• 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!

Should the 14th amendment be amended or repealed?

Should the 14th Amendment be changed or repealed

  • Yes, it should be completely repealed

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    44
Being born on American soil has always made someone American. See A, they are born on American soil and as they are a new person, they are under the direct jurisdiction of the US especially DHHS. So yes it does make them American; you are stripping them of their rights based on a prejudice.

United States Code: Title 8,1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth | LII / Legal Information Institute

Jumping in here, Hallam. No offense. Bolded sentence in your quote -- it's not racial/ethnic prejudice. If you want to call it prejudice, then it's prejudice against those people who would invade our country illegally and, thru an existing loophole (the 14th), assure that they receive public assistance for their new-borns and all the other assistance that goes along with that.
 
The Constitution should be amended so that the child of an illegal alien or a tourist is not automatically a citizen.
 
The Constitution should be amended so that the child of an illegal alien or a tourist is not automatically a citizen.
How so though? Any thoughts on the finer details of said amendment?
 
How so though? Any thoughts on the finer details of said amendment?

Section 1. 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.

How to change it would be a very interesting process....subject to much debate. SCOTUS could even determine that 'subject to the jurisdiction of' meant that one parent had to be either born or naturalized in the US. They have already defined that a person born of at least one U.S. citizen in another country is a citizen, so it's not without precedence.
 
I think it's ironic that the fringe-right is discussing repealing an amendment the GOP takes credit for on their website.

The Republican Party was for the 14th Amendment before its members started turning against it. But the GOP’s website hasn’t yet gotten the message.

“Republicans passed the 14th Amendment,” the Republican National Committee declares on a web page extolling the party’s role in freeing slaves and supporting civil rights in the century between the Civil War and the Civil Rights Acts.

LINK

Perhaps the fringe has gone so far off the deep end, they are no longer on the right... They're now lined up with the far-left counterparts....
 
I think it's ironic that the fringe-right is discussing repealing an amendment the GOP takes credit for on their website.



LINK

Perhaps the fringe has gone so far off the deep end, they are no longer on the right... They're now lined up with the far-left counterparts....

Are you reading challenged?... from your link.

The Republican Party was for the 14th Amendment before its members started turning against it. But the GOP’s website hasn’t yet gotten the message.

“Republicans passed the 14th Amendment,” the Republican National Committee declares on a web page extolling the party’s role in freeing slaves and supporting civil rights in the century between the Civil War and the Civil Rights Acts.

See anything there about anchor babies? :roll:
 
Jumping in here, Hallam. No offense. Bolded sentence in your quote -- it's not racial/ethnic prejudice. If you want to call it prejudice, then it's prejudice against those people who would invade our country illegally and, thru an existing loophole (the 14th), assure that they receive public assistance for their new-borns and all the other assistance that goes along with that.

There are other prejudices other than racial. If this is your motivation then you are misapplying it to these babies. They haven't invaded. Their parents invaded and should be sent home. These children, however, were just born here just as you were. This further isn't a loophole. Being born on US soil is the first reason why people are citizens of this nation. At least it is thought so by the congress. Again, if you read the link carefully, you will see that parental transfer is third on the list and is mainly cited to apply to children of US citizens born outside of the US.

So sure deport their parents and all illegals, I have no problem with that. I don't even think we need to deport to home countries. But these babies are citizens and should be counted as US citizens.
 
There are other prejudices other than racial. If this is your motivation then you are misapplying it to these babies. They haven't invaded. Their parents invaded and should be sent home. These children, however, were just born here just as you were. This further isn't a loophole. Being born on US soil is the first reason why people are citizens of this nation. At least it is thought so by the congress. Again, if you read the link carefully, you will see that parental transfer is third on the list and is mainly cited to apply to children of US citizens born outside of the US.

So sure deport their parents and all illegals, I have no problem with that. I don't even think we need to deport to home countries. But these babies are citizens and should be counted as US citizens.

So if we deport the mothers and or fathers what do we do with the babies?
 
I have already addressed this in a previous post.
 
There are other prejudices other than racial. If this is your motivation then you are misapplying it to these babies. They haven't invaded. Their parents invaded and should be sent home. These children, however, were just born here just as you were. This further isn't a loophole. Being born on US soil is the first reason why people are citizens of this nation. At least it is thought so by the congress. Again, if you read the link carefully, you will see that parental transfer is third on the list and is mainly cited to apply to children of US citizens born outside of the US.

