Yes, they ARE subject to our jurisdiction as far as having to obey our laws, but jurisdiction is more than just obeying laws, it is having allegiance to the U.S. Do you believe that someone who comes here illegally has more allegiance to the U.S. or to their home country, especially when we see them holding the flags of their home countries instead of OURS? The allegiance of the child follows the allegiance of the parents! There should be no such thing as an “anchor baby”. Any child that is born on U.S. soil should not be entitled to birthright citizenship UNLESS the parents are legal residents here with the full intention of becoming citizens, or they are U.S. citizens already.
Pres. Trump should not have to issue an EO on something that is a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment in the first place.
How else do you see this being changed?
That doesn’t change the fact that the 14th Amendment has been abused by many people in foreign countries, heck there are even businesses that have developed to exploit that Amendment, to gain US citizenship for their children.
The modern interpretations of immigration law is broken. You citing how broken it is does nothing to further your agenda.
How can people not see how abused and bastardized our immigration laws are, when we have Russian travel agents putting together “Get an American anchor baby” vacation packages.
Anyone with a lick of common sense understands this was not how our founders, or the authors of the 14th Amendment, ever envisioned that this would be how US citizenship was going to be abused.
A foreign citizen, who sneaks across our border and pops out a baby, before ICE can catch and deport her, was never supposed to be rewarded with a child made into an instant US citizen.
Do you mean to say the same people who rode people known to have British loyalty out of town on rails after the war for independence wouldn’t have been ok with electing one as President of the US?
This situation highlights the failure of our representatives to actually represent the interests of the people of the US.
As it relates to jurisdiction, the only people that have “allegiance” to other countries are foreign diplomats and occupying soldiers (and at the time, Indians not separated from their tribes). As it relates to the 14th, all others born here are subject to our jurisdiction and thus US citizens. The authors and supporters of the CRA of 1866 and 14th explicitly said so.
“Never supposed to”? Crossing our border between ports of entry was not illegal until 1924. Anyone born in the US, except for those born to foreign diplomats or occupying soldiers, are subject to our jurisdiction and thus US citizens. That was, is, and will always be the intent of the 14th. Don’t like it? Pass an amendment.
Do you believe the intent of the 14th Amendment was to entice impoverished women to illegally cross our border in order to put their children on welfare at the US taxpayers expense? A simple yes or no will do.
The fact is that not single Native born American or legal immigrant, resident, etc., benefits from this Amendment and how it is being abused:
“Once born in the U.S., the child and his or her mother is eligible for Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, and other federal benefits. One issue raised by budget reform proponents was a loophole that exists pertaining to Social Security benefits.”
So where is the executive order?
In what post did I mention anything about executive order? Here was one of my responses to someone else earlier:
How can people not see how abused and bastardized our immigration laws are, when we have Russian travel agents putting together “Get an American anchor baby” vacation packages.
Anyone with a lick of common sense understands this was not how our founders, or the authors of the 14th Amendment, ever envisioned that this would be how US citizenship was going to be abused.
A foreign citizen, who sneaks across our border and pops out a baby, before ICE can catch and deport her, was never supposed to be rewarded with a child made into an instant US citizen.
This situation highlights the failure of our representatives to actually represent the interests of the people of the US.
Also all I asked for was a simple yes or no answer regarding the intent on f 14th Amendment to the issue of “anchor” babies.
whats wrong with a citizen having health insurance paid by Medicaid. It is the law and not abuse.
if you want to repeal the jus soli part of the 14th amendment to end this “abuse” Its not abuse its the law. codified by US Statutes.
its why we have the amendment part of the constitution.
this reminds me of some of my liberal friends trying to get an amendment to circumvent the citizens united SCOTUS opinion.
they wanted me to sign on to it.
No soap.
Allan
we stopped legal commerce in alcohol via the amendment process.
The intent is in crystal clear English in the 14th amendment.
jus soli—citizen of the soil.
Allan
The intent was for anyone born here to parents under our jurisdiction (I.e. anyone but foreign diplomats or occupying soldiers) is a citizen. Your scenario falls under that intent. Don’t like it? Pass an amendment.
That is all it is, is a misinterpretation of the 14th, so Trump should not have to issue an EO. Perhaps a clarification by the SCOTUS? The left wants those children to be citizens, to keep the illegals in the U.S.
The drafters of the clause modeled it off of the 1866 Civil Rights Act which grants citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.”
The Supreme Court has never held otherwise. Some advocates for illegal immigrants point to the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but that case merely held that a child born on U.S. soil to parents who were lawful, permanent (legally, “domiciled”) residents was a citizen.
You mean like Kamala Harris right.
Both her parents were legally here, domiciled in the United States.
Alan
1 Like
