This discussion has prompted me to consider this issue and this particular question came to me. Being that there are exclusions in the 14th Amendment, where would the question I pose here fall?
Yes.
The 14th amendment would grant them citizenship.
The crimes of the parents are not the crimes of the child.
If we were to be invaded, would any children the invaders have on our soil be citizens?
That would be a time of war, and unless the hostile invaders were to bring their spouses then one would assume that the vast majority of children born are the product of either forced intercourse or of intercourse between a foreign soldier and a woman who is a citizen.
After the war, the US would either have been victorious and retained territory in which case the children born during that time would be US citizens or the Is would have lost territory and those children would be under the jurisdiction of another power and it would be hard to argue that they would have claim to US citizenship anymore.
1 Like
That would actually depend.
If it was an invading army in the traditional and lawful sense, no. The invaders would, by definition, not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
If it was an invasion of irregular or unlawful forces, than yes. They would be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
2 Likes
Why did the farmer’s of this Amendment bother putting in any exclusions at all? The seem rather pointless.
There are exclusions.
The one that you bring up is not one of them.
Why bother with having any exclusions? That’s what I don’t understand.
Then work to change the amendment.
Because the framers felt that those situations warranted it
What was the reason?
Where in the constitution is the exception granted to children of invading armies?
Because the framers felt that those situations warranted it
[quote=“Eagle-Keeper, post:11, topic:226852”]
You just said that. If you don’t know just say you don’t know.
The exclusions exist due to the common law and long-running international traditions regarding diplomats - that even though they reside in the country they serve in, they are only beholden to and subject to the country they represent.
1 Like
Yes, it would. Sins of the father?
Well done.
It was what they understood at the time.
You are in the midset of today.
Now put yourself in the midset of:
We want to welcome people to the New Country-
No phones-
No automobiles -
Going even short distances (say 100 to 200 miles) could take days-
Trip to England or beyond the coastline to another country would take weeks or months.
What they understood then, compared to now is day and night. At the time of the 14th (as proven in debate) really the only exception is foriegn dignitaries (like ambassadors)
That sounds like the same exact arguement gun grabbers try to use with the 2nd. Literally word for word
2 Likes
Except for one thing
The founders wanted civilians to have as much firepower as the government might have to stop the govnerment when it gets out of control.
That’s the key part that gun grabbers fail to bring up. In doing that (civilians having same firepower as government), it allows for new idea’s. Government gets something new, civilians get it as well as the counter balance to government.
1 Like
