Thread: Question of the week: 14th Amendment

Note: This is a California news source.
~~~
Question of the week: 14th Amendment

What do you think about a change that would deny automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants who are born in the U.S.?

Posted: 08/22/2010 04:05:07 PM PDTUpdated: 08/22/2010 09:53:24 PM PDT


Each Wednesday we invite readers to give us their thoughts on a topic in the news. This week's questions:

What do you think about a change in the 14th Amendment that would deny automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants who are born in the U.S.? Do you think anchor babies should be included in tougher immigration laws? Or do you think, as some do, that denying citizenship to anchor babies is mean-spirited?

Following are some of your replies:


The premise of your question is flawed. The issue is not about changing the 14th Amendment, but understanding what it actually means. Your claim that "anyone born in America automatically is an American citizen regardless of the immigration status of their parents" overlooks that the 14th Amendment has two requirements for automatic citizenship: 1) birth on U.S. soil; and 2) being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Those who drafted and ratified the 14th Amendment understood that the phrase required full and complete jurisdiction, not partial or territorial. Lawful, permanent residency by the parents is at least required before the child is "subject to the jurisdiction" in the sense intended by the 14th Amendment. Those here on temporary visas, and much less those who are here illegally, simply don't qualify, even though they are subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. while here - they have to follow our traffic laws, for example. Congress is free to offer citizenship more broadly than that constitutional mandate, but so far it has not done so. This is an important debate, but we should at least understand the meaning of the constitutional provisions we are debating.
John Eastman

Former Dean and Donald P. Kennedy Chair in Law

Chapman University School of Law

Orange


Society as a whole still seems to think that we, whom you call Native Americans, are a part of history and not the present. My mother's people found Columbus on their shores on his fourth voyage. I was born here, because that's where my father was stationed at the time. I can assure you I had absolutely no say in the matter.

"Anchor baby" is simply a new political flash phrase Republicans have come up with to incite anger and direct the blame on an innocent child. I don't think it takes much wisdom to see how heartless and racist that is. It is time for immigration reform. But stop blaming those who want a better life.

DeAnna Rice

Lakewood


I strongly agree with changing the 14th Amendment to stop the practice of anchor babies. The problem of illegal aliens entering the country has been out of control for decades.

Illegals break our laws, then use the very same laws for their own benefit.

Recently I was on a trip to Boston. I noticed a long line of people at Quincy Market. I was told that they were becoming citizens that day. The line went on forever, and all of them were holding small American flags. Being from California, I was saddened to think that so many others have jumped ahead of these new Americans.

Putting a stop to anchor babies will not solve the whole problem, but it would be step in the right direction on controlling the influx of illegals into our country.

I believe that a change is overdue and desperately needed.

Daniel Cassidy

Lakewood


No need to change the 14th Amendment. Deport the illegal parents. They can choose to leave their child with someone here or take him or her with them. Just because the child is a U.S. citizen doesn't mean he or she is trapped in this country forever. Americans go to live in other countries all the time. This might seem harsh to some, but that is the situation the parents put themselves and their child in when they chose to cross a foreign border illegally.

Doreen Lorand

Downey


The 14th Amendment was originally created so that freed slaves and their descendants could not be denied U.S. citizenship. For individuals to use it in another form indicates that an amendment is in order. I would see no problem in an amendment stating that the 14th Amendment applies to children of citizens or legal residents of the United States only. An amendment could also specify that children of legal residents would have the option of accepting or refusing citizenship upon reaching the age of consent. Such a change would also be in keeping with immigration law of most other nations.

Robert Davis

Long Beach


When the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution, there was no thought that the U.S. government would allow migrants to enter the country without the necessary documents indicating their legal entry. It's foolhardy to suggest that because a group of people, however desperate to improve their lives, would be allowed to take advantage of the amendment to trick the government into accepting them without their need to enter legally.

When there is a leak in the system, it needs to be plugged. The 14th Amendment needs to be modified to exclude anchor babies as a way around the laws of our country.

Ralph Burrison

Cerritos


http://www.presstelegram.com/opinions/ci_15861179

Originally Posted by jean

Note: This is a California news source.
~~~
Question of the week: 14th Amendment

What do you think about a change that would deny automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants who are born in the U.S.?

