TemplarKormac
Political Atheist
...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof... are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
Okay. By now, those of you who know your Constitution will recognize this as the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The controversy generated over the anchor baby (yes, I said anchor baby) crisis led some to interpret that to mean children born to illegals in the United States are automatic citizens. Convenient, but wrong.
Let's look at the history behind the 14th Amendment and the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Who was responsible for "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof?" If you said Senator Jacob Howard, you would be correct. The main architect of the 14 Amendment was Representative John Bingham of Ohio. Did Bingham intend for the 14th Amendment to allow children born of illegal immigrants to become citizens of the United States?
Yes you say? Wrong again. Howard during the Senatorial debates over the Amendment fought for the inclusion of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." And got his wish. He, along with Bingham, clearly defined who would fall "under the jurisdiction" of the United States. They never intended for illegal aliens or their children to become citizens of our country.
These were his Howard's words:
And John Bingham's concurrence:
That's hard to argue with. But for someone who disregards history, they will continue ad nauseam about how the 14th Amendment grants automatic citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants. Some will point to the 1898 Supreme Court Case United States v Wong Kim Ark.
There is a problem with this. Wong Kim Ark was born to Chinese Parents legally domiciled in the United States. In other words they were themselves naturalized citizens of the US. People (foreigners) who have gained permanent residence through legal means are citizens, therefore the 14th Amendment grants all the rights and privileges therein. Wong Kim Ark's parents were not aliens. The Supreme Court merely cleared up the meaning behind "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
What the Supreme Court didn't do was allow for children born to aliens in the United States to be granted citizenship. Ahh, but I figure some will start citing the Plyler v. Doe case arguing that the 14th Amendment does apply to children of illegal immigrants. Once again, the case didn't deal with the citizenship status of children who were born to illegal immigrants in the United States. It dealt with children born to illegal immigrants (not necessarily in the United States) who were being denied an education because of their undocumented status under a 1975 Texas statute. It not once cited Won Kim Ark as precedent for the ruling. So anyone citing this case is simply misapplying its meaning.
There then will be those who will cleverly try to cite Weber v. Aetna Surety Co. They will once again find that it does not deal with children born of illegal immigrants or their citizenship status. This case dealt with the illegitimate children of a man who died as a result of injuries at his workplace and a Louisiana law which did not allow their mother or the children to collect on the workman's compensation of the deceased because they were illegitimate children. The question of citizenship never arose in the decision.
No, the children shouldn't be punished for the criminal behavior of their parents. Not at all. They cannot control the circumstances of their birth. But the parents should be punished for using their child(ren) as a tool or tool(s) to break the law. It may sound cruel, but the children are clearly, nor will they ever be, citizens of the United States of America as such, and as part of their parent's punishment, they should be removed and sent home along with their parents.
Howard and Bingham made it deadly clear in 1866. The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means aliens nor their children were supposed to be granted citizenship in the United States. That means, given the commentary of the author, any child born as an "anchor baby" to illegal immigrant parents has clearly violated the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
It's there in plain....English.
Okay. By now, those of you who know your Constitution will recognize this as the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The controversy generated over the anchor baby (yes, I said anchor baby) crisis led some to interpret that to mean children born to illegals in the United States are automatic citizens. Convenient, but wrong.
Let's look at the history behind the 14th Amendment and the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Who was responsible for "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof?" If you said Senator Jacob Howard, you would be correct. The main architect of the 14 Amendment was Representative John Bingham of Ohio. Did Bingham intend for the 14th Amendment to allow children born of illegal immigrants to become citizens of the United States?
Yes you say? Wrong again. Howard during the Senatorial debates over the Amendment fought for the inclusion of the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." And got his wish. He, along with Bingham, clearly defined who would fall "under the jurisdiction" of the United States. They never intended for illegal aliens or their children to become citizens of our country.
These were his Howard's words:
And John Bingham's concurrence:
That's hard to argue with. But for someone who disregards history, they will continue ad nauseam about how the 14th Amendment grants automatic citizenship to children born to illegal immigrants. Some will point to the 1898 Supreme Court Case United States v Wong Kim Ark.
There is a problem with this. Wong Kim Ark was born to Chinese Parents legally domiciled in the United States. In other words they were themselves naturalized citizens of the US. People (foreigners) who have gained permanent residence through legal means are citizens, therefore the 14th Amendment grants all the rights and privileges therein. Wong Kim Ark's parents were not aliens. The Supreme Court merely cleared up the meaning behind "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
What the Supreme Court didn't do was allow for children born to aliens in the United States to be granted citizenship. Ahh, but I figure some will start citing the Plyler v. Doe case arguing that the 14th Amendment does apply to children of illegal immigrants. Once again, the case didn't deal with the citizenship status of children who were born to illegal immigrants in the United States. It dealt with children born to illegal immigrants (not necessarily in the United States) who were being denied an education because of their undocumented status under a 1975 Texas statute. It not once cited Won Kim Ark as precedent for the ruling. So anyone citing this case is simply misapplying its meaning.
There then will be those who will cleverly try to cite Weber v. Aetna Surety Co. They will once again find that it does not deal with children born of illegal immigrants or their citizenship status. This case dealt with the illegitimate children of a man who died as a result of injuries at his workplace and a Louisiana law which did not allow their mother or the children to collect on the workman's compensation of the deceased because they were illegitimate children. The question of citizenship never arose in the decision.
No, the children shouldn't be punished for the criminal behavior of their parents. Not at all. They cannot control the circumstances of their birth. But the parents should be punished for using their child(ren) as a tool or tool(s) to break the law. It may sound cruel, but the children are clearly, nor will they ever be, citizens of the United States of America as such, and as part of their parent's punishment, they should be removed and sent home along with their parents.
Howard and Bingham made it deadly clear in 1866. The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means aliens nor their children were supposed to be granted citizenship in the United States. That means, given the commentary of the author, any child born as an "anchor baby" to illegal immigrant parents has clearly violated the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
It's there in plain....English.
Last edited:
