John / Billybob
Are Guatemalans born in Mexico citizens?
That throws a wrench in their machine.
Thank you for straightening that out.
Now, if we could only ping all journalists to read it. ;-)
The 14th amendment is just an interpretation away from changing the law to what I think was the original intent.
Let me get this straight, Thompson was commenting on the law that was passed under the authority of the 14th amendment that allows for anchor babies and not commenting on the 14th amendment itself? And new legislation, also under the authority of the 14th amendment, could be passed that rescinds this law and thus bans anchor babies? And the reporter doesn’t understand this point?
Very interesting. Thanks!
Excellent!
bookmark
I would amend it to say that any child born of a woman who is in this country illegally does not have citizenship.
Any child born of a woman who is here legally should be American.
As is usual on this issue on FR, I am in the tiny minority.
You can argue it anyway you want but the text is clear.
The diplomatic exception exists because Ambassadors/Diplomats are not subject to the ‘Jurisdiction’ of the US. The classic idea of ‘diplomatic immunity’ — theoritically they can kill someone on our soil and not get prosecuted. Like everyone else — including illegal aliens.
* * *
Is it problem? Of course it is a problem if illegal aliens are doing what they can to have an anchor baby (including dying in the desert at 8 months).
But trying to muck with the text of the Constitution isn’t the way we should be doing this — as conservatives we should treat the Constitution with the reverence it deserves and not take the liberal ‘cop-out’ of ignoring the text and just pretending it says what they want it to say.
Ping. I think you have thought about this issue also.
Mexican women who are eight months pregnant are dying every month in the deserts on the border, trying to have their child here as "an American."
A bit of hyperbole, perhaps?
In 1866, when the amendment was written, there was virtually open immigration--hardly anyone showing up at New York or elsewhere was sent back. The authors had no idea of what the situation would be 130 or 140 years later.
I've read that pregnant South Korean women will sometimes fly to the US to have their babies born in the US, then return home--the idea being that the child might later benefit from American citizenship, like in getting admitted to an American university. Obviously that is a far smaller category of "anchor babies" and much less of a practical problem.
Wonderful piece.
I do wonder about putting the 14th Amendment text “subject to the jurisdiction” into play in the political arena.
Today a certain group is problematic, and it is politically expedient to exclude them from US “jurisdiction.” Tomorrow, the political winds may shift, and another group may fall out of favor, with potentially disastrous consequences.
Further, should Congress pass legislation of the kind described in the article, there would undoubtedly be legal challenges leading all the way to the Supreme Court. Thus, the final outcome of such a bill would depend on the ideological composition of the Court, at the time the issue is brought before it.
Dishonest. Or both. But definitely, dishonest.
Great essay as usual. The problem is that the Quisling ‘rat congress will never touch such legislation, not in a thousand years.
http://geocities.com/readerswrite/commentaries/Blessings_of_the_Liberty.htm#note4
As the author of the article aptly pointed out, the U.S. Congress is authorized to clarify this misinterpretation. For instance, persons that fall under jurisdiction of foreign countries (for instance, American-born children of Mexican citizens) are not “subject to jurisdiction thereof” in the sense of 14th Amendment.
Anchor Babies - 14th amend ping
Hoo, boy! If you're just an ignorant FReeper like me, click on the link for a definition.
BillyBob, thank you for posting this. As I read the original article, I was thinking that maybe this could be fixed via legislation and that a constitutional amendment would not be needed. Thanks for the excellent clafification.