So sure deport their parents and all illegals, I have no problem with that. I don't even think we need to deport to home countries. But these babies are citizens and should be counted as US citizens.

When the 14th Amendment was written, there were no restrictions on immigration. Come one, come all. Things have changed. I don't see this happening, but I think it's a discussion that ought to take place to let the Administration know just how unhappy Americans are with the fact that illegal immigration isn't being effectively (or seriously) enforced.
 
You have it backwards...... legal residents haven't broken any laws to be here, therefore they are under the jurisdiction of the US government if a child is born on US soil. Illegal alien invaders have done something illegal to be here, and in no way can be considered under the jurisdiction of the US government if a child is born on US soil.

Think of it this way.. Illegal aliens are hiding from the fed. If we don’t even know they are here, how can we have jurisdiction over them?

PS. I’m not sure I like the idea of children of legal resident aliens getting automatic citizenship. I think at least one parent should be a citizen before a child gets citizenship….. Jus sanguinis
is a law of nature, jus soli is just geography.

If they aren't under US jurisdiction, they can't possibly be illegal.

There is a paradox inherent in your argument which invalidates it.
 
Citizenship in most nations, ours included, is not earned. It is a privilege automatically extended to the families that belong to the nation. We allow foreigners to earn that privilege because we are a nation of immigrants and we believe that immigration makes our nation stronger. We're under no obligation to do this.

Neither here nor there with regards to my call for a demonstration, as my call for a demonstration had nothing to do with foreigners.

Also, in our country, the privilege is automatically extended to individuals born in the county, not "families that belong to the nation". Let's be precise and accurate.
 
Last edited:
When the 14th Amendment was written, there were no restrictions on immigration. Come one, come all. Things have changed. I don't see this happening, but I think it's a discussion that ought to take place to let the Administration know just how unhappy Americans are with the fact that illegal immigration isn't being effectively (or seriously) enforced.

Even if our restrictions on immigration have changed over the years which I am not disputing, that is a moot point. These infants are not immigrants;they are not illegal; nor are they under the jurisdiction of any other country. They are just US citizens born on US soil.

I agree that immigration laws should be enforced with the full force. I would also agree that the administration should listen to us when we say that this issue is important and should be address without amnesty. However, these are two different issues. I am talking about "anchor babies" and how they pertain to the 14th. You are talking about actively stripping US citizens of their citizenship because you simply don't like the situation around how their parents came here. I see a difference between the situation of the parent and the citizenship of the child. These children are not anchor babies, they are just US citizens. I liken (and take) this change to the 14th as saying all African-Americans are not citizens because we know they came from Africa and we should now send them back there. Where does this line of thinking end? It doesn't; it just makes citizenship dependent on what a majority want or what a minority can rig in an election. You don't like that these babies are citizens, okay. But your dislike doesn't make them any less born citizens of the United States of America.
 
Last edited:
Even if our restrictions on immigration have changed over the years which I am not disputing, that is a moot point. These infants are not immigrants;they are not illegal; nor are they under the jurisdiction of any other country. They are just US citizens born on US soil.

I agree that immigration laws should be enforced with the full force. I would also agree that the administration should listen to us when we say that this issue is important and should be address without amnesty. However, these are two different issues. I am talking about "anchor babies" and how they pertain to the 14th. You are talking about actively stripping US citizens of their citizenship because you simply don't like the situation around how their parents came here. I see a difference between the situation of the parent and the citizenship of the child. These children are not anchor babies, they are just US citizens. I liken (and take) this change to the 14th as saying all African-Americans are not citizens because we know they came from Africa and we should now send them back there. Where does this line of thinking end? It doesn't; it just makes citizenship dependent on what a majority want or what a minority can rig in an election. You don't like that these babies are citizens, okay. But your dislike doesn't make them any less born citizens of the United States of America.

Even if our restrictions on immigration have changed over the years which I am not disputing, that is a moot point. These infants are not immigrants;they are not illegal; nor are they under the jurisdiction of any other country. They are just US citizens born on US soil.

