Replies

To read the 14th Amendment like we “want” it to be read, and not as it is actually written puts those of us on the political right on the same intellectual and legal plane as those on the left who like to loosely read the 2nd Amendment.

There is substantial evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment was never intended by its authors to justify 'anchor babies', but nonetheless it may be tough to get around.

On the other hand, one might make an argument that illegal aliens by their action seek to deny that the U.S. has jurisdiction over them; they should not be allowed to claim themselves to be subject to U.S. jurisdiction while refusing to acknowledge it.

Still, a constitutional amendment would be the right approach, if there weren't so many people in Congress (Dem and RINO) who rely upon the Democrats' ability to create votes. Actually, the RINOs probably rely upon the Democrats' behavior in this regard more than do the Democrats themselves.

Regarding the 14th amendment, we’re reading it right, Joe.

14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868) Passed by Congress June 13, 1866, and ratified July 9, 1868, the 14th amendment extended liberties and rights granted by the Bill of Rights to former slaves.

http://www.historicaldocuments.com/14thAmendment.htm

The bill was authored by Sen. Jacob Howard.

As a Senator, Howard is credited with working closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery.

During Reconstruction Howard participated in debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, arguing for including the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof specifically because he wanted to make clear that the simple accident of birth in the United States was not sufficient to justify citizenship. Howard said: [The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include very other class of person

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_M._Howard

Nevertheless, the anchor baby issue will need to be dealt with as a Constitutional Amendment. To read the 14th Amendment like we “want” it to be read, and not as it is actually written puts those of us on the political right on the same intellectual and legal plane as those on the left who like to loosely read the 2nd Amendment.

Most people regard the citizenship clause as self-explanitory, believing that to be "subject to the jurisdiction" all one has to do is to be within the territory of the United States. Thus they conclude that children of illegal aliens are obviously US citizens.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

If I'm driving in Britain, I have to obey their traffic laws because I am WITHIN British jurisdiction. That doesn't make me a British SUBJECT. Now, lest you think there is a difference between that usage of the word "subject" and the one in the Citizenship Clause, let's consult the Bouvier Law Dictionary 1856 edition, as it is the one most commonly used at the time the 14th Amendment was drafted and ratified. In this instance, the contextual usage of "subject" in the definition is exactly the same as that employed in the Citizenship Clause:

SUBJECT, persons, government. An individual member of a nation, who is subject to the laws; this term is used in contradistiction to citizen, which is applied to the same individual when considering his political rights.

2. In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes permanent allegiance to the monarch. Vide Body politic; Greenl. Ev. §286; Phil. & Am. on Ev. 732, n. 1.

Thus the seemingly "obvious" reading of the Citizenship Clause isn't at all correct, simply because illegal aliens are not "subject" to the jurisdiction as defined by the common understanding of the term at the time the 14th Amendment was drafted, passed, and ratified. That is the law.