Posted on 04/28/2010 1:40:34 PM PDT by Steelfish
“Both”
That is, if they are in a state. If they are on federal property/territory, then they would be under the jurisdiction of the federal government alone.
“You are right, it would require a constitutional amendment to address the issue of “anchor babies”.”
No it wouldn’t. It takes a court decision to state that the 14th applied to the children of slaves, not aliens.
This is worth a careful read.
The original crafters were wary of this and their intent was that "anchor babies" were not citizens under the 14th (as their parents were not legally citizens subject to the jurisdiction of the state where the kid was born). It has been misinterpreted for years.
LOL not exactly politically correct is he?
“I think you should do some research on that. The discussions and the idea of what was meant by a citizen at the time might open your eyes.”
I have studied, and can read, and I think it’s pretty clear what was meant. Suffice it to say that every judge in the country would most likely agree with my position on the matter, and it is in fact precident to treat “anchor babies” as U.S. citizens per Perkins v Elg and US v Wong Kim Ark.
The 14th Amendment contains the words “subject to the jurisdiction therein” specifically to exclude those who not subject to US laws, i.e., illegal aliens. If you are an illegal alien or a diplomat, you are not subject to the rights bestowed citizens under the Constitution. There is nothing confusing about it.
If the founders meant that everyone born in the US is automatically a citizen, they would not have added those very specific words to the amendment.
Nonsense. The 14th was never written so that we might get anchor babies.
“I think it can be argued that illegals are ‘not subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ too.”
No, it can’t. We may not enforce immigration laws very often, but when we do, we do in fact put illegals in jail and sometimes deport them. That’s not the sort of thing you can do to people who are not subject to your jurisdiction, a classification reserved for diplomats and members of invading armies.
“Maybe I should be thinking ‘tourists’ instead of ‘diplomatic personnel’”
Tourists are legally within the US, while they’re here, and are subject to US jurisdiction, and so would their children be.
No, the modern liberal interpretation of the 14th amendment disagrees with him. 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.
It's the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meaning if a person is subject not to the jurisdiction of the the US but of another country, then they are not citizens.
There are two qualifications for someone to be deemed a citizen at birth, not just because they were born on American soil.
Imagine the case in the future of: "...your parents were radical, anti government activists in a tea-party movement, this is sedition, therefore they gave up their citizenship and we have decided your parents, when you were born, weren't 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' so we strip you of your citizenship...
That’s a tough one. The kids are not responsible for their parents’ actions or the circumstances of their birth. I do agree that the law should change to confer citizenship only on those born of parents in this country LEGALLY as RESIDENTS.
Correct. That would violate due process. Prof. Eastman, Dean of Chapman University argues thus:
You’re right ... but you know it’s useless to reason with some of these guys.
“The original crafters were wary of this and their intent was that ‘anchor babies’ were not citizens under the 14th”
If that was their intent, it would have been pretty easy to exclude anchor babies. That they didn’t is their mistake, and they have to pay for it.
“(as their parents were not legally citizens subject to the jurisdiction of the state where the kid was born)”
First of all, the 14th amendment says nothing about having to be subject to a state’s jurisdiction. It says they must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Secondly, if they’re not subject to state jurisdiction, please explain to me why it is that states can put illegals in jail, as they obviously do (not for being illegal, very often, but for other things).
“It has been misinterpreted for years”
Courts misinterpret a lot of things, but in this case they’re only going by the language, which is pretty clear.
One of the problems of having a Common Law system is that the judiciary has alot more clout in terms of legal interpretation than is the case in a Civil Law system. This is why you have so many people bitching about "unelected, all-powerful judges" all the time. This is an issue in all countries in the Anglosphere, where the Common Law gives disproportionate power to judicial interpretation.
I think you are wrong on many counts. The very author of the relevant part of the 14th amendment, Senator Jacob Howard, said, in relation to the 14th amendment, that:
“[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.”
Based on the printed opinion of the AUTHOR HIMSELF, aliens, whether legal or illegal, would not be covered by the 14th amendment.
Further, your statement that:
“we do in fact put illegals in jail and sometimes deport them. That’s not the sort of thing you can do to people who are not subject to your jurisdiction, a classification reserved for diplomats and members of invading armies.”
Is factually untrue. We do, in fact, “deport” diplomats on occasion (though it may be called “repatriation”), and members of invading armies have, in fact, been imprisoned, and later deported / repatriated.
Were Wong Kim Ark’s parents here illegally?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.