There’s no need to alter the 14th. Just stop mis-interpreting it. Births to foreigners were addressed in the Congressional debate, and the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language was supposed to take care of that. But, that’s been conveniently forgotten by vote-pandering schemers of both parties (GWB, too).
“There’s no need to alter the 14th. Just stop mis-interpreting it. Births to foreigners were addressed in the Congressional debate, and the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language was supposed to take care of that.”
EXACTLY. THIS NEEDS TO BE SAID AGAIN AND AGAIN.
The media is trying to make this about ‘changing the constitution’ when in fact its not. They makes it sound more radical than it is. Tere is NOTHING in the consitution that requires a person who crosses illegally at midnight and give birth at 12:05 on US soil to be a US citizen at birth.
Previous SCOTUS rulings extended birthright citizenship to children of permanent residents, but no further!
The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: “This 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.”
In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians — because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.
For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)
And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)
Brennan’s authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, THE Clement L. Bouve — the one you’ve heard so much about over the years.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge — just some guy who wrote a book.
So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author’s intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.
Yes. Have any of these great minds ever bothered to actually READ the 14th?
I agree with your point and also say that altering the 14th ammendment would be the longest path to achieve the desired result. It could take as long as 10 years before final ratification by enough states. Effective enforcement of current immigration laws would eliminate a huge majority of these type births negating the need for altering the ammendment. If you don't have illegals in the country, you don't have illegals giving birth in the country. This remedy is readily available as soon as the federal government chooses to use it.
I would tend to agree that illegals, who by definition, are flouting the law have not submitted themselves to its jurisdiction.
If we are going to alter amednments to the USC, there are better places to start--Let's see...the 16th and 17th spring to mind.
“There’s no need to alter the 14th. Just stop mis-interpreting it.”
The modification or repeal of the 14th will be too incendiary for most politicians to address in our lifetime. Race baiters will have a field day and those politicians proposing mods/repeal will head for the bunkers. It has as much chance of occurring as the elimination of it because it was not Constitutionally ratified. Securing the borders is paramount.
The path outlined by the “jurisdiction” bit and by:
{Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article} is a rocky one subject to judicial review, assuming there were enough leaders with the nads to pass it and the ability to override a certain veto.
How do you think a liberal legislator from the bench would treat this part of Sec. 1:”..nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. Note, that it says “person” not citizen like some of the other parts of Sec. 1. Armchair judging is not the real thing. We’re all mostly in agreement regarding “citizenship” for wets and the anchor baby situation but getting there is another story.
Exactly!
Note that the first line of the article almost certainly intentionally does not include the “jurisdiction” clause you mentioned. Probably to make it sound like the only way to avoid the anchor-baby phenomenon is to amend the Constitution.
Exactly! The 14th does NOT NEED to be Altered! Do you want the people who gave us Obamacare and TARP (re)writing a constitutional amendment? Keep in mind that the 14th ALSO has the provision that prevents states from making laws that abridge our rights, including life, liberty, or property without due process! There are a LOT of other provisions of the 14th that we don’t DARE let Washington re-write!
They cannot read that far -— like the 1st amendment which also states - “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Judges seem to prevent the free exercise willy-nilly.
.
Help Texas watch her borders.
Watch live on 14 cameras and report illegal alien invaders.
Night cams in operation
http://www.blueservo.net/index.php?error=nlg
Does it work? Yes.
Best time to catch them is at night.
Recently caught on cam and reported:
String of illegals running through brush with backpacks
Numerous sightings of boats crossing the river
Numerous vehicles late at night in isolated areas
IMMENSELY satisfying
.