Amendment 14

[SHMIV]

There seems to be some debate about "anchor babies", the 14th Amendment, and illegal immigrants. Here is the amendment, in its entirety:

"Section 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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

****************************************

Section one seems to address the debate. I note that it applies to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF".

It seems to me, that if a foreign individual enters into the United States, and gives birth to a child, that child would be subject to the jurisdiction of his parents home country.

What say you guys?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[SHMIV]

Seems my phone got a bit excited over this topic; I don't know why it decided to post this thread in triplicate; can one of our mods fix that, lol?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[scott9050]

Liberals always want to talk about what other 'civilized' countries do when it comes to guns but shy away from the fact that we are the only first world country that allows this. It has gotten so bad that counties in northern Virginia like Louden do not allow English speakers to attend full time Kindergarten, that is reserved for ESL students only. It has gotten so bad that districts have cut bus service to students in many areas because the Feds say illegal alien children come first.

[OakRidgeStars]

Seems my phone got a bit excited over this topic; I don't know why it decided to post this thread in triplicate; can one of our mods fix that, lol?

You might have that trigger a bit too light.

[SHMIV]

Ha. Indeed.

Might help if I switch it off of "burst", yeah?

Thanks

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Swampman]

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.

@SHMIV - did I misunderstand your question? Seems to me you said that persons born in the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the home country of their parents. I phrased it differently than you did on purpose.

If this is what you meant, then I would have to disagree. That first sentence in the 14th means to me that if foreign individuals come here and give birth that the child is, by birth, a US citizen.

[SHMIV]

Seems that we disagree.

The way that it reads to me, with that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof " clause, is that, in order to be subject to that jurisdiction, his parents would also have to be subject to that jurisdiction. So, if the parents are Mexican subjects who rushed over the border illegally and then had a baby, the baby would, by extension, be a subject to Mexican rule.

On the other hand, if the parents are Mexican citizens that entered the country legally, though temporarily, they have formally submitted themselves to US laws and jurisdictions, and that, too would transfer to the child.

Maybe my interpretation is off, but that "subject to jurisdiction " clause is pointless if the intent was to grant citizenship to every single child that was birthed within our borders.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[cwfunrider]

This whole thing has been all over WMAL talk radio the last few days.

My problem is if it does not mean what for decades has been taken to as meaning, why is it all of a sudden we are just standing up and saying NO, it does not mean that. Take your baby and go home.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[Ironbear]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- ... n-defense/
"The Myth of the 'Anchor Baby' Deportation Defense.

YMMV

[dusterdude]

As much as i dont like it,it reads to me,if you are born in this country,you are a citizen,regardless of your parents citizenship

[MarcSpaz]

H, you are 100% correct.

I spent 2 years studying Constitutional law. I found official Congressional records that documented that in a session of Congress, the author if the 14th Amendment, John Bingham, was asked to provide a definition of "natural born citizen". On the House floor, in official session, John Bingham declared that the definition of "natural born citizen, is a person born in the US to parents who are citizens. That is why it says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States".

No Supreme Court case ever stated a different definition of “natural born citizen” provided by Bingham. No Represenative ever challenged Bingham on this point. The House definition stands and officially remains unchallenged as of today.

Anyone who says that simply being born in the US, on US soil is enough, is in fact wrong. If it were true, it would have simply read " All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States". However, to support Bingham's definition, they had to add "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Other wise, every foreign dignitary, diplomat, or guest who gave birth in the US would have a child that was a US citizen. That concept had to be negated for the preservation of national sovereignty for both the US and the country that our guests are from.

Think about it... born or naturalized vs. natural-born citizen. If you and your wife are US citizens and your wife has a baby in Germany... your baby is a US citizen, not a German. That is the case in every country in the world except Canada legally and in the US illegally... i.e. in violation of our Constitution.

To put it another way... saying that only the first part of the sentence has any real value... "All persons born or naturalized in the United States,"... defining a natural born citizen, is the same thing as saying that the 2nd Amendment saying ... "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," ... means that the second amendment only applies to the military. Besides its not grammatically correct because you are failing to take and read the whole sentence as a singular idea, the people who wrote this stuff when on record to officially define and expand on the meaning and intent.

And... this isn't something that has been going on forever and only now people are complaining. The earliest known case of the US declaring someone was a citizen even though they were born in the US to 2 non-US citizen parents was in 1934 and it became a major issue in 1986. People have been bitching about it from the beginning. It's just that it is getting air time now because its a Presidential Debate point today.

[AnkleBiter]

The founding fathers were very clear on immigration and in so doing they left no room for the supreme court they specifically identified Congress as the body in control. This administration seems to think that Executive Orders extend beyond the white house, writes law and can basically be used for whatever means they decide is necessary. This is two fold however as Congress no matter what has the peoples authority to defund, take back and over rule whatever they set their minds to as a body of legislators. Americans seem to have forgotten the Executive Orders Purpose; To protect the white house staff only in times of National security that's it no more no less. I pray for the day when we can get good patriotic men and women as the majority to set this country back on it's rightful course. I really like Mr. Ben Carson and all his achievements and I really like Mr. Trump calling it like it is, we can only hope that we get a businessman or brain surgeon as our next President as I truly believe that either one of them can restore National pride and will finally look out for the American People in our darkest hour.

[MarcSpaz]

... we can only hope that we get a businessman or brain surgeon as our next President ...

Its funny you mention that. that is exactly what it used to be. Everyday common people (aka not royalty) would take a few months a year out of their normal, everyday life as a lawyer, doctor, business man, and help govern the country. After a few years, the went back to their lives and let the next guys take up the load.


The founders put term limits on the POTUS to stop empire building. They never could have imagined that there would be career politicians.... like John Dingell who was in office for 59+ years, and several hundred others that have been (or had been) in office for more than 36 years! Seriously? WTF? Go home. Let the people run their own lives. We don't need career babysitters on capital hill.

[WRW]

If I'm not mistaken, term limits came after FDR. Prior to that nobody saw a problem.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[MarcSpaz]

Actually, term limits were mentioned in several documents written by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and several other founders. Washington personally said that there should be a limit of two terms. He lead by example and did just that. That set the informal standard all the way up to FDR. After FDR breaking tradition so grossly, Congress opted to enact it in writing via the 22nd Amendment, to solidify the tradition in the Constitution and ratified by the states.

[WRW]

As to the congressional career politicians, voters put up with their shenanigans, in large part, because seniority provides opportunities for Federal projects to benefit their home State.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[WRW]

Yes, Washington did set the example. I guess the founders could not foresee such a breach of etiquette.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[MarcSpaz]

Given where they came from and what they did to get away from it... I'm sure it was on there mind. If I was going to make an educated guess... my opinion is that they thought no one would ever forget where they came from and why the country was founded. An oversight they soon corrected.

[SHMIV]

The Founding Fathers were highly intelligent men with a deep understanding of human nature. I expect that there were many things that were taken into consideration, but chose not to address. If everything is addressed and legislated, then it is no longer a free country. You would reach a point where you would have, at best, a benevolent dictatorship with revolving masters.

Back on topic, I noted some dissenting opinions. At the risk of sounding argumentative, would those with dissenting opinions please elaborate?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[WRW]

Dual citizenship, dual nationality? Whether it was originally intended and whether it is currently discouraged, my understanding is that it does occur.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]