14th Amendment Ping!
Another thing that pisses me off is this notion of the "anchor baby"
I was listening to Mike Church (on Sirus 144) a couple of days ago and he read this on air.
But if you didn't have this, you could a permanent underclass of non-citizen illegals. With the current system, at least the second or third generation are citizens.
I think that one group who is going to take the brunt of this when all heck breaks loose, is legal Americans of hispanic descent, because not everyone is going to be very discriminating in who they blame. And that's a crying shame.
God Bless you.
susie
As sympathetic as I am to the author's proposition, he is simply wrong. The key phrase is "subject to the jurisdicition of the United States." This means just what it says. Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. In fact, the United States should prosecute them and send them home (as opposed to foreign ambassadors who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and who can only be asked to leave). No, the authors of the 14th amendent, perhaps sadly, did open the door to the "anchor baby" concept. But in their defense, they probably could not have imagined the cravenness of today's politicians who are willfully allowing millions of illegal aliens to cross our borders unchallenged.
I'm come to the conclusion that instead of trying to change the Constitution, it is better to simply enforce the border.
It’s also equally important to understand that there is only one path for which an alien can come under the jurisdiction of the United States for purposes of citizenship: Through the process of naturalization that, among other things, requires a person to renounce all allegiance to their country of origin. The Fourteenth Amendment framers did not recognize as a matter of law that an alien giving birth to a child within the limits United States, is by itself, an act of naturalization on the part of the mother. This is because the naturalization of aliens is a process of rules set forth in naturalization laws, and not something an individual can accomplish through their own acts outside of these rules of law.Who wants to try and deny that?The principle behind birthright is the same as it was before and after the adoption of the 14th amendment: Only a citizen can make a citizen through the process of childbirth. Any other avenue to citizenship requires an act of naturalization under naturalization laws or perhaps, by treaty.
bump
Nice article with lots of good points and a few weak ones.
But one thing about the old days was that if you just showed up on a boat you were in. It is the poverty of Europe which drove people here and it is the poverty of Mexico/Poland/Russia which brings them here as well.
Well, actually I think there should be a test for all Americans at the age of 18 if they should be granted citizenship or not -- certain, ahem, persons, like Michael Moore or Syriana Clooney, IMO don't deserve to be American citizens -- they've taken the privilege of being born in the greatest country on earth, all the advantages that gave them and have used it to sully America's image. It'd be better to have immigrants from the USSR who WANT to be Americans -- take a famous Austrian who's now one of the most patriotic Americans....
I have to say, Citizenship at birth is something I support.
Anything else would lean towards the European model of citienship policy, and call me an antagonist, but if the Eurotwerps do it, I WANT NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!
Besides we all know how well its worked out for the Euros.
The Constitution does not grant any rights. It protects them, sometimes it restricts them by granting a power to government, but it does not grant them. In Jefferson's words of the Declaration of Independence, they are "endowed by their Creator". Not all rights are expressly protected either, that's why the put in the ninth amendment.
This article confuses jurisdiction with allegiance, they are hardly the same thing.
Anchor babies are a creation of the law, and the courts, not the 14th amendment.
Even if a child born to illegals is a natural born citizen, it does not follow that the parents should be allowed to stay. They can leave the child with legals, or take it back with them, with the child having the ability to return as a citizen. I know at least two people whose parents did just that, that is return to their home country, with the child eventually returning as a citizen. Both good ones too.
Oh BTW, this legal loophole they loved and took advantage of... it elicited their CONTEMPT, for us, NOT their respect. (Take note all you moronic "elected representatives" who might be reading this post.) BTTT
Good points.
Thank you. I often wondered about this, but didn't go searching for the reasoning behind it till past few weeks. Have been extrememly angry about the gall of these criminals & our "leaders" (who haven't let the Constitution inhibit much of anything they do- Interstate Commerce is just one example where they overreach & change meanings). Yesterday, for the 1st time, I actually realized I could live to see the US break apart.