• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

State lawmakers taking aim at amendment granting birthright citizenship

IN case no one else brought this is up there is the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,". If the 14 amendment meant any and everybody born in the USA is a citizen then why not have "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." instead of "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." Obviously the bold part is just as important as the part of being born here. Why else have the Indian citizenship act of 1924 and the nationality act of 1940 if any and everybody born in the USA is a citizen? The 14th amendment was created to make the freed from slavery and their children citizens of the US.

The "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," refers to Indians and later diplomats who did not fall under the force of federal law. Illegal immigrants ARE subject to the law of the United States, through they are breaking it through their very presense. However, the just born baby did NOT break that law and are very much subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
 
So children born on American soil to parents who are here illegally aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Everybody standing on American soil is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Except those with diplomatic immunity and Indians on reservations... THAT is what the clause so frequently cited applies to...
 
So children born on American soil to parents who are here illegally aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Everybody standing on American soil is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Why have and subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the 14th amendment if just being born here is good enough for citizenship? Obviously is not or else they would not have added it.
 
Except those with diplomatic immunity and Indians on reservations... THAT is what the clause so frequently cited applies to...

So far as I'm aware, reservations aren't American soil in the sense that they're sovereign territory much in the same way a foreign embassy is.

As far as it goes with diplomatic immunity, that is in fact not true. They are indeed subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while they're here.

ETA: If you're saying that that language was intended to exclude the children of diplomats born on US soil, I'm with you there.
 
Last edited:
The "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," refers to Indians and later diplomats who did not fall under the force of federal law.

Doesn't the constitution trump federal law? So that argument doesn't really fly.

Illegal immigrants ARE subject to the law of the United States, through they are breaking it through their very presense. However, the just born baby did NOT break that law and are very much subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
So in other words the 14th amendment does not mean everybody born here is a citizen.

How are the children of illegals subject when native Americans and diplomats were not?
 
but you can't even alter the amendment without the passage of a new amendment, you DO know that, right???

Let's take a moment and have clarity that you are going from the argument that the 14th is going to be completely repealed, to the argument that the 14th is going to be changed unconstitutionally.

*breath in*......*breath out*......ok then

As a matter of fact, no, I didn't know that, and I confess I don't have perfect clarity on the legislation at hand, either, as I can't seem to find the actual proposed legislation itself.
 
Last edited:
I think the 14th Amendment is pretty clear in its meaning. And, before the 14th, we had slavery in this country, a permanent class of non-citizen human beings who never knew any other land but this one.

You think repealing the 14th Amendment just applies to those foreign looking, Spanish speaking people but forget that we are a nation of equal protection under the law. No 14th Amendment applies to you, too.

With no 14th Amendment your American birth certificate doesn't prove a Goddamn thing anymore — same thing for that Social Security card you're waving around: you may have obtained it under false pretenses back when a 14th Amendment assured us that you were ‘legal’ solely by reference to that American birth certificate. No more.

If your claim to citizenship in this country is based on your American birth certificate then without the 14th Amendment only your parent's legal immigration status at the time of your birth assures us that you are in fact a citizen. That's not a straw man; that's the law.

Papers please.

Let's see the law?
 
Are you an American under the terms of this effort that you agree with so ‘compleatly?’ Since you don't know how to spell c-o-m-p-l-e-t-e-l-y you're likely an English as a second language immigrant which means that this will be easy for you to prove that you're a legal citizen — just show us your naturalization papers.

But, if you have the great blessing of being born in this country, then under the terms of this new effort to repeal the 14th Amendment the only way to prove you are here legally is to prove that your parents were here legally when you were born. Please provide your parents' naturalization papers, please.

Oh, and if your parents were born in this country, too, then, as you know, without the 14th Amendment, to prove that you actually belong here and not somewhere far, far away from here, we'll be requiring your grandparents papers. All four, please. No worries, we'll wait here while you track them down. Thanks in advance.

And, if any of them were blessed and born in this country, then, you know the drill at this point, without the 14th Amendment, we'll be requiring both your great-grandparents naturalization papers. This could be a set of eight naturalization papers; I guess you could have a nice book to keep them all together.

God bless you for complying with the law. Of course, if you don't fulfill the legal requirements the alternative is to let us know what country you'll be traveling to. It might be one that none of your ancestors have known for generations, but, it's where you'll be going for the rest of your life. Please go without burdening real American taxpayers you God damn illegal immigrant!

Thank you for your cooperation.

