quite clear- a child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That child born here is subject to the laws of the United States.

If you think that is wrong, the only way to change that is a Constitutional Amendment.

Nope! They are subject to their parent's country. Any foreigner is subject to our laws while here so that is a moot point. Yes, it is quite clear with the qualifier word of "and" subject, etc. If they were automatically subject to our jurisdiction then there would have been no need for the qualifying word of "and". No need for an amendment. It just needs to be re-addressed by the Supreme Court and re-interpreted the way it was meant to be.

You mean reinterpreted in a way you find acceptable.

The plain language of the 14th Amendment is quite clear. Anyone born here and who is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Who is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Children of diplomats.

If the Ambassador of Mexico has a child while he is hear, the child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Pretty much everyone else is.

No, it's not about me but what the writer's intent was. Yes, the language is very clear that one has to be subject to our full jurisdiction in order to gain birthright citizenship. I already mentioned the qualifier of "and" subject to the jurisdiction. No qualifier would have been necessary if anyone born on our soil was deemed a citizen. You actually think that the children of diplomats would be excluded but not children of illegal aliens? Are you really this stupid? It is because in both cases the children's parents were subject to a foreign country not ours.

Are you really that stupid?

A child born here in the United States- except the child of a diplomat- is entirely subject to the laws of the United States.

Child protective services for example, could move to protect that child and remove that child from its parents if the parents were deemed to be a danger to the child. Not so with the child of a diplomat.

The qualifier was there for several known exceptions at the time- children of diplomats, children born in the United States, but subject to the jurisdiction of Indian nations, and children born to invading armies.

For all practical purposes, the only exception of those left are the children of diplomats.

 

[Flopper]

"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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.

If we eliminate the simple citizenship by birth rule we are left with derivative citizenship; that is citizenship by blood. I suspect that very few people who advocate abolishing citizenship by birth have really considered what that will mean.

If birthright citizenship is eliminated, those born in the United States will lose their access to easy proof of citizenship. Instead, they will find it necessary to turn to the exceptionally complex US rules for citizenship by blood. Proof of citizenship can mean inquires about grandparents as well as parents, about marriage dates and birth dates of ancestors, and about the time that one's parents or grandparents spent in the United States prior to one's birth. This would certainly lead to a national citizenship registry and national identify cards. We would be creating a huge costly intrusive government bureaucracy and to what purpose?