[GrandEagle]

House Republicans are looking closely at ending birthright citizenship
I believe that will take a Constitutional amendment. Simply reworking the amendment to allow those born here while their parents are LEGALLY here would be OK with me. Obviously that is what the founders meant.

Cordially,
GE

[.cnI redruM]

Interesting. I wasn't aware the process was that difficult.

[brothers4thID]

I believe you are right. The 14th Amendment guarantees the rights of citizens to anyone born or naturalized in this country.

[George W. Bush]

I believe that will take a Constitutional amendment. Simply reworking the amendment to allow those born here while their parents are LEGALLY here would be OK with me. Obviously that is what the founders meant.

You're right about the amendment if the Court actually did enforce the text of the Constitution. In recent years, their interest has been pretty selective.

And I don't see why a 'green card baby' or a 'temporary visa baby' should be any more entitled to citizenship than a baby whose mother jumped the border a few days before delivery so it could be her 'anchor baby'.

[Carry_Okie]

I believe that will take a Constitutional amendment.

Nope. As written, the 14th Amendment was NOT intended to grant citizenship to the children of foreign subjects.

The Slaughterhouse Cases are the first Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment on record. The author of the majority opinion is a contemporary of those who drafted and debated the Amendment. The following text is from the majority opinion (about 3/4 of the way down the linked source page):

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=Slaughterhouse%20Cases&url=/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0083_0036_ZO.html

Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) (USSC+)
Opinions
MILLER, J., Opinion of the Court

"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."

The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

Here is a second source:

"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Senator Jacob Howard, Co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.

Senator Howard recognized three classes of people to whom the 14th Amendment citizenship clause would not apply: foreigners (tourists here temporarily), aliens (those here illegally but who have no intention of leaving), and foreign diplomats (here legally and in a special protected status who will leave upon the expiration of their term).

And in Section 5 "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." cedes control of implementing provisions of the Amendment back to Congress. Because the Constitution is a limiting document they MAY NOT grant citizenship to illegals, nor the equivalent.

The interpretation started to change when a Roosevelt court started playing fast and loose with the term, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in Bridges v. Wixon (1945).

[Hostage]

I don't think it will need amending. I think it will need a Congressional act of affirmation as to meaning with a review and writ of certiorari by the SupremeCourt.

Notice the key phrase highlighted below:

-----------------------------------------------------------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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

-----------------------------------------------------------

[Vigilanteman]

"There is a general agreement about the fact that citizenship in this country should not be bestowed on people who are the children of folks who come into this country illegally," . . .

There are already legal exceptions to not grant automatic citizenship to children of foreigners posted here on official diplomatic business or those born to invading or occupying armies. I believe illegal aliens already are in the later category-- the law just needs to be clarified to classify them as such.

[montag813]

Simply reworking the amendment to allow those born here while their parents are LEGALLY here would be OK with me. Obviously that is what the founders meant.

The 14th Amendement would ban "anchor babies", if Judges could read. The clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clearly means citizens, and not illegals, children of foreign ambassadors, etc.

[Conservomax]

Isn't this rule based on the 14th amendment?