I love your post!! Now having said that . . .

I don't think it is unreasonable to deny citizenship to a baby born of illegal parents...and we can easily confirm parents' citizenship status. We have got to do something!. If not that, then what?
 
I am by no means a liberal, but this is misguided. People born in the United States are US citizens under the Constitution. End of story. If they want to change this, you need to change the Constitution, which isn't going to happen in this case.

Yeah, I don't think any court in the country is going to declare the constitution unconstitutional.
 
To exclude the children of foreign diplomats.

So not everyone born here at the time the 14th was written got automatic citizenship and it was more than just the children of foreign diplomats that were excluded. If the children born in the US to those who had legal permission to be in the US (diplomats, native Americans,people born on US territories and etc) did not have birthright citizenship before the Indian citizenship act of 1924 and the nationality act of 1940 were written, how is it that people born here to those who had no legal right to be in the country get birth right citizenship? Obviously the 14th does not apply to anchor babies of illegals.
 
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which was rendered 30 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, spells out in plain language that you are wrong with respect to "anchor babies:"

The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, according to the court's majority, had to be interpreted in light of English common law,[15] which had included all native-born children except for those who were: (1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.[16][17] The majority held that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th Amendment specifically incorporated these exceptions (plus a fourth — namely, that Indian tribes "not taxed" were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction[18][19])—and that since none of these exceptions applied to Wong's situation, Wong was a U.S. citizen, regardless of the fact that his parents were not U.S. citizens (and were, in fact, ineligible ever to become U.S. citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act). The opinion emphasized the fact that "during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China".[20]

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Wong's parents were here legally in the US when he was born. Wong was not a anchor baby.

They were not citizens, nor could they be, given Federal law at the time. Despite that, because Wong was born on US soil, was not the son of a head of state or diplomat or soldier in an invading army or of Native American parents, the circumstances of his birth made him a citizen.
 
They were not citizens, nor could they be, given Federal law at the time. Despite that, because Wong was born on US soil, was not the son of a head of state or diplomat or soldier in an invading army or of Native American parents, the circumstances of his birth made him a citizen.

That's all well and good.

A decision from 1898.

Time to review.
 
If were I to agree with you, which I don't, I'd tell you that "review" is going to happen either in the form of another Supreme Court decision or an Amendment.

It's not going to happen at the level of state law.

Dot.
 
So not everyone born here at the time the 14th was written got automatic citizenship and it was more than just the children of foreign diplomats that were excluded. If the children born in the US to those who had legal permission to be in the US (diplomats, native Americans,people born on US territories and etc) did not have birthright citizenship before the Indian citizenship act of 1924 and the nationality act of 1940 were written, how is it that people born here to those who had no legal right to be in the country get birth right citizenship? Obviously the 14th does not apply to anchor babies of illegals.

It says "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The easiest way to determine if someone is subject to the jurisdiction of US is to ask yourself if they have any obligation to obey US federal laws while they are within the borders of our country.

Native Americans on reservations? No. They have sovereignty.
Diplomats? No. They have diplomatic immunity.
Immigrants, residents, or aliens (whether legal or illegal)? Yes. Therefore they are subject to the jurisdiction of US law. This very jurisdiction is what gives the federal government the right to deport them in the first place. If they weren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US, then there would be no basis for deporting them.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't the constitution trump federal law? So that argument doesn't really fly.



How are the children of illegals subject when native Americans and diplomats were not?

Native Americans on tribal reserverations are NOT subject to federal or state law ON those reservations. This is why tribes can get away with gambling casinos in states where gambling is otherwise prohibited, for example.

Diplomats and their children have diplomatic immunity and are not subject to being charged with a crime in the state to which they are posted.
 
My main issue with this specific issue is that people are getting citizenship in the United States from an illegal act.
 
My main issue with this specific issue is that people are getting citizenship in the United States from an illegal act.

No, not unless A) there was a federal law automatically granting citizenship to parents of anchor babies, or B) you blame the newborn infant for the illegal act. The person who is getting US citizenship didn't do anything wrong.
 
Last edited:
Yes, A) There are legal ways to become a citizen B) I do not blame the newborn. I do blame the illegal act that is being done C) so you would take the citizen from its illegal parents. NO!
 
My main issue with this specific issue is that people are getting citizenship in the United States from an illegal act.

Giving birth is an illegal act?

Being born, more like. After all, it's the baby that get's citizenship and, by most accounts, it starts out innocent.
 
Back
Top Bottom