Thread: Children born to Illegals on US soil US Citizens?

I was reading the comments in the blog of the illegal holed up in the church, and I saw somebody who said:

"And by the way, not only does the 14th amendment not apply to children born to illegal aliens, it was not ratified by the required majority of congress by the deadline, making it null and void."

Can somebody confirm exactly what the law says about children born in this country, and whether or not it applies to Illegals?

I had the idiot at ICE I talked to spew to me that if they were born in the US they were citizens...

Thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth ... vil_Rights

The provisions in Section 1 ensure that children born on United States soil, with a very small number of exceptions, are U.S. citizens. This type of guarantee—legally termed jus soli, or "right of the territory"— does not exist in most of Western Europe or the Middle East, although it is part of English common law and is common in the Americas.

The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" indicates that there are some exceptions to the universal rule that birth on U.S. soil automatically grants citizenship. Two Supreme Court precedents were set by the cases of Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884) and United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (189. Elk v. Wilkins established that Indian tribes represented independent political powers with no allegiance to the United States, and that their peoples were under a special jurisidiction of the United States. Children born to these Indian tribes therefore did not qualify for automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. Indian tribes that paid taxes were exempt from this ruling; their peoples were already citizens by an earlier Act of Congress.

In Wong Kim Ark the Court found that a man, born within the United States to Chinese citizens who were lawfully residing there, was a citizen of the United States.

Under these two rulings, the following persons born in the United States are not "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]", and thus do not qualify for automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment:

* Children born to foreign diplomats
* Children born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States
* Children born to Native Americans who are members of tribes not taxed (these were later given full citizenship by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924)

The following persons born in the United States are explicitly citizens:

* Children born to US citizens
* Children born to aliens who are lawfully inside the United States (resident or visitor), with the intention of amicably interacting with its people and obeying its laws.

Wong Kim Ark did not explicitly decide whether U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" (it was not necessary to answer this question since Wong Kim Ark's parents were legally present in the United States at the time of his birth). However, the Supreme Court's later ruling in Plyler v. Doe stated that illegal immigrants are "within the jurisdiction" of the states in which they reside, and added in a footnote that

no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful [1].

This implies that the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants qualify for citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Some legislators, reacting to illegal immigration, have proposed that this be changed, either through legislation or a constitutional amendment. The proposed changes are usually one of the following:

* The child should have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen. (requires amendment)
* The child should have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident (requires amendment)
* The child should have at least one parent who is lawfully present in the United States (requires an Act of Congress, probably challenged to the Supreme Court).

For example, Representative Nathan Deal, Republican of Georgia, introduced legislation in 2005 to assert that U.S.-born children are only "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" (and therefore eligible for citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment) if at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident. [2]. Similarly, Representative Ron Paul of Texas has introduced a constitutional amendment that would explicitly deny automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children unless at least one parent is a citizen or permanent resident [3]. Neither of these measures has come to a vote. Even if Rep. Deal's legislation were passed by Congress, it would likely be struck down by the courts based on the precedent established in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, which allows for the US born children of lawful visitors to be citizens as well. The issue remains controversial, reflecting both tensions about immigration and disputes about the appropriate balance of power between the courts and the Congress.

I hope that helped you. In practice U.S. born children of illegal aliens have been considered citizens by the government. Hopefully the law will be clarified that they aren't to put a stop to this.

The law does say "under jurisdiction thereof" and that means they aren't U.S. citizens.

The authors of the 14th Amendment did not want this amendment to apply to anyone not here legally and they specifically argued about it in Congress.

The Supreme Court on the other hand, decided differently.

As for the ratification, I don't know and have never heard that it was not ratified properly.

Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, stated in 1866, "Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

The Fourteenth Amendment states,"(A) Persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

However a proviso limits foreigners who have babies in America. It couldn't be clearer, children of foreigners, aliens or diplomats, who are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, are ineligible for citizenship. At the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified we didn't have immigration laws. One hundred and thirty eight years later we are paying for the misinterpretation of it.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Wooldridge/frosty41.htm

I think that pretty much sums up the original intent.

The following persons born in the United States are explicitly citizens:

* Children born to US citizens
* Children born to aliens who are lawfully inside the United States (resident or visitor), with the intention of amicably interacting with its people and obeying its laws.

How does this apply to illegal aliens? They are not lawfully inside the United States nor are they a resident or vistor.

Yah, with everything here there still isn't a direct answer. It seems to me that children of illegals are NOT considered US citizens, since it states children born to those legally in the US.

Moogy,

The bottom line is that the Amendment was written ONE WAY, and perverted by SCOTUS to mean something completely different.


The Plyler v. Doe ruling needs to be overturned, and the law interpreted to mean what it's authors' SAID it means.

Sorry to tell all of you that if Americans don't start putting strong pressure on politicians to streighten this "anchor babies" problem, this country would be Spanish before you know.

Do not forget this, and this is no joke, they are serious.



Augustin Cebeda
"Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people. It is your duty to die ... Through love of having children, we are going to take over."

I would like to ad a foot note if I may; only legislators may create law according to the constitution, therefore case law is illegal as it is created by judges. It is an opinion only. A jury has the right to nullify any law. Our constitution affords trial by jury and if the jury finds a law unjust they may find the defendant not guilty. Contrary to what the judge states and tells the juries that if you find the individual has broken the law you must find them guilty is a farce. The ultimate power resides with the jury or is suppose to. That’s the way I read the constitution anyway.