Does the Constitution really say that children of illegal immigrants are automatic citizens?

National Review ^ | 01/27/2011 | Katrina Trinko

[pissant]

HELL EFFIN NO

[muawiyah]

Do this fast enough and the Latino Vote will drop a good 75%.

If all "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant was that the United States had issued them a visa, it's over.

[mrmeyer]

Nope.

[SeekAndFind]

If this issue goes to the Supreme Court you can be 100% sure Sotomayor, the Wise Latina, will answer YES to the above question.

AS usual, it will be a 5-4 decision ( assuming we have the same people in the SCOTUS ), with Kennedy giving the deciding vote ( depending on which side of the bed he wakws up in the morning ).

[Cyropaedia]

There was never any intent to provide automatic birthright citizenship to all children born here. They could still become citizens via the naturalization process.

This stands in stark contrast to the situation where you had generations of slaves going without citizenship.

[An Old Man]

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.

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.

Don't let this get in your way.

[Bigun]

Are you nuts? Do you not understand what you yourself quoted? PLEASE be kind enough to tell us what YOU suppose the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means in the 14th amendment

[SeekAndFind]

The issue will hinge on the original intent of the phrase -— “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

What did the amenders mean? Did “subject to jurisdiction” mean anything other than that at least one of the parents must be a citizen of, or at least legally residing in, the United States?

THAT is the question that must be answered.

[Sybeck1]

Doesn’t say we can’t make it a punishable offence for a illegal to purposely have a baby here, or does it demand a state issue a birth certificate to said child.

[The Comedian]

Aguilar is adamant that the initiatives will “antagonize Latino voters.”

Yeah, and liberating the concentration camps antagonized the Nazis. Good.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Is the ambassador from Ireland subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while in the United States?

No.

His child, therefore, is not automatically a United States citizen when born here.

He is not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

Someone who crosses the border illegally is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

The Constitution is clear. We need to change the Constitution to correct this.

[Sybeck1]

What about a baby born to a tourist?

[Varda]

“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”

It means that the tag “illegal” or “legal” can be placed on something you do. This means that yes, illegal immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of any country that can tag them such.

[muawiyah]

I think the question can be framed in such a way that both a YES and a NO answer PO everybody~!

Sotomayor is simply not up to dealing with such dilemmas, and neither is that Kagan person.

[astyanax]

The Constitution is fine.
It was the courts that changed the original intent of the Amendment.
A law is more than adequate to correct it.

[Sherman Logan]

Chavez argues that the position that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes the children of illegal immigrants “is clearly ahistorical and clearly conflicts with not just the historical debate, but consequent Supreme Court decisions.” Chavez argues that the position that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes the children of illegal immigrants “is clearly ahistorical and clearly conflicts with not just the historical debate, but consequent Supreme Court decisions.”

Unfortunately, I tend to agree.

Those not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are I believe generally construed as being limited to foreign diplomats and their families, who are "not subject" to our jurisdiction because they have diplomatic immunity.

Another exception is foreign invaders occupying the country. Maybe we could fit illegals in under that grouping.

I doubt the framers of the amendment intended to establish birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants. But then there were no illegal immigrants at the time, for the simple reason there were no immigration restrictions and no laws on the subject. Anybody could enter the US. The first restrictions, rather minor ones, weren't passed for another decade or so.

[K-Stater]

To Kobach, it is “nonsensical” to understand “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as meaning anything other than that at least one of the parents must be a citizen of, or at least legally residing in, the United States.

Surely somewhere in the past the court has defined what 'subject to the jurisdiction' means?

The first proposal is state-level legislation that would not affect the federal citizenship of an illegal immigrant’s child, but would deny him citizenship of that state.

Apparently Kris wants to treat the part of the 14th Amendment that says "...are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" as surplus words as well. Children of illegals may or may not be citizens of the U.S., natural born or otherwise. That is a very real question that the courts need to answer. But if the children of illegals are found to be citizens of the U.S. then they are also citizens of the state they're living in and nothing a local legislature can do will change that.

[astyanax]

"It means that the tag “illegal” or “legal” can be placed on something you do."
Varda, you're claiming that tourists are therefore "subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and if they have a baby while they're here... ?

[Regulator]

A law is more than adequate to correct it

H.R. 190

Mr. Bush thought it was not a good bill.

Thanks George.