YES, you numbskull. The Law does not recognize the ability of a newborn infant to make ANY decisions for itself whatsoever. None. Zilch. Nada. So what the newborn may or may not personally want, even theoretically, is never even part of the equation in the first place. That is something that the Law simply circumvents altogether. Period.
The child has known nothing but America, and I see no rationale to deny that the child is anything but American.
Wrong again. The infant doesn't even know what country it's in, or even what a country is. The infant doesn't even have the ability to select a name for itself.
The only thing the infant registers is a lot of raw sensory data.
That is not how the law has always worked. The law has been blunt, but clear. You are an American citizen if you are born on American soil. Period.
Wrong. That is precisely why the clause has TWO different criteria necessary for birthright citizenship : born within the U.S. AND subject to the (complete) jurisdiction thereof.
The "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was written into the Amendment for specific reasons, it was simply not placed there for decorative purposes.
Now you may wish to change the law, but arguing that the child must be born ‘under the jurisdiction’ of America, does not mean what you think it means.
It does so. The people who wrote the amendment said so. "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is all about allegiance.
Automatic birthright citizenship for children born of foreigners ( in genereal) wasn't always a reality; -either at the state or federal level.
You do realise that birthright citizenship is opposed by the system that came before it, that a certain class of people was not considered to be a citizen of America, simply because of the colour of their skin. That has changed. The inevitable consequence of eliminating the 14th is to bring slavery back to America
Bullshit. Slavery and involuntary servitude were specifically outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment.
No one is talking about excluding birthright citizenship based on race, but on immigrant status. This is already the way 99 percent of the countries on the planet operate ( they don't actually provide birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants ).
And just because you don't award birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants does not make you a nation that sanctions or promotes slavery. That is utterly preposterous.
Children born of illegal immigrants from England, Cananda, Ireland, Denmark, or Sweden would not be awarded U.S. citizenship, for example. So your pathetic attempt to play the race card just failed right there.
If there are citizens and a class of ‘non-citizens’ who were born in America, who cannot vote, who cannot participate in civil society, then we shall return to the days where not all people are equal. We must gage people based on their actions, not the actions of their parents.
More horsesh*t.
But we still send the children of illegals back with their parents, when the parents are deported. We even routinely do this now with the children of illegals born inside the U.S. ( the child is allowed to return to live in the U.S. after they become an adult).
There have always been two classes of people in this country, citizens and non-citizens.
And even non-citizens participate fully in "civil" society. My own mother was a classic example. With the exception of voting in public elections, she did everything a citizen does, and then some.
And even individuals who are not citizens can ultimately participate as ( naturalized ) citizens, via the naturalization process.
Thank you. So the child then cannot be a Mexican.
YES IT CAN. Because birthright citizenship is actually determined through the parents, not the personal decisions or determinations of a newborn infant.
Every country realizes that there will be some of its citizens who wind up giving birth to children outside of the country, for a multitude of reasons. Therefore, countries do allow ( and make provisions for ) their citizens who give birth to children outside of the country, to have/secure citizenship for those children.
This sort of thing happens throughout the world on daily basis.
And although the parents are illegal immigrants, -they are still citizens of Mexico; every bit as much as citizens who still reside within that country. Therefore that child winds up with Mexican citizenship just as if they were born in Mexico.
Yes, it is simply born within the US. Do you believe that the children of legal immigrants ought to be considered non-citizens? Do you believe that the children born to legal immigrants, who also immigrate with the family ought not to be considered Americans when they take the oath.
I would say children of legal residents get birthright citizenship. Just because you're a tourist, doesn't mean you have allegiance to this county. If you or I are tourists in a given country, we can't possibly claim allegiance to that country, now can we...? No.
Children born without birthright U.S. citizenship still have the citizenship of their parents.
Immigrants, who become naturalized citizens, ought to have their children, who are minors, and who have also been residing in this country with them, also become naturalized citizens.
