Quote Originally Posted by melena29
Quote Originally Posted by builditnow
melena29 wrote:
Again I reiterate, and someone please, please correct me if I am wrong, but according the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, one is not granted citizenship solely on the basis of being born on American soil, but must also be born to parents who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States of America. I take this to mean that the parents must be citizens either by birth or naturalization.
Melena29 - I have not seen the full text of the 14th amendment. I tried to research it a while ago, and found partial quotes and descriptions.

Is that a direct quote you are citing regarding the parents must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US?

Unfortunately, though the intention of those who added the 14th amendment was likely NEVER to allow the anchor baby re-population of America, I'm assuming the courts must have interpreted it this way at some point.

When the pro-amnesty crowd doesn't like something, they just have the ACLU or LULAC file a lawsuit, and keep appealing until they find a judge with an identity crisis who believes he/she is a legislator.
Check out this link and let me know what you think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth ... nstitution
Melena29-

I checked out the link. It is unfortunately really not clear.

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" is a bit vague. And the text I read doesn't clarify the definition enough.

This page sites several different cases and opinions which vary on the meaning of the amendment. But I think the main point is definitely the original intent of the 14th amendment was regarding citizenship of African-Americans after the Civil War, to ensure the slaves and their children were considered citizens. It was NEVER meant to allow the re-population of the US with anchor babiies.

If we had a government with any principles and backbone, not concerned only with increasing their own power and votes, the Congress would clarify or ratify or do whatever it is they need to do to stop this outrageous miscarriage of justice, facilitating the illegal invasion of the US by allowing this to continue.

Quote from the text:

Citizenship Clause
Main article: Citizenship Clause
[/b]The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[12] Neither in that decision nor in any subsequent case has the Supreme Court explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the amendment,[13] although that has generally been assumed to be the case.[14] In some cases, the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985)[15] and Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).[16] Nevertheless, some claim the Congress possesses the power to exclude such children from US citizenship by legislation.[13]