I agree that immigration laws should be enforced with the full force. I would also agree that the administration should listen to us when we say that this issue is important and should be address without amnesty. However, these are two different issues. I am talking about "anchor babies" and how they pertain to the 14th. You are talking about actively stripping US citizens of their citizenship because you simply don't like the situation around how their parents came here. I see a difference between the situation of the parent and the citizenship of the child. These children are not anchor babies, they are just US citizens. I liken (and take) this change to the 14th as saying all African-Americans are not citizens because we know they came from Africa and we should now send them back there. Where does this line of thinking end? It doesn't; it just makes citizenship dependent on what a majority want or what a minority can rig in an election. You don't like that these babies are citizens, okay. But your dislike doesn't make them any less born citizens of the United States of America.

Hallam, you're assuming I've taken a stand on this issue. I haven't. I'm not sure where I come down on it. My opinion is, as I posted, "I think it's a discussion that ought to take place to let the Administration know just how unhappy Americans are with the fact that illegal immigration isn't being effectively (or seriously) enforced." If you read over my few posts, you'll see I never said they shouldn't be citizens.
 
Hallam, you're assuming I've taken a stand on this issue. I haven't. I'm not sure where I come down on it. My opinion is, as I posted, "I think it's a discussion that ought to take place to let the Administration know just how unhappy Americans are with the fact that illegal immigration isn't being effectively (or seriously) enforced." If you read over my few posts, you'll see I never said they shouldn't be citizens.

And I don't think that discussion should be had since I don't like the idea of rejecting citizenship on people who are clearly citizens. Again, I make a distinction between illegal immigrants who are not citizens and talking about removing citizenship. I am okay with having a outright fight to discuss removing illegal immigrants. But again, i see that as a separate issue. If you want to have a discussion on if the 14th amendment can be rewritten/reinterpreted to make these babies as non-citizens, then, then as I said before, you are misapplying your frustration and anger(?) at the failure to enforce immigration laws on lawful citizens who by nature can not defend themselves. This 14th amendment conversation which shouldn't be allowed at all costs.
 
Last edited:
No need to Amend the Constitution.

The Birthright Citizenship clause was written to stop Democrats in the South from disenfranchising blacks. All that is necessary is the interpretation of the clause as it was orginally intended, to prevent political powers from denying citizenship to those lawfully here. Under no circumstances can it be condidered a blank authority for any alien who spawns on our side of the border to be given immunity from deportation on the basis of their spawn, or to grant citizenship to the spawn itself.
 
I'm with you on this one,... as it will inevitably bring the definition of "personhood" to the (Roberts led) SCOTUS and that will certainly go a long way towards ending the legality of elective abortion.

As much as I agree that the Fourteenth Amendment already implies the illegality of the murder of the unborn person, writing the following will not affect that particular debate:

Birthright citizenship shall be granted to persons born in the United States if and only if the parents lawfully wedded and one of the two parents is a lawful citizen of the United States prior to the conception of the child. Under no circumstances will citizenship or even legal residence status be granted to any child born to a mother whose presence in the United States is a violation of current immigration law. No person shown to have entered the United States illegally at any time shall be granted citizenship, any citizen found to have entered illegally and fraudulenty obtained naturalization shall have their naturalization revoked. No person shall have dual citizenship.

What this means is that the children of servicemen who married aliens shall not be denied citizenship.

Lawful wives of Americans can enter the United States lawfully, hence their children will not be denied citizenship. Women claiming to be knocked up by gringos in a Tijuana whorehouse are out of luck, and no one entering the US illegally will be granted the prize of citizenship.

No amnesty for illegals, ever.

And people have to make a choice, to be either a citizen of the United States, or a citizen of some other country. If they don't want to give up their former allegiences, then they're not ready to join our club.

It's as simple as that.
 
I understand changing or repealing anchor baby laws to punish the parents, but why punish the child for the actions of their parents by withholding citizenship?

No one's punishing the child.

Citizenship should never be a gift for someone else's criminal act. The invader spawn doesn't belong here, isn't supposed to be here, and it serves merely to prevent the deportation of the invader itself and to allow the invader to leech public services that shouldn't be applied to anyone, anyway.

Recognizing that the spawn was never anything more than a citizen of it's parent's source nation is merely common sense.
 
The 14th should not change at all. Babies born in the US from illegal immigrants should be automatically considered US citizens.

Why?

People who commit crimes should reap the reward of their evil actions?

This entire country is built on premises like the sins of the father don't translate to the son.

That's okay, we're discussing the sins of the mother.

No reason she should be rewarded for her crime, either.

Meanwhile, citizenship is granted to babies of parents lawfully in the United States because their parents are citizens. It's not complicated. The kid has brown eyes because mommy has brown eyes, it has US citizenship because it's mommy has US citizenship.