Posted: 08/22/2010 04:05:07 PM PDTUpdated: 08/22/2010 09:53:24 PM PDT


Each Wednesday we invite readers to give us their thoughts on a topic in the news. This week's questions:

What do you think about a change in the 14th Amendment that would deny automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants who are born in the U.S.? Do you think anchor babies should be included in tougher immigration laws? Or do you think, as some do, that denying citizenship to anchor babies is mean-spirited?

Following are some of your replies:


The premise of your question is flawed. The issue is not about changing the 14th Amendment, but understanding what it actually means. Your claim that "anyone born in America automatically is an American citizen regardless of the immigration status of their parents" overlooks that the 14th Amendment has two requirements for automatic citizenship: 1) birth on U.S. soil; and 2) being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Those who drafted and ratified the 14th Amendment understood that the phrase required full and complete jurisdiction, not partial or territorial. Lawful, permanent residency by the parents is at least required before the child is "subject to the jurisdiction" in the sense intended by the 14th Amendment. Those here on temporary visas, and much less those who are here illegally, simply don't qualify, even though they are subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. while here - they have to follow our traffic laws, for example. Congress is free to offer citizenship more broadly than that constitutional mandate, but so far it has not done so. This is an important debate, but we should at least understand the meaning of the constitutional provisions we are debating.
John Eastman

Former Dean and Donald P. Kennedy Chair in Law

Chapman University School of Law

Orange


Society as a whole still seems to think that we, whom you call Native Americans, are a part of history and not the present. My mother's people found Columbus on their shores on his fourth voyage. I was born here, because that's where my father was stationed at the time. I can assure you I had absolutely no say in the matter.

"Anchor baby" is simply a new political flash phrase Republicans have come up with to incite anger and direct the blame on an innocent child. I don't think it takes much wisdom to see how heartless and racist that is. It is time for immigration reform. But stop blaming those who want a better life.

DeAnna Rice

Lakewood


I strongly agree with changing the 14th Amendment to stop the practice of anchor babies. The problem of illegal aliens entering the country has been out of control for decades.

Illegals break our laws, then use the very same laws for their own benefit.

Recently I was on a trip to Boston. I noticed a long line of people at Quincy Market. I was told that they were becoming citizens that day. The line went on forever, and all of them were holding small American flags. Being from California, I was saddened to think that so many others have jumped ahead of these new Americans.

Putting a stop to anchor babies will not solve the whole problem, but it would be step in the right direction on controlling the influx of illegals into our country.

I believe that a change is overdue and desperately needed.

Daniel Cassidy

Lakewood


No need to change the 14th Amendment. Deport the illegal parents. They can choose to leave their child with someone here or take him or her with them. Just because the child is a U.S. citizen doesn't mean he or she is trapped in this country forever. Americans go to live in other countries all the time. This might seem harsh to some, but that is the situation the parents put themselves and their child in when they chose to cross a foreign border illegally.

Doreen Lorand

Downey


The 14th Amendment was originally created so that freed slaves and their descendants could not be denied U.S. citizenship. For individuals to use it in another form indicates that an amendment is in order. I would see no problem in an amendment stating that the 14th Amendment applies to children of citizens or legal residents of the United States only. An amendment could also specify that children of legal residents would have the option of accepting or refusing citizenship upon reaching the age of consent. Such a change would also be in keeping with immigration law of most other nations.

Robert Davis

Long Beach


When the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution, there was no thought that the U.S. government would allow migrants to enter the country without the necessary documents indicating their legal entry. It's foolhardy to suggest that because a group of people, however desperate to improve their lives, would be allowed to take advantage of the amendment to trick the government into accepting them without their need to enter legally.

When there is a leak in the system, it needs to be plugged. The 14th Amendment needs to be modified to exclude anchor babies as a way around the laws of our country.

Ralph Burrison

Cerritos


http://www.presstelegram.com/opinions/ci_15861179

I say change the 14 th Amendment no I strongly agree with changing to stop practice of anchor baby you have a leak in the system it has to be plugged. as I saw In foxnews two week ago this girl was on & said I want my Baby to be Amercian to Be USA Citiizen ships who pay for this The USA it not right So just change the 14 th Amendment the gov can do it any thing they want but the USA had to stand up & fight & I see we all are Good Luck Gov Jan Brewer & joe & Ice thank for standing up for the USA

