"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[Oldglory1]

“The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982).

In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al (1972)).

The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.

To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.

Absolutely false. The "Framer" whom you speak of was Senator Jacob Howard, and he was dead set AGAINST birthright citizenship, and he said so. It is younger people who were born long after the 14th amendment was ratified, who improperly/illegally changed all that, to make birthright citizenship OK.

Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> "[The 14th amendment] 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 person."

Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.

Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"[The 14th amendment] 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 person."

Pretty clear to me- Howard is saying that the foreigners/aliens who belong to the families of diplomats were not included.

Matches the language of the 14th Amendment exactly

Anyone in the U.S. other than diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Howard and the 14th Amendment recognize that and exclude diplomats from those born in the U.S. who automatically become citizens.

Don't talk stupid. You can't rewrite history. Who the hell do you think you're talking to, asshole ?

That you have an unwarranted fear and hatred of Hispanics is not justification to seek to deny American citizens their citizenship.

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 Amendment makes no reference whatsoever to the condition of one's parents as a prerequisite for citizenship.

No one hates or fears Hispanics. I have them I my family. Personally, I am of Polish descent, and if illegal Poles are here, I want their asses OUT.

Are you now saying I hate or fear white people?

Mark

Exactly. What a ridiculous notion that this is about hating Hispanics. Hispanics aren't the only ones here illegally and giving birth on our soil. If they are here legally I have no problem with them as long as they assimilate and respect our laws. I also object to birth tourism of which it is mostly Asians that are the most guilty of that.

 

[1751_Texan]

A court challenge would require a suit by a state attorney general - say of Texas - who sues the federal government for reimbursement of costs spent to educate and otherwise care for anchor babies. The claim would be that the Feds have erroneously declared these fukkers to be citizens, and eligible for state benefits.

Uphill battle, to be sure, even if the USSC were populated by people who take the Constitution seriously. Which it is not.

You must not be know that Texas has was over-ruled by the US Supreme Court when Texas tried to claim that illegal alien children had to pay for their education in Texas. The USSC ruled that all children are entitled to a public education including illegal alien children. Plyler v. Doe
FindLaw Cases and Codes

If the Court ruled in favor in illegal alien klds...anchor babies are golden.

 

[1751_Texan]

The 2nd amendment and the 14th amendment have nothing in common as to language other that both are amendments.

American language of the 1780's is quite different and distinct than that of language of America of the 1880's.

 

[Flopper]

It might be better for our citizens- and it might be worse for our citizens. And both should be considered when making any decision before changing the Constitution.

Having the ability to DECIDE which and when people become citizens couldn't be anything but a plus for our country. It sure beats hell outta having it decided for us.

Mark

We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.

If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.

As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.

Mark

How can you read the citizenship clause, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity? The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws. Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?

The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous. The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense. At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen. Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens? At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.

YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464) What's the matter ? Don't you believe him ?

It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners.

Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment. Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners. Sen. John Conness of California stated: “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California. To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.

Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America

 

[Oldglory1]

Having the ability to DECIDE which and when people become citizens couldn't be anything but a plus for our country. It sure beats hell outta having it decided for us.

Mark

We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.

If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.

As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.

Mark

How can you read the citizenship clause, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity? The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws. Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?

The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous. The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense. At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen. Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens? At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.

YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464) What's the matter ? Don't you believe him ?

It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners.

Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment. Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners. Sen. John Conness of California stated: “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California. To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.

Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America

Parents can be legal resident foreigners. The foreigners in question are illegal alien parents. I said we will have to agree to disagree on the intent of the 14th and move forward to correct the problem but you refuse to do so therefore I'll add you to my ignore list.

 

[Flopper]

We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.

If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.

As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.

Mark

How can you read the citizenship clause, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity? The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws. Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?

The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous. The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense. At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen. Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens? At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.

YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464) What's the matter ? Don't you believe him ?

It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners.

Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment. Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners. Sen. John Conness of California stated: “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California. To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.

Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America

Parents can be legal resident foreigners. The foreigners in question are illegal alien parents. I said we will have to agree to disagree on the intent of the 14th and move forward to correct the problem but you refuse to do so therefore I'll add you to my ignore list.

I accept your resignation. Thanks for playing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.

If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.

As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.

Mark

How can you read the citizenship clause, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity? The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws. Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?

The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous. The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense. At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen. Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens? At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.

YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464) What's the matter ? Don't you believe him ?

It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners.

Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment. Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners. Sen. John Conness of California stated: “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California. To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.

Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America

Parents can be legal resident foreigners. The foreigners in question are illegal alien parents. I said we will have to agree to disagree on the intent of the 14th and move forward to correct the problem but you refuse to do so therefore I'll add you to my ignore list.

The problem is there's no 'problem' to correct – the disagreement doesn't concern the 14th Amendment, it concerns the errant proposition that citizen children born in the United States should be unlawfully denied their citizenship merely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status, an undetermined immigration status, as one is not 'illegal' until adjudicated as such in a court of law.

 

[ImGoing2Heaven]

I say deport everyone who's great grand parents weren't born here

 

[1751_Texan]

Having the ability to DECIDE which and when people become citizens couldn't be anything but a plus for our country. It sure beats hell outta having it decided for us.

Mark

We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.

If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.

As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.

Mark

How can you read the citizenship clause, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity? The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws. Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?

The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous. The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense. At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen. Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens? At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.

YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464) What's the matter ? Don't you believe him ?

It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners.

Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment. Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners. Sen. John Conness of California stated: “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California. To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.

Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America

It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.

If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.

