Skip to comments.Are baby's born to illegals US Citizens?
Posted on 02/01/2014 8:34:39 AM PST by Yooperman
click here to read article
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.
Illegals may not be subject to our hurisductuib
but any person born here is
WE should have amended that years ago
There was an effort to do that but it got stalled
Now the ONLY way to stop this anchor baby crap is to not let illegals give birth here
and you know how that would go over
So they aren’t ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ until they are caught. Otherwise they are not even known to be in the country.
Go back to kindergarten and learn to read and write. Stop embarrassing yourself.
If the Mexican Embassy has to be notified when one of its nationals is arrested in the USA, then that is prima facie evidence that the person is not fully “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
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.
Its a convoluted issue but by inaction it has effectively become law that children get citizenship. We have considerable birth tourism going on these days.
At this point we have grandchildren of children born to illegals being born here.
“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.
Ooops! I meant "need an amendment. I hope I beat the spelling police...
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¢...
Spell check, or voice recognition mangled “jurisdiction”?
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.
the juris doctor is in the house
That's not what I said.
I didn't see David...
Its what I said. It defies common sense to claim a person is subject to a jurisdiction if there is no record of their presence.
Not so. Canada and Mexico have birthright citizenship along with about 30 other countries, most of them in North, Central, and South America.
No. The right to consult with the Consulate comes from the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, a multinational treaty to which the U.S. is a party.
The foreign Consulate has no jurisdiction over the arrested national; the foreign national has a right to consult the Consulate just as he or she has the right to an attorney.
The foreign national is fully subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. unless they have diplomatic immunity of some form.
So back in the days when a person born to U.S. Citizens in a rural area never had his or her birth formally recorded, they weren't subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.?
“They” = “he or she”
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.
Or put it this way, if I drive on I-10 from Louisiana across the Texas state line, but Texas has no record of my presence, does that mean I’m not subject to the jurisdiction of the State of Texas?
"Dr. John C. Eastman, Dean of Chapman Universitys 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 arebut 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 doesnt 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 definitionand one would think common senselegal 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 covernor were they crafted with the intent to grantcitizenship 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. governmenta clear indication Erler says that jurisdiction is indeed contingent on exclusive allegiance. And a childs allegiance must follow that of its parents during its years as a minor.
Its 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 Andersons 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 governments policy of granting birthright citizenship to illegal immigrants.
Then by definitionand one would think common senselegal 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. Theres not an executive order. Theres not a court decision. We just gradually started assuming that birth was enough.
Eastman attributes some of it to our nations 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. "
My understanding is that we are the only nation that has not outlawed birthright citizenship. Apparently Canada has not. That still puts us in the vast minority.
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.
You realize we’re talking about national citizenship here, right?
Obviously your understanding is incorrect. I provided you with the link that goes into some detail about birthright citizenship and how the US compares globally. Canada has birthright citizenship, not "apparently" has not outlawed birthright citizenship.
That still puts us in the vast minority.
Absolutely. There are only two advanced economies that have birthright citizenship, Canada and us. Ireland was the last country in Europe to get rid of birthright citizenship and that was thru a constitutional amendment.
The 30 or so countries that have birthright citizenship are mostly in the New World, a legacy of European colonialism.
We should eliminate birthright citizenship and dual citizenship.
“...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.
By current law: yes
Should it be that way: no
You are quite correct, but a lot of people around here won’t want to hear it.
“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is a common law concept familiar to all attorneys at the time. It included everybody except those with what we now call diplomatic immunity and members of invading armed forces.
It is exceedingly unlikely those who wrote or ratified 14A intended to include children of illegal immigrants, however. This is largely because at the time there WERE no illegal immigrants.
The first federal restrictions on immigration were passed in 1882. So in 1868 there were no illegal immigrants.
They shouldn’t be.
And if they are... the congress should have the power to strip them of their citizenship.
While the courts have used the 14th in that manner, title 8 section 1401 is the section of law where Congress has expressed it’s will concerning the enumerated power of Congress as detailed in Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution.
Title 8 section 1401 subsection a reads:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
So it is the expressed will of Congress that they be citizens. If that is to change, we will need to change Congress.
You're quite correct, a few people around here don't know what they are talking about as seen posted in 35.
Illegals = Felons
I say NO and if it has to be adjudicated then let’s do so.
From 1942 to 1964, the United States had a foreign workers program called 'Bracero' for Mexican citizens that was instituted because of US involvement in WW2. Similarly, to what the Rinos in the US Cong want to do now, but now it would be a Trojan horse for US citizenship. During that time, the Mexican migrant workers working under Bracero, and who had children in the US considered them US citizen by birth, or did they, the Mexican citizen believe that their children were US citizens.
Yeah they are. If they break the law then they can be arrested, tried, convicted, and jailed. That sure sounds like 'subject to the jurisdiction' to me.
"who had children in the US [did NOT] consider them US citizen by birth, ...."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.