Birthright citizenship must stop

dgates80

Land of the lost
The current interpretation of the 14th amendment is nuts. Cross the border, have a kid, and the kid magically is a US citizen. This forms the basis of one of the most attractive reasons to illegally enter the USA. Few other countries allow this.

The misinterpretation of the clause in the 14th amendment centers around the words “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." I would argue that illegal immigrants fail the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” test and therefore their “born on US soil” kids should NOT be afforded US citizenship automatically.

This is possibly going to be a US Supreme Court case sooner or later. What might the “new” SC decide?
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
The current interpretation of the 14th amendment is nuts. Cross the border, have a kid, and the kid magically is a US citizen. This forms the basis of one of the most attractive reasons to illegally enter the USA. Few other countries allow this.

The misinterpretation of the clause in the 14th amendment centers around the words “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." I would argue that illegal immigrants fail the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” test and therefore their “born on US soil” kids should NOT be afforded US citizenship automatically.

This is possibly going to be a US Supreme Court case sooner or later. What might the “new” SC decide?
I think the 14th Amendment will stand as is. It is interesting that you can find transcripts of the Congressional debates online.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I said this in another thread:

It should be pretty easy to actually follow the law and not extend birthright citizenship to the parents who are here illegally. If they want to leave the kid here, that's fine, but they cannot stay.
 

MiddleGround

Well-Known Member
I said this in another thread:

It should be pretty easy to actually follow the law and not extend birthright citizenship to the parents who are here illegally. If they want to leave the kid here, that's fine, but they cannot stay.
This will not keep them from dropping their babies and running.

Let them have their kid. If they don't get their citizenship straight within an alotted time, then neither they nor their anchor baby get to stay. Put it all on the parents. They decided to come here and try to take advantage of the laws... if they fail, they go! ALL of them :yay:
 

transporter

Well-Known Member
The current interpretation of the 14th amendment is nuts. Cross the border, have a kid, and the kid magically is a US citizen. This forms the basis of one of the most attractive reasons to illegally enter the USA. Few other countries allow this.

The misinterpretation of the clause in the 14th amendment centers around the words “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." I would argue that illegal immigrants fail the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” test and therefore their “born on US soil” kids should NOT be afforded US citizenship automatically.

This is possibly going to be a US Supreme Court case sooner or later. What might the “new” SC decide?
Here is what is says:

Amendment XIV
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.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Please explain how you think being born in America means you are a citizen of America is an "interpretation"!!!!!!
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
This will not keep them from dropping their babies and running.
I have no problem with that. Give the kid to (legal) relatives, farm them out to foster care, whatever. At that point they are considered abandoned and Mommy and Dad relinquish their parental rights.
 

luvmygdaughters

Well-Known Member
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "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".[33] The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes children born to foreign diplomats and children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory.

In my opinion, thousands of illegals, crashing through our borders, is "hostile occupation".
 

steppinthrax

Active Member
What about situations where one parent is a USC while the other is not. Such as my wife and I for our two first kids. I'm not sure if the the 14th amendment specifies this. Yet both of my kids are of course USC. My wife has been Naturalized citizen for the past 7 years.

You also consider situations where the child is born abroad but still one of the parents are a USC. There's a form with the DoS that you submit, providing a DNA test to establish USC.

I believe the 14th amendment is very general. Not sure.
 

officeguy

Well-Known Member
What about situations where one parent is a USC while the other is not. Such as my wife and I for our two first kids. I'm not sure if the the 14th amendment specifies this. Yet both of my kids are of course USC. My wife has been Naturalized citizen for the past 7 years.

You also consider situations where the child is born abroad but still one of the parents are a USC. There's a form with the DoS that you submit, providing a DNA test to establish USC.

I believe the 14th amendment is very general. Not sure.
Both of those scenarios are dealt with in laws (and supporting regulations) that were passed by congress. Congress is certainly free to extend citizenship to persons not covered by a provision in the constitution, it is something entirely different to deny a right spelled out in the constitution by fiat.
 

officeguy

Well-Known Member
This will not keep them from dropping their babies and running.

Let them have their kid. If they don't get their citizenship straight within an alotted time, then neither they nor their anchor baby get to stay. Put it all on the parents. They decided to come here and try to take advantage of the laws... if they fail, they go! ALL of them :yay:
That is current US policy. The fact that the kid is a US citizen does not confer immigration rights to the parent. This is a common issue during deportations. As ICE can't deport a US citizen, the parents have the option to leave the kid with relatives in the US or to take the kid with them. The only immigration benefit an 'anchor baby' creates is that the kid once it reaches the age of majority can sponsor the parent for permanent resident status.

There is an easy legislative fix to the 'anchor baby' issue. The right to sponsor a parent for immigration is NOT something guaranteed in the constitution. It is a right created by the immigration and naturalization act. Include a test that requires that the parent was a legal resident of the US when the sponsoring child was born into the process and voila, the 'anchor baby' issue goes away.
 

steppinthrax

Active Member
Both of those scenarios are dealt with in laws (and supporting regulations) that were passed by congress. Congress is certainly free to extend citizenship to persons not covered by a provision in the constitution, it is something entirely different to deny a right spelled out in the constitution by fiat.
Got it.

So I guess my point was Trump would have better luck getting rid of those abilities v.s. trying to somehow "override" a const amendment.

Even though the effect would be minimal it would show it's "tough" on immigration.
 

JEFF69Z28

Active Member
i have no problem with that. Give the kid to (legal) relatives, farm them out to foster care, whatever. At that point they are considered abandoned and mommy and dad relinquish their parental rights.
send them all home and stop anymore from coming here forever we are running out of room and money to support them.:patriot::patriot::patriot:
 

JEFF69Z28

Active Member
MILITARY at the border must put down any person who tries to cross and if the all rush the border I say mow em all down:patriot::patriot::patriot:
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
There is an easy legislative fix to the 'anchor baby' issue. The right to sponsor a parent for immigration is NOT something guaranteed in the constitution. It is a right created by the immigration and naturalization act. Include a test that requires that the parent was a legal resident of the US when the sponsoring child was born into the process and voila, the 'anchor baby' issue goes away.
Just like that :yay:
 
Here is what is says:



https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Please explain how you think being born in America means you are a citizen of America is an "interpretation"!!!!!!
I agree with you there is no need for "interpretation" when it clearly states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, which means only a person born of legal citizens is born a legal citizen. :yay:
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
I agree with you there is no need for "interpretation" when it clearly states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, which means only a person born of legal citizens is born a legal citizen. :yay:
That line simply means that kids born by ambassadors cannot be US citizens because those ambassadors are under the jurisdiction of their home country, not the US.
 
Top