The 14th amendment clearly says “subject to the jurisdiction”. Therefore, Congress can move on this without any amendment. Good news.
Now, let’s have them do it.
This piece serves to reinforce that which all here already knew
YES !!!
I agree with this interpretation of “... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ...”.
But we need some legal-eagle Freeper to give us a little insight into the way the Supreme Court of Our Masters has interpreted the 14th.
I’m betting that news will not be good.
Have heard this opinion before (in Jr high civics class)
Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.
Spakovsky is a very good writer and luminary. I respect his opinions and findings immensely.
He’s absolutely right about this. But again as with other amendments, the writing of the amendment is poor because there is never any authority delineated to determine and execute certain phrases. The phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ can only be enforced by a government body and no government body is specified. State offices issuing birth certificates have defaulted to issuing BCs for any child born on American soil. There are no statutes that require state offices to determine how to execute and enforce the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’.
When new amendments are drafted, especially from the forthcoming Article V Convention of States, the drafters must think and work to write enabling language to each proposed amendment. Otherwise, abuse of new amendments will surely ensue regardless of the amendment’s meaning and intent. The 14th Amendment is a prime example of how certain groups take advantage of poorly crafted words by ignoring certain phrases or by injecting new meaning and intent in derived rulings.
... subject to the jurisdiction thereof...
Yet children of diplomats are not extended citizenship.
The 14th is very clear about birthright citizenship. I dont agree with it but to change it, it will require a change to the 14th amendment.
I preference would be a meritocracy where there are different rights for different people based upon the individual earning those rights. As Heinlein postulate in Starship Troopers, “Service brings citizenship.”
At the top would be a citizen who has full rights. Then there would be residents who do not have full rights (voting only in state elections, not allowed to serve as an officer in the government, etc) but retain many rights. Then there would other classification for aliens, prisoners and slaves (yes I said slaves), each with fewer rights.
Before everyone gets their panties in a wad, slaves would be limited to those who have been convicted of a crime and sentenced to either death or life without parole. Those slaves would not have but a very few rights (no voting, no property ownership, etc).
[flame suit on]
I'm pretty sure the federal courts (possibly the SCOTUS) have ruled that birthright is the law. Over turning precedent with judges that always lean to the left will be impossible. Also, the courts will never allow USA citizens that have committed no crimes to be deported.
Getting a constitutional amendment won't happen. The Rats control too many states and seats.
In order to get anything done on immigration, other than by executive fiat, we are going to have to figure out what to do with the illegal alien parents of children born here. Can we deport them if the children are 18 and older?
It will never happen of course, because our "leaders" are either too dam! stupid to recognize Islam for what it is, or are too concerned about the politics, or both.
Read all the article...
A new thread that might be of interest ping....
Birthright Citizenship — A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3326031/posts
If Trump adds to his immigration policy to STRIP all anchor babies of citizenship, there would be no reason to have a primary. I’ll work on his campaign.
So if non-citizens are not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. and their children cannot become citizens at birth then what is the status of the child in question? The obvious implication is that they are not a citizen. So if they continue to live in the U.S. but never go through the naturalization process then wouldn't that mean that their children could not be citizens either?
Remember that it came out in the years following the civil war.
I thought you didn’t have allegiance to a Soveriegn until you took an oath to the same.
When have the illegal taken an oath to the United States?