Just Curious...The 14th Amendment Debate What Do You Think?

Any child born in the USA, even by an illegal imigrant, is a citizen. I can understand that part of the constitution. The child is the citizen, not the parents.

Now, just because your baby is born in the USA, the babies illegal imigrant parents should have no right to remain in this country, or to receive any taxpayer funded services (welfare, social security, free college, etc). These services should only be for American citizens.
Originally Posted by raedy4funn45

Just because the child was born in the USA DOES NOT make the child a citizen......

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
The status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

In addendum, we are a perfect example of the point I was making. We, as participants of this hobby, are on the other side of the law and therefore are committing an illegal act but are we harming anyone? Do we not contend that we are simply engaging in a natural act that brings enjoyment and maybe financial stabilization for others? But if we do not recognize that not all is as it seems we fall into generalizations and stereotyping and that is what drives much of the political discourse that is occurring today and it is counterproductive. Ok, I'll STFU now because I talk too much.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org...pub_detail.asp

THe above link, along with everything else I found out there, just prove that in the past 100+ years there hasn't been a challenge to what the 14th ammendment really means. "juristiction" is clearly meaning to me you have to be US citizens to have your child have citizenship when born here, or at least the parents require a green card or some documents allowing your LEGAL presence in the United States.

Why is nobody pushing this question to the Supreme Court? Because it is a political hot potato.

The stats are staggering:

"About 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in the United States in 2008 — or 8 percent — had at least one parent who was an illegal immigrant, according to a study published Wednesday by the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group in Washington.

Because they were born in this country, the babies of illegal immigrants are United States citizens. In all in 2008, four million children who were American citizens had at least one parent who was in the country illegally, the Pew study found.


Children of illegal immigrants make up 7 percent of all people in the country younger than 18 years old, according to the study, which is based on March 2009 census figures, the most recent data on immigrant families. Nearly four out of five of those children — 79 percent — are American citizens because they were born here.

About 85 percent of the parents who are illegal immigrants are Hispanic, the Pew Center said."

Ok...devils's advocate here: So, what if a pregnant woman who's an illegal immigrant, flies into US territory and gives birth? Is that baby an US citizen? (lol)

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org...pub_detail.asp

THe above link, along with everything else I found out there, just prove that in the past 100+ years there hasn't been a challenge to what the 14th ammendment really means. "juristiction" is clearly meaning to me you have to be US citizens to have your child have citizenship when born here, or at least the parents require a green card or some documents allowing your LEGAL presence in the United States.

Why is nobody pushing this question to the Supreme Court? Because it is a political hot potato. Originally Posted by raedy4funn45

You're right on the " political hot potato" part that's for sure. As to the jurisdiction question and why the Supreme Court has not addressed this issue, perusal of Cornell Universities' law database Supreme Court Decisions may change your mind about that. I found this most interesting from Justice Brennan:

PLyler v. Doe:Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.

That is an excellent question Nik, but my best guess would be that once the plane enters US airspace and lands, the child would then be a citizen. This is purely unsubstantiated on my part, I am not familiar with our sovereignty concerning airspace. I've got to get educated on that one for sure.

That is an excellent question Nik, but my best guess would be that once the plane enters US airspace and lands, the child would then be a citizen. This is purely unsubstantiated on my part, I am not familiar with our sovereignty concerning airspace. I've got to get educated on that one for sure. Originally Posted by Rodram

The child would automatically be a citizen of the country the mother belongs to whether born in the air on land or under the water..

When Cubans try to get to Florida, they have to actually touch the beach sand to qualify for political refugee status. The same goes for airplanes. You have to be on the ground to be considered a citizen.

Thanks for the info, I hadn't thought about that situation.

country of immigrants don't like immigrants
guess
hypocrisy is in our nature

country of immigrants don't like immigrants
guess
hypocrisy is in our nature Originally Posted by chii

My take is country full of LEGAL immigrants dont like ILLEGAL immigrants.....

country of immigrants don't like immigrants
guess hypocrisy is in our nature Originally Posted by chii

Chii...it's not that simple. It may sound hypocritical...but, the debate is much more than that.

I'm assuming you're a naturalized citizen? And, if so, I'm sure you had to go through the legal process to become an US citizen, correct? So, do you think it's fair for someone to cross into the US...illegally...and have their children (born within the US border) become an automatic US citizen?

Not only does this have economic repercussions...it pushes the buttons of the people that think we should not propose to *change* section 1 of the 14th amendment.

Another consideration is the economic impact that the undocumented have made on this country and they have become an integral part of it. Immigrant labor and the companies that rely on them would be devastated because the undocumented so often work for less than minimum wage and our housing market in particular would be especially devastated.

The bottom line is that we as a country are screwed. We can easily, remove (deport) most foreign born nationals, criminal and non-criminals, from the Western hemisphere, with the exception of Cubans. And there is nothing special about Cubans.

It is the rest of foreign national we should worry about. And I am talking about
continents, not countries. Asia, Europe, Africa. We cannot remove/deport them unless we have that country's permission. But we let them in as refugees or visitors. And both are bogus.

We should just load them up planes, and return them to the continent they come from and let them play "Survivor" for real.

Or better yet, equip them and send them send then to Iraq or Afghanstan. That will be the best remedy from them coming back.

That will solve the Immigration dilemain the United States.

If the United States would treat each immigrant as the do Mexican Nationals we would be better off as a nation. Or better yet adopt Mexico Immigration laws.

When Mexico has a bunch of foreing nationals that need deporting, such as Chinese, when a plane arrives from China, those get loaded on the plane first, then the "paying" customers get placed on stand by.

A few years ago, the United States paid Mexico to detain everyone in transit to the U.S., and let Mexico deport them. For whatever reason that was discontinued.

At the current rate, The U.S.A. will only last about three or four generations.

At it's inception, babies born in USA of immigrants are natural citizens and I have had no problem with that. However.....with SO MANY ILLEGALS coming in and creating these so-called "anchor babies", I am now AGAINST it.