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

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

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

We disagree. I’m Ok with that. But you have to understand that a Supreme Court verdict carries “precedent” with it.

The decision of Ark v. U.S. holds the answer to the current question.

If another case goes before the Supreme Court, the Ark decision will be one of the cases that the current Court will use in determining the new case.

Could it be overturned? Sure, although a 6 to 2 decision carries a lot of weight in it.

Would a Constitutional amendment work? Absolutely!

So why not just amend the Constitution? Amend it and this question ends. Right?

[astyanax]

“have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States”
So is this the part that you are under the impression means “ran across the border and had a baby”?

[Hotmetal]

Excatly what we went by when I was in the U.S. Border Patrol.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Rabbit trailing and moving goal posts are not legitimate forms of political debate.

The Constitution is clear on what it says. Anyone born in the United States, and under the jurisdiction of the United States, is a U.S. citizen.

The Ark decision discusses this at length.

Rand Paul and David Vitter have introduced a Constitutional amendment to require that persons be legally in the United States for the 14th Amendment to apply to their children.

[astyanax]

I’m quite sure you are aware that most people would be opposed to amending the Constitution, which is why you are ignoring the fact that Congress is quite capable of passing a law stating what birthright citizenship entails.
As for precedent, you are also ignoring the obvious.
Ark refers to a child of LEGAL RESIDENTS.
There is no precedent there.

[astyanax]

And it is also clear what they meant by “jurisdiction”.
If you want to pretend it applies to people here illegally, as I said, we can agree to disagree.

[Varda]

That's in interesting article but it's argument is fatally flawed by the fact that once the legislation was passed the interpretation of the law was passed to the courts. The case used for illustrating this point is Wong Kim Ark. To oppose that you'd need a court interpretation (upheld) that an Indian was ruled not a citizen even though he was born not under the jurisdiction of his tribe ("distinct political communities") and inside the US. Do you have one?

The individual in ELK V. WILKINS doesn't meet that standard because, "he does not allege that the United States accepted his surrender, or that he has ever been naturalized, or taxed, or in any way recognized or treated as a citizen by the state or by the United States. Nor is it contended by his counsel that there is any statute or treaty that makes him a citizen." AND
"Under the Constitution of the United States as originally established, "Indians not taxed" were excluded from the persons according to whose numbers representatives and direct taxes were apportioned among the several states," http://supreme.justia.com/us/112/94/case.html

As the court mentioned in that case, Indian tribes are dealt with by treaty/legislation and their members have their own jurisdiction outside the taxing districts of the states. This has nothing to do with illegal aliens.

[astyanax]

Ark has nothing to do with illegal aliens either.
His parents were legal, permanent residents.

[Hotmetal]

Here is a question that I had to answer in front of a board to get into the Border Patrol in 1996.

You are stationed at a secluded border crossing,you are alone this night.

A doctor you know from the small town in the U.S. approaches the crossing from the Mexican side of the border where the nearest town with a hoispotal is 75 miles, but there is a small village about 10 miles back.

You go to the doctors car window and you recognize him because he often crosses here to help the locals in the area. Then you see he has a passenger that is a young Mexican girl that pregnant.

The doctor says she is having compilations with her pregnancy and she is about to deliver and if he don't get her to town she and her baby might not live.

You have no contact with a supervisor.

What do you do?

I'm not saying what is right or wrong just saying I was asked this.

[Grut]

I’d say let her in, get the name of the hospital and convey it and the doctor’s name to your supervisor ASAP.

So, what was the school solution?

[raybbr]

So why not just amend the Constitution? Amend it and this question ends. Right?

Because you know darn well there are too many illegal loving people (even here on FR) that will fight it tooth and nail.

The idea that a reasonable thinking man could twist the meaning of the clause to include invaders from another country is insulting.

[Sequoyah101]

Hell, don’t debate the 14th Amendment, just nullify the first sentence of Section I, take out the first sentence and keep the rest!

I don’t know of a single slave or American Indian alive right now who has not been conferred citizenship nor any that are still having children.

S__t can the first sentence of the 14th Amendment. We already nullified parts of Section II.

The whole thing was designed for one reason and one reason only... Reconstruction and to protect the newly acquired rights of slaves. Could have been handled better by simply enforcing the declaration of their status as citizens. The law of unintended consequences in action. The stupid thing reads like a knee jerk reaction type of gun control legislation for today.

No wonder it is FUKT’d, it was written by a bunch of damn bitter Yankees and bleeding heart sympathizers!

[Razz Barry]

But Aguilar is adamant that the initiatives will “antagonize Latino voters.” And that could have a long-term impact. “It’s pretty clear that if we don’t win 30 to 40 percent of the Latino vote in the next election,” he says, “we’re not going to win back the White House.”

It angers me to know that Americans of Hispanic descent are willing to side with lawbreakers just because of ethnicity.

[adeline]

I think we would have a lot less problems if we had stuck with Elk v Wilkins!!!

[Isabel C.]

Folks should not believe for a moment that illegal entrants are subject to the sole jusridiction of the U.S. If so, how is it the native country of an illegal entrant accepts them back when we deport them?

I agree. In fact, if illegal aliens are subject to the sole jurisdiction of the United States, how can our government legally deport them? Our government can't deport American citizens, as they are subject to the sole jurisdiction of the United States.

[frog in a pot]

Indeed, better-thinking folks today recognize the flaw in anchor baby eligibility/entitlement practices.
However, we will live with it until courageous politicians prevail over the anti-America political blowback.
Fortunately, some are currently proposing legislation in that regard.

The issue is solely the result of the machinations of modern day, agenda-driven bureaucrats, with no supporting language in the Constitution or the 14th A.

As one member of the USSC remarked in the controversial Wong Kim Ark case regarding the 14th:

"The phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."