Could someone tell me where it was originally written that just because you were born here, you are automatically entitled to American citizenship? It seems like this has been the source of much of our immigration problems. It seems like no one wants to revisit this basic policy. Why not?
US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) started the ball rolling. Wong Kim Ark was born in the US to parents who could not, according to international treaty, become US citizens, but who were domiciled in the US.
Plyler v. Doe (1982) pretty much cemented it, finding that a child born to parents in the US illegally is entitled to public education.
I think Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided, but as Wikipedia says, it's now legal dogma that anybody born in the US is a US citizen. Period.
Could someone tell me where it was originally written that just because you were born here, you are automatically entitled to American citizenship? It seems like this has been the source of much of our immigration problems. It seems like no one wants to revisit this basic policy. Why not?
****************
The open borders crowd cites the 14th Amendment: “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.”
But this amendment was intended to protect freed slaves. Its framers never dreamed it would be used to grant citizenship to the children of people who sneak into, or even invade, the USA. If Bin Laden were to parachute a pregnant wife into this country before she gave birth, the kid would NOT be a citizen.
The language & intent of the 14th Amendment is being twisted.
I think the real issue is if your parents are here ILLEGALLY then the offspring automatically became citizens. The courts ruled you could not visit the “sins of the father on the son (or daughter)”
That said, If you are here illegally your child should not become a citizen as a matter of law.