The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans

Immigration News ^ | February 1, 2005 | P.A. Madison

[Hoplite]

If you're on American soil, you're under American jurisdiction unless specifically granted other status.

Were this not the case, we would have no legal basis to bring foreigners who commit crimes on our soil into our courts.

?

[Prost1]

Any 1st year history student knows that children are minors and have no legal standing. They are under the authority of their parents, who being legal citizens of a country, are automatically a legal obligation of their parent's country.

The U.S. is probably (100%) the only country in the world to offer citizenship to children born to illegal criminals.

Absurd!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"The Fourteenth Amendment was a botch-job of major proportions, and this may be one more example of that principle. Bottom line: don't make hasty assumptions in either direction on this point."


I agree. I have no doubt that from what the writers of this amendment have said in various places that they did NOT want the children of non-citizens to become automatic citizens if they were born here. And I agree; I don't think it should be that easy either. I wish they had used clearer language and just said *the complete jurisdiction*. As it is stated now, it's too ambiguous; it could mean what they said, or it could mean what it has been accepted as too. I would prefer a more direct statement.

[Sterco]

OK so be it. Establish a means to care for these children. Deport the parents. I suspect the problem will take care of itself. (Most will leave with their children) and go home.

[ZOOKER]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside".

Alternative interpretation:

A child born in the US whose parents are illegal aliens is immediately subject to our jurisdiction. Illegal aliens are non-entities, therefore the child is a legal orphan. The parents have the option of claiming the child without citizenship or giving it up for adoption. Either way the parents go back home.

Cruel world, ain't it?

[Prost1]

"OK so be it. Establish a means to care for these children."

I don't understand the statement. No need to respond. The issue is citizenship. Children have no legal standing. Their status is the same as their parents until they reach legal age. Therefore, they are illegal aliens.

Bundle them with their parents and ship them back. Let the barbarian countries deal with their wards.

[The_Media_never_lie]

I was told by a young Coast Guard ensign (female) that, during the Haitian crisis, the Hatians who were rescued from their ramshackle flotilla would have sex onboard the deck of their rescuing U.S. ships with women in their late stages of pregnancy. Reason being, besides the obvious, was that they though that the sex would induce labor and the child born on the deck of a U.S. ship would become an automatic U.S. citizen.

Can someone please tell me why?

[ClaireSolt]

Suppose we were to declare that as the US has complete jurisdiction over all babies born in the US, we will take custody of them and put them in orphanages when their parents are not Americans. Do you think that would fly?

[PistolPaknMama]

Fascinating. Thanks for posting this.

[Radioactive]

It's about time.

This idea of being a citizen just because you were dropped on this soil is killing our country.

If the Supreme court will not rule correctly, they should be removed from office.

I for the life of me cannot figure out why the Republicans cannot see this issue as one of the main issues that the American People want action on.

If they do not act, they will be out of here.

[zook]

Ridiculous. The 14th Amendment says what it says, not what it doesn't say, regardless of the intent of its authors.

[canalabamian]

If you're on American soil, you're under American jurisdiction unless specifically granted other status.

Were this not the case, we would have no legal basis to bring foreigners who commit crimes on our soil into our courts.

Are you implying that illegals have the same Constitutional rights as U.S. citizens?

[Sterco]

You open borders people are failing to grasp something here. We have all the damn illegal aliens we need. No doubt we will have a hard time getting rid of the ones we have but we damn sure don't want anymore. We can't afford em!!! They show up with their hands out and their pockets empty. At some point we are going to have to bring this invasion to a stop. I am sorry but we just can't take on Mexico's over breeding problem. If they out grow their resources they will just have to get a grip.

[MikefromOhio]

I am somewhat opposite...

I was born in West Germany when my dad was deployed over there in 1980. I had, until I was 18, both United States (born to a serviceman overseas) and German citizenship. Of course I picked the US citizenship, but this isnt just a US thing.

[Hoplite]

No.

[traviskicks]

The founding fathers didn't ever envision immigration being stymied. And for good reason.

(IMO) These anti-immigration attitudes are symptomatic of the protectionist nature and another symptom of BIG government. I think illegals contribute far more then they take away from society and boost our economy.

Let people come here and create wealth. We are the light that lights the world.

(easy on the flaming...:))

[traviskicks]

lol - if true, funny.

Also heard that they (maybe only cubans) will dive overboard and swim if they are close to shore, and do anything to evade the coast guard knowing that as soon as their feet touch land they can stay.

[atomic_dog]

Do any legal types out there have a clue as to what court decision established that the children of the persons actually listed could claim citizenship?

Cannot find any. In fact, through 1898 the Supreme Court consistently ruled the opposite. Even Native Americans born on reservations were deemed not to be US Citizens.

Link

[canalabamian]

Whew, good...not that I thought that you did. ;)

[elbucko]

..regardless of the intent of its authors.

So then "intent" is irrelevant? Please explain that contradiction. Be sure to include your "intent" and whether it is to be considered as being relevant to your reply.