The Fourteenth Amendment wasn't about birthright citizenship per se ( birthright citizenship already existed for citizens ), or about immigrants in general,- but really about American Blacks; - ex slaves and their children. And integrating them into American society in the post Civil War era.
“YES, you numbskull”
Eh, I really don’t see what namecalling does to advance your argument. For a self-proclaimed conservative, that’s really not good form.
“The Law does not recognize the ability of a newborn infant to make ANY decisions for itself whatsoever”
Then there’s no reason to assume that the child has made the decision to become a Mexican citizenship. I think it’s wrong to judge a man by the actions of their parents, something for which they had no control.
The advantage of birthright citizenship is that everyone has exactly the same status if they are born in America. We don’t have a permanent underclass.
“Wrong. That is precisely why the clause has TWO different criteria necessary for birthright citizenship : born within the U.S. AND subject to the (complete) jurisdiction thereof.”
And the second clause does not exclude the child born in America to illegal immigrants. There is no court ruling to confirm your assertion, nor is there legislation. Which is why you are trying to change the law.
“Bullshit. Slavery and involuntary servitude were specifically outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment.”
Excluding a certain class of people from citizenship is no different then slavery and fails the equal protection clause. Again, you would have us accept your understanding of the second clause, and then turn around and argue that the 14th was completely unnecessary.
That’s not a very solid argument. If, in fact the 14th is necessary, then why are both clauses there. The reason is because there were all kinds of circumstances that a person could have been born in American territory, and yet, at their birth, was not under the jurisdiction of America. Even today, anyone older than 51 in Alaska or Hawaii invokes this clause, as the territory is considered to be under the direct jurisdiction thereof.
It also includes military bases, etc. A fact you all to willingly conceded quite some time ago.
“No one is talking about excluding birthright citizenship based on race, but on immigrant status.”
Immigrant status does not apply to the child. Again. We’ve discussed this for a long time. The child is not an immigrant, because they were born in America. They know nothing else but America. Gaging a person based on their parents is no different that gaging them based on their race, or any other irrelevant exterior quality.
“Children born of illegal immigrants from England, Cananda, Ireland, Denmark, or Sweden would not be awarded U.S. citizenship, for example. So your pathetic attempt to play the race card just failed right there.”
Appealing to foreign law? Would you prefer sharia simply because other nations do it? No. So why would the fact that ‘other nations do it this way’, say that America should do it this way? This is a leftist argument, and unworthy of debate.
Yes, each nation has their own immigration standards. Why would it be beneficial to America to inflict European immigration standards on themselves?
“But we still send the children of illegals back with their parents, when the parents are deported. We even routinely do this now with the children of illegals born inside the U.S. ( the child is allowed to return to live in the U.S. after they become an adult).”
No, sorry. They are routinely deported if the illegal immigrants were all born outside of the US. And I would question ‘routinely’. Even in the case of proven status, deporting anyone is difficult.
“And although the parents are illegal immigrants, -they are still citizens of Mexico; every bit as much as citizens who still reside within that country. Therefore that child winds up with Mexican citizenship just as if they were born in Mexico.”
So if the children are Mexican because they have Mexican parents how does that make you an American? Wouldn’t you be English?
What if the parents of the Mexican citizens, the grandparents of the child were born in America? Would they still be Mexican or American?
Birthright citizenship makes this simple. Are you born in America? Then you are American, regardless of what other citizenship you may also possess. It cannot be taken away by the state. This is an important principle, because if the state decided who is and was a citizen, then it is very easy for this power to be abused, such that the state will strip political dissidents.
“The Fourteenth Amendment wasn’t about birthright citizenship per se ( birthright citizenship already existed for citizens ), or about immigrants in general,- but really about American Blacks; - ex slaves and their children. And integrating them into American society in the post Civil War era.”
I agree. Removing said clause would have the same effect, in creating another underclass of not-Citizens who had no role in their not-citizenship.