Time to End Birthright Citizenship

American Thinker.com ^ | September 21, 2017 | Daniel John Sobieski

[Kaslin]

Donald Trump took a lot of heat when he announced his candidacy for President, stating that he would build a border fence from San Diego to Brownsville and make Mexico pay for it, all to keep Mexico’s “unwanted” and “undesirables” from flooding the United States. In August 2015, on the campaign trail, he shed light on a flawed interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that has caused much of the problem of illegal immigration.

That misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, written to guarantee the citizenship rights of freed slaves after the Civil War, has morphed the amendment into a guarantee of birthright citizenship. Merely being born on American soil is said to make you a U.S. citizen. Sneak past the U.S. Border Patrol, have your baby, and you not only have a U.S. citizen but what is called an “anchor baby” allowing you to stay and bring others in under the banner of family reunification.

During the campaign, Trump correctly called the flawed concept of birthright citizenship the “biggest magnet” for illegal immigration. He would end it, and as for family reunification, Trump is all for it, just saying it should happen on the other side of the U.S.-Mexico border. As the New York Post reported:

Trump described his expanded vision of how to secure American borders during a wide-ranging interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” and in a position paper he later released, saying that he would push to end the constitutionally protected citizenship rights of children of any family living illegally inside the US.

“They have to go,” Trump said. “What they’re doing, they’re having a baby. And then all of a sudden, nobody knows... the baby’s here.”

[DoughtyOne]

Honestly, I’m not sure if they have ever ruled on it.

It’s a good question.

[DoughtyOne]

Sure. I agree with that.

[MileHi]

Then post #16 may have some merit.

[MileHi]

Need to study this a little:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.329

especially section (b)

Thanks CMAC51

[MileHi]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.330

So as easy as changing:

(2) Any person actually within the United States;

to read:

(2) Any person legally within the United States;

Would that do it?

[DoughtyOne]

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

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.

The so-called birthright citizenship clause:

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.

There are two tests here.  

Lets look at test one.

Here's how Leftists read it.

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.

Does this grant citizenship to all persons born in the United States?

On the face of it no.  It doesn't even come close to saying that.

The inclusion of an additional stipulation in addition to simply being born on our soil, renders this a false premise.  All persons are not granted citizenship for having been born here, without being judged to be under the jurisdiction thereof.

For this reason, it is a false premise to state every person born in the United States is a citizen.

Now lets look at test two.

...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...

Leftists love to claim that illegal aliens must abide by the laws of the United States (all except immigrating legally, I presume).  This they use as primafacia evidence that illegals aliens "...are subject to the jurisdiction thereof,...".

Is that true?  NO, and it's a very easy thing to test.

The very inclusion of this verbage in the amendment deligitimizes this claim.

If being on U.S. soil made illegal aliens "...subject of the jurisdiction thereof..." all by itself, this further stipulation would not have been provided.

If all illegal aliens were subject to the jurisdication thereof, the Citizenship claus would read, "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."

Jurisdiction language would not be necessary, and it would not have been included.

The jurisdiction language had to be addressing something different than merely being present in the United States, when being born.

Conclusion:

The 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to illegal aliens born on U.S. soil.

[bus man]

I would think that “Any person legally within the United States” could be construed to include tourists who entered legally and have not overstayed their visas. Better wording would be “Any person legally residing within the United States.”

[jmacusa]

This would stop illegal immigration dead in it’s tracks.

[jmacusa]

Nothing. As long as you are native born or you have come legally.

[FreedomNotSafety]

If You’re born here you’re a citizen. What do anchor babies, family unification, and illegal aliens have to do with it. If you’re here illegally and have a kid you can go back with your kid or without your kid. Most of those kids will have dual citizenship so their parents can decide. If you leave your kid your welcome to try the legal route,

Plenty of visiting women have their kids here on purpose and then go home with the kid.

[Impy]

I agree re the 14th amendment, the key phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, which excludes illegal aliens, tourists, and diplomats.

[familyop]

"Eliminate birthright citizenship. Retroactively - for the last 50 years."

No, the last 120 years! Then deport everyone!

;-)

[familyop]

"Time to End Birthright Citizenship"

Then, only rich foreigners born elsewhere would be allowed to stay in the U.S.A. All of the Americans would be gone.

Nope.

No excuses.

I won't bother even looking.

;-)

[MileHi]

So simple a literate eighth grader could understand it. That doesn’t mean Congress could.

[MileHi]

Exactly

[MileHi]

If You’re born here you’re a citizen

Bull Hillary

[musicman]

Less Than $1889 To Go!!
If You Haven't Donated Yet This Quarter
Please Remember To Help
The FR FReepathon

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks MileHi.

Agreed.

[Freedom56v2]

If You’re born here you’re a citizen. What do anchor babies, family unification, and illegal aliens have to do with it. If you’re here illegally and have a kid you can go back with your kid or without your kid. Most of those kids will have dual citizenship so their parents can decide. If you leave your kid your welcome to try the legal route,

Plenty of visiting women have their kids here on purpose and then go home with the kid.

---

Do other countries allow for birth on their soil to grant citizenship?

[beachn4fun]

I’ve been saying this needed fixed for years. This anchor baby business is creating a nightmare of the USofA. I even read where some of Mexico’s cartel’s wives (”women”?) are going to San Diego to have their babies. You think they’re doing that so their babies have a better life? IMO, nope!