The baby has done nothing; has committed no crime...The parents have broken the law and they can be sent home but there is no reason to punish the child.

Exactly. So when we deport it's mother, it would be a crime to seperate the family simply because the child was wrongly granted citizenship it's parents didn't earn for it.

Even if those parents take the child home with them, that child should still be considered a US citizen.

Why? It's not like we're having problems breeding our own citizens. Hell, we even have a national industry of public schools that produce hordes of unskilled uneducated kiddies who can't speak English. Since we don't have a shortage, we don't need to import any.

Or at least have dual citizenship until age 18 and then the option to pick one citizenship at that age.

Or, better yet, send them, along with their parent, back to the country they're supposed to be in, and if the child wishes to emigrate from there to the US when he's older, he can get at the back of the line at the US embassy in that nation, just like everyone else, and fill out the forms and wait for our generosity.

The parent, being formerly illegal, should never be granted any form of visa at any time for any reason whatsoever.

To systematically reject these babies as non-citizens spits in the face of what it means to be an American.

No, they're non-citizens. So there's no conflict with being an American and sending non-citizens back to their nation of origin.

Being "American" does not mean being "gullible", "stupid", "soft-headed", "soft-hearted", "ignorant", "foolish", "easy", or "simple".

It says that we have rejected the ideals of the country that accepts all legal comers (again, the baby has broken no laws).

The baby was not a legal entry.

If you insist that it was, please point to the approved immigration application the pregnant mother filled out prior to entering the United States.
 
Why?

People who commit crimes should reap the reward of their evil actions?



That's okay, we're discussing the sins of the mother.

No reason she should be rewarded for her crime, either.

Meanwhile, citizenship is granted to babies of parents lawfully in the United States because their parents are citizens. It's not complicated. The kid has brown eyes because mommy has brown eyes, it has US citizenship because it's mommy has US citizenship.



Exactly. So when we deport it's mother, it would be a crime to seperate the family simply because the child was wrongly granted citizenship it's parents didn't earn for it.



Why? It's not like we're having problems breeding our own citizens. Hell, we even have a national industry of public schools that produce hordes of unskilled uneducated kiddies who can't speak English. Since we don't have a shortage, we don't need to import any.



Or, better yet, send them, along with their parent, back to the country they're supposed to be in, and if the child wishes to emigrate from there to the US when he's older, he can get at the back of the line at the US embassy in that nation, just like everyone else, and fill out the forms and wait for our generosity.

The parent, being formerly illegal, should never be granted any form of visa at any time for any reason whatsoever.



No, they're non-citizens. So there's no conflict with being an American and sending non-citizens back to their nation of origin.

Being "American" does not mean being "gullible", "stupid", "soft-headed", "soft-hearted", "ignorant", "foolish", "easy", or "simple".



The baby was not a legal entry.

If you insist that it was, please point to the approved immigration application the pregnant mother filled out prior to entering the United States.

If they are born on American soil, then the babies are citizens whether you can accept that or not. This is US law. Being born on soil is the main reason most of us are citizens as defined by congress in 2006. I even linked it in an earlier post. So your belief that parental citizenship is what translates to child citizenship is flat wrong according to the law of the land. Parental citizenship doesn't entire into the citizenship question until you leave the US. To ultimately to discriminate against these children based on the parents, just goes to show delusional anger. I have been clear. Parents should be sent home. The child, if born in the US, gets citizenship whether they go home with the parents or stay here with relatives who are citizens.

And your opinion, that is all it is, that they are not citizens is moot. You should direct your anger at the parent, not the child. The child has broken no laws. The child could not pick where the child was to be born. If your entire point why they can't be citizens is because of the parent, then you have no real argument as these are two different people. Crimes of the parents don't get placed onto children in this country no matter how much you would like them to. All you really have to do is demonstrate how the children have broken a law or weren't born on US soil.
 
Last edited:
They may have, but that doesn't make them Americans. Being the same nationality as their parents is not a punishment. There is a process by which people who wish to become Americans, and who wish for their children to be Americans, can change their nationality and be accepted into our community. We can not and should not be responsible for people who do not follow this process and abide by our laws. We have the right to decide, as a nation, who belongs within our nation and who does not.

I understand repealing anchor baby laws, however I don't get your appeal to legality as it already is the legal procedure to make them US citizens automatically.
 
Back
Top Bottom