Originally Posted by jean

Note: This is a California news source.
~~~
Question of the week: 14th Amendment

What do you think about a change that would deny automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants who are born in the U.S.?

Posted: 08/22/2010 04:05:07 PM PDTUpdated: 08/22/2010 09:53:24 PM PDT


Each Wednesday we invite readers to give us their thoughts on a topic in the news. This week's questions:

What do you think about a change in the 14th Amendment that would deny automatic citizenship to children of illegal immigrants who are born in the U.S.? Do you think anchor babies should be included in tougher immigration laws? Or do you think, as some do, that denying citizenship to anchor babies is mean-spirited?

Following are some of your replies:


The premise of your question is flawed. The issue is not about changing the 14th Amendment, but understanding what it actually means. Your claim that "anyone born in America automatically is an American citizen regardless of the immigration status of their parents" overlooks that the 14th Amendment has two requirements for automatic citizenship: 1) birth on U.S. soil; and 2) being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Those who drafted and ratified the 14th Amendment understood that the phrase required full and complete jurisdiction, not partial or territorial. Lawful, permanent residency by the parents is at least required before the child is "subject to the jurisdiction" in the sense intended by the 14th Amendment. Those here on temporary visas, and much less those who are here illegally, simply don't qualify, even though they are subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. while here - they have to follow our traffic laws, for example. Congress is free to offer citizenship more broadly than that constitutional mandate, but so far it has not done so. This is an important debate, but we should at least understand the meaning of the constitutional provisions we are debating.
John Eastman

Former Dean and Donald P. Kennedy Chair in Law

Chapman University School of Law

Orange


Society as a whole still seems to think that we, whom you call Native Americans, are a part of history and not the present. My mother's people found Columbus on their shores on his fourth voyage. I was born here, because that's where my father was stationed at the time. I can assure you I had absolutely no say in the matter.

"Anchor baby" is simply a new political flash phrase Republicans have come up with to incite anger and direct the blame on an innocent child. I don't think it takes much wisdom to see how heartless and racist that is. It is time for immigration reform. But stop blaming those who want a better life.

DeAnna Rice

Lakewood


I strongly agree with changing the 14th Amendment to stop the practice of anchor babies. The problem of illegal aliens entering the country has been out of control for decades.

Illegals break our laws, then use the very same laws for their own benefit.

Recently I was on a trip to Boston. I noticed a long line of people at Quincy Market. I was told that they were becoming citizens that day. The line went on forever, and all of them were holding small American flags. Being from California, I was saddened to think that so many others have jumped ahead of these new Americans.

Putting a stop to anchor babies will not solve the whole problem, but it would be step in the right direction on controlling the influx of illegals into our country.

I believe that a change is overdue and desperately needed.

Daniel Cassidy

Lakewood


No need to change the 14th Amendment. Deport the illegal parents. They can choose to leave their child with someone here or take him or her with them. Just because the child is a U.S. citizen doesn't mean he or she is trapped in this country forever. Americans go to live in other countries all the time. This might seem harsh to some, but that is the situation the parents put themselves and their child in when they chose to cross a foreign border illegally.

Doreen Lorand

Downey


The 14th Amendment was originally created so that freed slaves and their descendants could not be denied U.S. citizenship. For individuals to use it in another form indicates that an amendment is in order. I would see no problem in an amendment stating that the 14th Amendment applies to children of citizens or legal residents of the United States only. An amendment could also specify that children of legal residents would have the option of accepting or refusing citizenship upon reaching the age of consent. Such a change would also be in keeping with immigration law of most other nations.

Robert Davis

Long Beach


When the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution, there was no thought that the U.S. government would allow migrants to enter the country without the necessary documents indicating their legal entry. It's foolhardy to suggest that because a group of people, however desperate to improve their lives, would be allowed to take advantage of the amendment to trick the government into accepting them without their need to enter legally.

When there is a leak in the system, it needs to be plugged. The 14th Amendment needs to be modified to exclude anchor babies as a way around the laws of our country.

Ralph Burrison

Cerritos


http://www.presstelegram.com/opinions/ci_15861179

I say change the 14 th Amendment no I strongly agree with changing to stop practice of anchor baby you have a leak in the system it has to be plugged. as I saw In foxnews two week ago this girl was on & said I want my Baby to be Amercian to Be USA Citiizen ships who pay for this The USA it not right So just change the 14 th Amendment the gov can do it any thing they want but the USA had to stand up & fight & I see we all are Good Luck Gov Jan Brewer & joe & Ice thank for standing up for the USA

The 14th was not written and meant to be used as the illegal immigrants are using it today...they are taking advantage of this to get what ever they can from our country for free....They do it intentionally, they're robbing us and our government is allowing it. I say CHANGE IT! No anchor babies!