Posted on 08/19/2015 5:37:41 PM PDT by EXCH54FE
Now that Donald Trump is talking about ending birthright citizenship, other candidates who have never mentioned it before like Scott Walker are as well. But contrary to what the media would have you believe, the Constitution doesn't have to be amended to end birthright citizenship. All it would take would be an act of Congress.
If an illegal alien has a child on American soil, the Constitution does not require the child be granted American citizenship. Congress can give citizenship to anyone it wants, but the Fourteenth Amendment only commands citizenship to persons born on U.S. soil to parents who are not citizens of a foreign country.
Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment begins, “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.”
This makes it appear that illegal alien children are citizens, if they are "born" in the United States, right? Not so. The key phrase here is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Babies born in the U.S. are citizens if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Illegal aliens, by virtue of not being citizens, or even being in the country legally, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They're foreigners. Therefore, illegal children born here are not subject to citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Therefore neither Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal are U.S. citizens much less natural born citizens. Assuming this is correct.
YES
So when did it begin (anchor babies), and who started it? The only info I can find refers to the Vietnamese “boat people” back in late 80s.
IF they CLOSE the border, they wouldn’t have to worry about anchor babies. The mamas couldn’t get in.
The mama’s don’t. Pregnant girls do...
Anyone who is descended from less than four generations of Americans on both parental sides and attempts to enter politics should be deported.
“Illegal aliens, by virtue of not being citizens, or even being in the country legally, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”
The above statement is entirely wrong. Every person, except those persons who are present in the United States with some form of diplomatic immunity or foreign military service exempting U.S. jurisdiction, are subject to either permanent or temporary allegiance to the United States of America and are therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and its laws. The status as a resident alien, legal or illegal, does not change the fact that the person is subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal and State laws and courts. By contrast, foreign citizens possessing diplomatic immunity are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal and State courts.
“Therefore neither Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal are U.S. citizens much less natural born citizens. Assuming this is correct.”
Are you saying their parents weren’t American citizens?
Is Foreign Nationals a correct term....in addition to illegal aliens.
I think the key here is that both sets of parents of Jindal and Rubio had entered this country legally....so therefore they were "under the jurisdiction of..........."
But.....both Bobby and Marco are not Natural Born citizens because their parents were not yet citizens of this country. They technically would be called...."Native Born". Therefore....neither are eligible to run for the "Oval Office".
Let’s Do It.
I’m pretty sure Jindal’s parents naturalized before he was 18, which would have naturalized him as well.
Wrong. They are per the statutes in effect at the time they were born. The point is that those statutes can be changed to get rid of anchor baby citizenship without a Constitutional Amendment.
Cruz was born in Canada. His mother was an American and his father did not become a citizen of the USA until 2005.
It seems pretty cut and cdry actually. GO TRUMP!
“It is difficult to imagine that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended to confer the boon of citizenship on the children of illegal aliens when they explicitly denied that boon to Indians who had been born in the United States.
Those who defy the laws of the U.S. should not be allowed to confer such an advantage on their children. This would not be visiting the sins of the parents on the children, as is often claimed, since the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. would not be denied anything to which they otherwise would have a right. Their allegiance should follow that of their parents during their minority.
A nation that cannot determine who becomes citizens or believes that it must allow the children of those who defy its laws to become citizens is no longer a sovereign nation.
No one is advocating that those who have been granted birthright citizenship be stripped of their citizenship. Equal protection considerations would counsel that citizenship once granted is vested and cannot be revoked; this, I believe, is eminently just.”
I for one think the above comment from an article in the National review is 100% correct
The Chinese run “birth tourism” for Chinese women to give birth in the U.S.A.
We should never let this happen.
.
Federal and State laws that are not being enforced?
Exactly. Unfortunately many otherwise conservative FReepers are so opposed to the implications of the 14th that they abandon reason and try to torture the word 'jurisdiction' into something incredibly obscure and alien.
Just today I had someone claiming that only subjects, not citizens, could be subject to a jurisdiction. All because of the word 'subject'.
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.