Posted on 07/25/2005 11:37:04 AM PDT by SwinneySwitch
The importance of Section I of the 14th Amendment to our Constitution, which was ratified in 1868, cannot be overemphasized. Not only did it confer citizenship on ex-slaves, it strengthened our civil rights and liberties.
The definition of citizenship contained in the amendment was clearly designed to confer citizenship on ex-slaves; however, its wording has opened the door to citizenship for anyone born in the United States.
Did the framers of the amendment intend for it to confer citizenship on children of illegal aliens, children of foreign visitors, children of foreign exchange students, children of foreigners with work permits and women who cross our borders to give birth to children in U.S. hospitals?
Intentional or not, federal courts have interpreted the 14th Amendment's definition of "citizenship" in the broadest possible sense. Even children born to aliens traveling aboard U.S. ships in U.S. territorial waters have been granted citizenship. Children born in the United States to foreign diplomats are exceptions.
The 14th Amendment's definition of citizenship has seriously handicapped our efforts to combat the surge of illegal immigrants into our country.
Having a child who is a citizen of the United States entitles an alien parent, by law, to preferential treatment in seeking citizenship.
The 14th Amendment states that "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."
A simple change in the wording of the definition of the U.S. citizenship would enhance our effort to control illegal immigration to wit: "All persons born to citizens of the United States and all persons naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
If two-thirds of the members of Congress would initiate a constitutional amendment to re-define citizenship in the manner suggested herein, would it not receive widespread public support? And would it not sail through the ratification process by three-fourths of our state legislatures in record time?
BTTT
ping
The SAD think is that this is just too easy for the numbskulls in Congress to change. It's easier and more compassionate to dole out citizenship and federal dollars than change the law to the majority of this land.
If we were Bono, we'd probably get an ear!
The history of the ratification of the 14th Amendment is interesting. The Southern states soundly rejected it because it would have immediately made a large portion of the adult male population ineligible to hold public office. They also objected to the provision that prohibited the questioning of the public debt.
After that, a bunch of northern congressmen got together and refused to allow the Southern congressmen to be seated in 1867, declaring them to be holding the seats improperly and simply rammed through the Reconstruction Act and put their cronies in charge of all the Southern states and legislatures. They then reintroduced the 14th Amendment into the loaded state legislatures and rammed it through there. In essence the South had absolutely NO representation in Congress or even in their own state legislatures for many years.
This presents and interesting question. If the rejection of the 14th Amendment was basically overthrown because the northern dominated Congress claimed that the Soutehrn legislatures had no authority and were not proper holders of their political seats, then isn't the 13th Amendment, which was ratified by the very same people also illegitimate?
Just a little mental exercize.
Not that it will do any good, but I have contacted my Senators, Representative, and the WH.
8 USC 1401 defines US citizenship:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
An amendment to the Code similar to what is mentioned in the editorial, that is, spell out that anchor babies do not qualify for citizenship, would put an end to the problem. Well, legally, anyway.
The logic here is that we shouldn't be rewarding illegal aliens for breaking the law.
Check out the section of the US Code in post #9. The citizenship of the parents has nothing to do with conferring citizenship to a person born in the US. The phrase about being subject to the jurisdiction holds, because illegals are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States inasmuch as our laws apply to them.
It stinks, but it's the law. And it can be changed much more easily than trying to put through an amendment to the Constitution. It will just take a lot of political will in Washington.
...and finally 'cause they wanted the freedom to oppress the freed slaves.
The 14th Amendment was one of Pres. Grant's greatest achievements and only one of a long list of things which makes him the greatest civil rights President ever. LBJ was later able to leapfrog off of Grant's legislations and secure some of his greatest civil rights victories.
There has been much written about how bad the Grant presidency was, and how little was accomplished with accusations that Grant ignored the country and his job for 8 years. The fact of the matter is that none of this is true. Grant spent his entire presidency focusing almost entirely on resolving 'the race issue' and how to successfully re-unite the nation. He treated other issues like the economy (He was the one who created the gold standard) as issues of secondary importance to his one all consuming goal of putting the country on the path of healing and equal rights for all. The sad part of the whole thing was that he lived long enough to see almost all of his hard work and progress repealed as soon as he left office. It then took almost 100 years for the country to advance back to the point he had already taken it.
Taht being said, I'm sure that Grant had no intentions of the 14th Amendment being using as a tool to allow people to cross into this country illegally and then be rewarded with citizenship.
13th. Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Section 1. 'Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.'
Section 2. 'Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'
Are you against the 13th Amendment since it resulted in freeing the millions of slaves in the South at the end of the Civil War?
14th. Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
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. 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.'
Does your opposition to the 14th Amendment to the American Constitution stem from knowing the defeated Confederates would have never approved granting the content of the 14th Amendment to those held in slavery?
This is 2005, today's problems have nothing to do with the post Civil War period. Islamic terrorism is the problem confronting America and the world. If changes are proposed those changes to either amendments should be geared toward preventing those sneaking into the this country, or attempting to enter 'legally' for the sole purpose of inflicting harm on American citizens.
The U.S.Immigration laws should be dramatically straightened, where as if any registered alien or foreign visitor is known to have declared pro-jihad statements, donated money to Islamic terrorist causes and any other connections with Islamic terrorist groups they should be deported (at their own expense) not be considered for citizenship.
In terms of illegal aliens, they don't belong here in the first place, and should either be deported, or if discovered to be a threat to national security under the definitions of the Homeland Security Act, imprisoned.
Protect our borders and coastlines from all foreign invaders!
Be Ever Vigilant!
Minutemen Patriots ~ Bump!
If that's so, how do you explain 20,000 gun control laws that restrict an individual right to keep and bear arms as the 2nd Amendment is currently interpreted?
Either 1) no one's pursued cases seeking to get those laws held unconsitutional; or 2) the law isn't as clear-cut or interpreted in the manner that you think it is; or 3) some combination of both. Those same would not apply to a 14th Amend. citizenship case. The law and its interpretation is crystal clear and there WOULD be a case brought immediately to get it declared unconstitutional. (And it would win, by the way.)
(Second Amendment law and precedents are, unfortunately, not as clear-cut as gun-rights advocates would have you believe, although they are not as clear cut in the opposite direction as the gun-ban crowd would have you believe, either. [In other words, although I think the former are for the most part correct in much of what they say, the current state of precedent doesn't exactly match up with it fully.])
Horsecrap. Have you actually READ the 14th Amendment? Especially the part about where no person who had "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the [US]" shall be a state or US representative or senator? They objected to being unilaterally thrown out of their legally elected positions without a fair trial or impeachment proceedings.
The FED-GOV basically said "F$#& you!" to the states and we entered the period of FED-GOD.
The 14th Amendment was one of Pres. Grant's greatest achievements and only one of a long list of things which makes him the greatest civil rights President ever. LBJ was later able to leapfrog off of Grant's legislations and secure some of his greatest civil rights victories.
Huh?
Ratification of the 14th amendment was completed on July 9, 1868.
Grant was president from March 4, 1869 - March 4, 1877.
Andrew Johnson was president from 1865-69.
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.