Are baby's born to illegals US Citizens?

[Yooperman]

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I say NO. The illegal mothers are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

[Daveinyork]

But Congress cannot change the wording of it, and no court would permit it to do so, not without another amendment. Only a dictator like Obama could do that.

[oldbill]

They don’t have to change a word of it.
Section 5 gives them the power to define what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means.

They have already defined what it means with regard to certain foreign nationals and Indians.

[Daveinyork]

I wish you were right. I wish congress could declare that an illegal alien’s sperm and womb are foreign territory, but we have to deal with the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. Furthermore, what do you think the chances are of Congress doing what you say they can do, and Obummer signing it? Almost as good as getting constitutional amendment.

[Red Steel]

Gray deliberately misinterprets the jurisdiction clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Quite correct.

Gray in his WKA opinion excepted below in a short paragraph dismisses the original intent of the 14th Amendment as not being relevant that he characterizes as only "debates" so he can gives himself carte blanche to say whatever he wants the 14th Amendment to be.

Gray - "“Doubtless, the intention of the congress which framed, and of the states which adopted, this amendment of the constitution, must be sought in the words of the amendment, and the debates in congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words.”

"Must be sought in the words" - "not admissible as evidence..."? Wuut? You kind'n me? The guy had an agenda like any activist judge we see today.

Gray did live up to his name as an obfuscater - being in a 'Gray area'. LoL.

[Georgia Girl 2]

I believe the SCOTUS should re-interpret the 14th ammendment. But not likely that they will.

But more importantly if we had secure borders and did not let millions of illegals in the country the 14th ammendment would not be such a big problem.

[oldbill]

“Furthermore, what do you think the chances are of Congress doing what you say they can do, and Obummer signing it? Almost as good as getting constitutional amendment.”

If you presume Obama is to be in power forever, no chance.

But if there is a change in 2014/2016 to conservatives (not the current RINOs) in Congress and the White House, then it can happen.

And that change can happen if the Republicans were to make it a prime campaign issue in 2014/2016. Immigration was never allowed to be an issue for campaign debate from 2006 to now because the Republican establishment won’t bring it up. If they did, you would be surprised how well it would resonate with voters, especially the blue collar Reagan Democrats, who are most affected by the illegal alien invasion.

One thing is certain - pandering to Hispanics only results in FEWER of their votes going to Republicans. And the base gets so disgusted with pandering RINOs that they stay home, like 4 million did in 2012, and 5 million in 2008.

[Scoutmaster]

Federal Courts frequently (or usually) ignore legislative history, although law school teaches that legislative history should be considered in statutory construction.

The Fourteen Amendment isn't the first, only, or last time a Federal Court has ignored legislative history, but post-Marbury, the Federal Court's interpretation is the interpretation, until it's overturned by a higher Federal Court or by additional legislation.

Here, the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken and Congress has taken no action to override the Supreme Court's interpretation.

Arguments about the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment are irrelevant at this point unless the issue of Fourteenth Amendment citizenship arises as the issue in question before another Federal Court, preferably the U.S. Supreme Court.

The original intent arguments certainly aren't going to change the minds of anyone in Congress.

[CowboyJay]

"Its what I said. It defies common sense to claim a person is subject to a jurisdiction if there is no record of their presence." I agree with you. It's ludicrous. How can someone who was never lawfully admitted into to our jurisdiction in violation of our laws (meaning they themselves rejected our sovereign jurisdiction by setting foot on US soil with out permission) be considered to have equal protection under our laws.

Unfortunately, the common law tradition in the courts has misconstrued the 14th amendment, which was written to grant citizenship rights to slaves after they were freed - into a precedent of jus-solis citizenship, which it was never intended to do.

[CowboyJay]

Improper use of italics - 5 yards and replay down.

[Yooperman]

You might be a Liberal if spelling is more important than the question.

[David]

Yes.

There is abundant Supreme Court authority on the issue. Lots of people here including me don't like it; it is possible that Congress could craft legislation around the "under the jurisdiction" clause denying citizenship that would stand up to Constitutional attack; but on the face of current authority, they are citizens.