No
Perhaps you mean the plural of baby, which is babies.
They are future democrat voters so the answer is yes.
Only since we have become tolerant of their presence here has this clear qualification become muddied.
No the 14th ammendment has been misinterpreted to allow illegals to come to the US give birth and have a US citizen to “anchor” them here permanently. That is not what the 14th ammendment was created for. The USA is the only nation on Earth who allows this nonsense. It needs to stop.
How do you think all these illegals get EBT cards? They have at least one kid born here who is a US citizen so they run down to family services and get signed up.
If illegals aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., then we can't arrest, prosecute, and imprison them for committing crimes in the U.S.
You’re completely right but this is one of those issues where the facts don’t matter. The people who control the military and the police make the rules. It doesn’t matter what the constitution says.
I think that Israel and the United States are the only countries that grant citizenship to all that are born in the countries.
Go back to kindergarten and learn to read and write. Stop embarrassing yourself.
One suggestion. When my children were born I was not a citizen (my husband was), if fact when my oldest one was born I was here on a student visa, I wasn't even a legal resident. Therefore I think I know what I'm talking about when I suggest that all babies not born to TWO American citizens would need to go through some application process in order to become citizens. It wouldn't have to be too complicated, just making sure that the non-citizen parent is here legally, it could be done when you apply for the social security number at the hospital!
The anchor baby concept is just more liberal perversion of the law.
“Anyone born in the USA is a citizen”
then yes, they would be. But it does NOT say that. it says:
“Anyone born in the USA, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen”
Big difference, and I would submit that being here illegally is NOT subject to the jurisdictions of
The problem is NOT our current immigration laws, which are similar to every other country on the planet, it is that THEY WERE NOT ENFORCED for 20 to 40 years. So we have people here who are not legal who have never lived in Mexico or China or wherever. How do you send them ‘home’ when they have no home there?
We have to acknowledge that the USA is at fault for not enforcing laws and take care of people that got here during that time (make then GUEST WORKERS BUT NOT CITIZENS!!!) and stop the rest from coming in, according to existing laws. There is no need to 'reform' laws you have not been enforcing.
Sort of. Technically they are dual or triple citizens, they are citizens born abroad of their parents’ countries first and foremost, but they have the right to assert US citizenship when they reach majority.
Until such a time as they surrender their citizenship in their parent’s country or countries as adults, they are not full US citizens.
There should be no provision for dual citizenship, one cannot serve two masters.
Just my 2¢...
Babies. Not Baby’s.
Sorry, just can’t help myself.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the country, regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status.
There is very good documentation for the fact that this was in no way the intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment.
If we want to change the law, we need Congress to do it. The law may be challenged and if not upheld by SCOTUS, a constitutional amendment will be necessary.
They shouldn’t be citizens, but we’ve been making them citizens. So now they feel entitled to be citizens, and any attempt to change that will result in riots, screaming hysteria, sob stories all over the media, howls of racism, etc., etc.
"Dr. John C. Eastman, Dean of Chapman University’s law school in Orange, California, is among the leading scholars in the nation on constitutional law and has testified before Congress on the issue of birthright citizenship. Eastman states plainly that the framers of the 14th Amendment had no intention of allowing another country to wage demographic warfare against the U.S. and reshaping its culture by means of exploiting birthright citizenship.
“We have this common understanding of when you come here to visit, that you are subject to our jurisdiction. You have to obey our traffic laws. If you come here from England, you have to drive on the right side of the road and not on the left side of the road,” he said. “But the framers of the 14th Amendment had in mind two different notions of ‘subject to the jurisdiction.’ There was what they called territorial jurisdiction— you have to follow the laws in the place where you are—but there was also this more complete, or allegiance-owing jurisdiction that held that you not only have to follow the laws, but that you owe allegiance to the sovereign. And that doesn’t come by just visiting here. That comes by taking an oath of support and becoming part of the body politic. And it is that jurisdiction that they are talking about in the 14th Amendment.” Then by definition—and one would think common sense—legal tourists here to enjoy Disneyland and illegal immigrants who broke into the country clearly do not fall under this blanket of allegiance-owing jurisdiction. Accordingly, their giving birth on American soil does not make their children citizens.
Dr. Edward J. Erler, a political science professor at Cal State San Bernardino, has spoken out against the political malaise and the popular misconception that has blossomed around the continued awarding of citizenship to virtually anyone born in the country. Echoing the sentiments of Eastman, Erler points out that the framers of the 14th Amendment sought to reassure the Congress in 1868 that the citizenship provisions did not cover—nor were they crafted with the intent to grant—citizenship to the children of foreign nationals born in the United States. Specifically, the myriad of Native American tribes were not covered under the citizenship clause because they clearly owed allegiance to their tribes and therefore were not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government—a clear indication Erler says that jurisdiction is indeed contingent on exclusive allegiance. And a child’s allegiance must follow that of its parents during its years as a minor.
“It’s difficult to fathom how those who defy American law can derive benefits for their children by their defiance; or that any sovereign nation would allow such a thing,” Erler said. That it has been allowed to happen on such a massive scale and has even been encouraged by various groups gets Terry Anderson’s blood boiling. A life-long black resident of South Los Angeles, Anderson has used his talk radio show to decry not only the radical and rapid transformation traditional black neighborhoods in Los Angeles and the erosion of the black power structure in the face of explosive immigration, but to blast the government’s policy of granting birthright citizenship to illegal immigrants.
Then by definition—and one would think common sense—legal tourists here to enjoy Disneyland and illegal immigrants who broke into the country clearly do not fall under this blanket of allegiance-owing jurisdiction. Accordingly, their giving birth on American soil does not make their children citizens. "
There is no law that makes them citizens, as the government has acquised the issue:
"Birth Is All You Need
According to Eastman, the real shift in popular perception began to take root in the late 1960s, when the idea that mere birth on American soil alone ensured citizen status.
“I have challenged every person who has taken the opposite position to tell me what it was that led to this new notion,” he said. “There’s not an executive order. There’s not a court decision. We just gradually started assuming that birth was enough.”
Eastman attributes some of it to our nation’s loss of an intrinsic understanding of the language that the framers of the 14th Amendment spoke and used in that era, ergo a century later the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” has been watered down in the collective American consciousness to require little more than an adherence to traffic safety laws. "
And looking to the near future, anyone born in the USA or Mexico will be defacto citizens of a defacto merged USA-Mexico.
Already today, having Mexican citizenship, absent a felony conviction, means you won't be deported from the USA.
“...and of the state wherein they reside...”
In my opinion, they have not established “residency” by virtue of being born. Seems to me that this clause disqualifies them IF the authorities show the will to enforce established law, by sending them back to their parent’s home country prior to their spending the qualifying amount of time in whatever state they enter illegally.
Most states require that one must live in a state for 30,60, or 90 days before becoming a legal resident.
Just one man’s point of view.