 

[Oldglory1]

We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.

If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.

As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.

Mark

How can you read the citizenship clause, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity? The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws. Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?

The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous. The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense. At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen. Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens? At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.

YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464) What's the matter ? Don't you believe him ?

It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners.

Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment. Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners. Sen. John Conness of California stated: “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California. To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.

Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America

It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.

If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.

The language does exclude children of illegal aliens. It is just that you and a few others in here refuse to see it.

 

[Oldglory1]

As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.

Mark

How can you read the citizenship clause, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity? The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws. Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?

The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous. The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense. At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen. Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens? At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.

YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464) What's the matter ? Don't you believe him ?

It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners.

Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment. Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners. Sen. John Conness of California stated: “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California. To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.

Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America

Parents can be legal resident foreigners. The foreigners in question are illegal alien parents. I said we will have to agree to disagree on the intent of the 14th and move forward to correct the problem but you refuse to do so therefore I'll add you to my ignore list.

The problem is there's no 'problem' to correct – the disagreement doesn't concern the 14th Amendment, it concerns the errant proposition that citizen children born in the United States should be unlawfully denied their citizenship merely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status, an undetermined immigration status, as one is not 'illegal' until adjudicated as such in a court of law.

These illegal aliens parents can't prove they are in this country legally (because they're not) therefore they are illegal aliens. That's all it should take is to prove you are in this country as a legal resident and that their children are entitled to birthright citizenship. Otherwise no!

If I have a driver's license then that is proof that I am authorized to drive. If not, then I am not authorized to drive. It's as simple as that and is the same thing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, most of you anti-anchor baby butt holes do hate Hispanics.

Nope, the law will not change.

Ese.

 

[Oldglory1]

Yup, most of you anti-anchor baby butt holes do hate Hispanics.

Nope, the law will not change.

Ese.

Not all anchor babies are from Hispanic illegal aliens so you can stick your race card where the sun don't shine! This has nothing to do with hate but putting some respect back in to our citizenship laws and saving us billions in tax dollars. Why do you hate non-Hispanic Americans so much that you don't want that, ESE? It would deter more illegal aliens from coming here also. Don't like that either right, ESE? Because that would put a crimp in your ethnocentric, racist Reconquista agenda, right ESE? If any one is the hater and racist it is your and your fellow Reconquista amigos. Don't hold your breath that birthright citizenship isn't going to change. You'd lose, ESE.

 

[Unkotare]

The language does exclude children of illegal aliens. ...

No, it doesn't, oldgloryhole. Stop trying to play Jr. Constitutional Scholar.

 

[Flopper]

We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.

If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.

As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.

Mark

How can you read the citizenship clause, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity? The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws. Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?

The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous. The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense. At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen. Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens? At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.

YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464) What's the matter ? Don't you believe him ?

It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners.

Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment. Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners. Sen. John Conness of California stated: “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California. To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.

Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America

It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.

If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.

It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause. Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen." Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.

 

[JoeMoma]

Let's humor Oldglory for the moment. Perhaps the correct interpretation of the 14th ammendment is that children of illegal immergrants born in the United States are not citizens of the United States. The law is not currently being applied that way and children born to illegal immigrants are being given birth right citizenship. The likelihood that the Supreme Court will rule differently after so many years of the law being enforced this way is practically zero. The only way I know to change this is through constitutional amendment. Arguing that the 14th amendment is being interpreted incorrectly is a moot point.

I personally beleive that much of the federal goverment has exceeded the limits that the founders intended as outlined by the constitution. However, that horse has already left the barn.

 

[Oldglory1]

Let's humor Oldglory for the moment. Perhaps the correct interpretation of the 14th ammendment is that children of illegal immergrants born in the United States are not citizens of the United States. The law is not currently being applied that way and children born to illegal immigrants are being given birth right citizenship. The likelihood that the Supreme Court will rule differently after so many years of the law being enforced this way is practically zero. The only way I know to change this is through constitutional amendment. Arguing that the 14th amendment is being interpreted incorrectly is a moot point.

I personally beleive that much of the federal goverment has exceeded the limits that the founders intended as outlined by the constitution. However, that horse has already left the barn.

I don't care for your sarcastic remark about humoring me. WTH does that mean? Bucking to be another one on my ignore list?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oldglory1, please, don't act like Ernie S. or Listening or a dozen others who believe they can't be treated humorously or sarcastically. You don't have the final answer. I don't. Only SCOTUS does (and maybe that clairvoyant, CrusaderFrank), and this particular Court won't even consider it. Why should it?

 

[Oldglory1]

Oldglory1, please, don't act like Ernie S. or Listening or a dozen others who believe they can't be treated humorously or sarcastically. You don't have the final answer. I don't. Only SCOTUS does (and maybe that clairvoyant, CrusaderFrank), and this particular Court won't even consider it. Why should it?

Who the hell is Ernie S. and Crusader Frank and why are you comparing me to them? This is a serious issue and shouldn't be treated in a humorous or sarcastic manner. It is costing our country billions of dollars a year and encouraging illegal immigration. Where has the SC denied re-considering the birthright citizenship clause? Why should it? Because it is being misinterpreted, that's why. Even if it weren't many countries have changed their birthright citizenship requirements so that at least one parent has to be a citizen or legal resident of their countries. It only makes sense that we should do likewise based on the above.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, of course the issue is serious.

Two, you are too serious.

Three, only a few folks feel like you do about anchor babies, most don't care it all.

Four, SCOTUS has given no indication that it would even look at a petition.

Five, you have a serious educational awareness program to get going.

Good luck.