Posted on 10/30/2018 2:14:13 PM PDT by detective
What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to such children.
Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.
The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailysignal.com ...
We are only one of a very small number of countries that provides birthright citizenship, and we do so based not upon the requirements of federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. Congress should clarify the law according to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment and reverse this practice.
Tourists, students and temporary residents do not qualify.
Illegals certainly do not.
Research challenge: Who was responsible for crafting the language on the idea of birth right citizenship? I don't know.
Every child has a birthright to the citizenship of his parents. Don’t we abrogate that bloodline and cultural right by forcing them to be a US citizen by a mere geographical accident of birth?
This is cultural appropriation at it’s absolute worst, appropriating the unquestionable rights of an innocent child by seizing them as one of our own?
Unprincipled judges have made the 14th amendment in to the Swiss Army knife of the constitution.
The 14th can be whatever they want it to be.
The 14th amendment was intended to guarantee freed slaves citizenship and constitutional rights guaranteed with that citizenship and nothing more.
It was never intended take the Federal Republic of the United States and turn it in to the one undivided super state that we have become.
The Incorporation Doctrine is a lie that judges told us and because we believed this lie it has cost us the freedom that the founders promised us.
This is interesting.
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
If a houseguest had a baby while stopping by for a visit, would you consider you to have adopted that baby? How about if the pregnant woman broke into your house in the first place?
Federal Law
8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
It is more than a Constitutional question. It is also a Federal law that determines citizenship.
Excellent article.
My question is I thought the were strict rules to dual citizenship.
Yet ALL these anchor babies have it?
An excellent article by von Spakovsky and am confident the majority of SCOTUS will agree with him.
President Trump’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment is consistent with what the clause’s author, Senator Jacob Howard, said. Senator Howard said that the clause did not apply to children born of foreigners, even if the birth was within the United States, because their allegiance was to their home country (rather than to America) and so their parents had not accepted being “subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States].”.
Thanks, while a little long, it is very clear.
“All rights have limits” - so the Left keeps telling us.
If the 14thA must be absolute, then so to the 2ndA.
Taking this to SCOTUS will result in unintended consequences.
In 1898
Wong Kim Ark vs United States.
Wong parents were aliens and deported back to China.
Wong was born here and wanted to stay.
It went to the Supreme court, which used the 14th amendment to rule in Wongs favor. He was allowed to stay.
Perhaps we can use the court to reverse that interpretation of the amendment
Moderates just sat there silent.
_____________________________________
In reality, “moderates” are leftists who simply can not admit that fact to themselves.
My son was born in the United Kingdom in 1978 and is a dual national. Wisely the UK has changed their laws and if he were born in the UK today he could only have the American cCtizenship of his parents.
Top-of-the-hour news on ABC, they would always mention twice in one minute that birthright citizenship is “enshrined” in the Constitution and that Trump could not touch it.
..... This is a good read. Probably advisable that we all bone up on this stuff since this is, more than likely, the next subject that will consume the airwaves and public discourse for the next foreseeable future ... We need to be fluent on the subject of why the President is Legally within his powers to rescind Birthright Citizenship ....
“Wong parents were aliens and deported back to China.”
Were his parents here legally? If so, why were they deported back to China?
My husband was born here in 1960, to parents that had green cards and were in the process of applying for citizenship. Does anyone know the specifics of President Trump’s proposal and how situations such as his would be handled going forward? (I have already told him that he can’t be President, which is just fine with him!!)
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.