They are entitled but they still have to apply.
So if someone is born in Canada when their citizen parents are there on vacation, and spends only the first week of his life there, and the next 34 years and 51 weeks of his life living in the US, you’re going to claim he’s not a natural-born citizen?
That first week in Canada disqualified him?
Seriously?
Let’s do a constitutional convention and revise this and the 2nd amendment! Who is in?
2 Likes
You think their original intent was to have the situation we are experiencing now? They did not intend for the American citizen to have no say in who is and who is not born an American citizen. We have illegal aliens and we have people coming over on tourist packages to pop out American citizens, little anchor babies who then bring over the entire family all without the American people having any say in the matter whatsoever.
That is not an immigration policy that is chaos complete and utter immigration chaos.
And then to think of the overt racism that existed back in those days, you think the Democrats wanted to fling open the American borders to all the colored peoples of the world to just sneak across our borders get here however you can by hook or by crook and just make American citizen anchor babies, all without the government or the people having any control over it whatsoever?
2 Likes
Uh, you can (and we do) have it both ways. The above scenario isn’t a 14th amendment scenario. Those people are naturalized via statute. This is irrelevant to children born to immigrants in the US.
The original intent, as explicitly discussed by the people who wrote and passed the 14th, was to provide citizenship to every person born in the US, except for three cases:
- foreign diplomats
- Indians on Indian land
- occupying forces
OMG that was a brutal read, how embarrassing.
3 Likes
I agree it is silly. Let’s have a constitutional convention and amendment the 14th amendment. We should also look at 2A.
Are you in?
1 Like
This thread was embarrassing
1 Like
doesn’t matter what the original intent was, it matters what the law says.
That’s not quite right.
The intent at the time does matter - and was clear in that it gave citizenship to anyone born to foriegn nationals on US soil - but hypothetical applications of that intent to today are irrelevant, such as the “Do you think this is what they wanted!!!” argument.
Be careful. The Pandora’s box you want to open can be applied to the 2nd amendment for the same exact reasoning you are using above to alter the 14th.
2 Likes
A trade in birthright citizenship for a change in the 2a would be very doable.
My thoughts exactly! Cons want birth right, libs want 2A changed. Win win
I personally think the 14th is silly. So I have no issues changing it. If you are illegal and give birth to a child… that child is illegal period.
They talk the talk, now lets see if they walk the walk.
Nothing in what you quote above, remotely suggests that children born to foreign nationals while on American soil become citizens of the United States upon birth and by the terms of our Constitution.
The simple truth is, and one you seem to ignore, our Supreme Court has never, in its entire history, decided a case questioning whether or not a child born to an illegal entrant, while on American soil, is granted citizenship by the terms of the 1st Section of the 14th Amendment.
One of the few times the Court did approach answering this question was in the Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873) . The Court wrote “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States .”
A couple years later, in in Minor v. Happersett 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) , all the Court’s members expressed “doubts” that citizenship was granted, by the terms of our constitution, to “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents,” and the Court did so after expressly pointing out that citizenship attaches only when the immigrant owes “allegiance” to this country.
That is one reason why I keep pointing out how an immigrant officially and legally declares “allegiance” to our country. They do it by taking our country’s Oath of Allegiance:
See our Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
JWK
1 Like
Well over 100 years and they have not had one case… Perhaps that should tell you something… A reasonable person might conclude there is no controversy for the court to decide…
Well, according to one regular here, Valerie Jarrett has allegiance to Iran based on being born there (to American parents), and living there until the ripe old age of 5.
So yeah, he might be serious.
The Deep State has been playing a Very Long Game in Its Quest To Destroy America And Subjugate It To The Globalists.
Right, but they also did not want to create a backdoor to circumvent our immigration laws.
They never envisioned the travel agent anchor baby airline vacation packages of today. where pregnant foreigners come to the US, have an anchor baby, go back to their mother Russian and raise the kid as a Russian for 21 years. Then the anchor brings three generations of Russians to the US.
Regardless of how you or I choose to interpret what their original intent was back in the 1860s, we need to amend our Constitution to fix the current undermining of our immigration system.
1 Like
