Thread: Do you support birthright citizenship?

Live Vote
Do you support birthright citizenship? * 36311 responses


Yes, individuals born in the United States should be considered citizens.
32%

No, continuing to permit birthright citizenship will encourage illegal immigration.
68%

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

OK--there is the text of the 14th Amendment. Let's pick it apart.

I read this clause

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,

to mean that babies born to people who are in this country legally. And subject to the jurisdiction thereof. People who snuck in from other countries are still subject FIRST to the laws of their own country. As long as we have the option open to send them back, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of this country. Are they?

Let's discuss this.

Well, if WE can arrest them for any crime they commit AND jail them if comvicted, it seems as if they ARE subject to the jurisdiction.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside

.

I'm really not sure HOW you could interpret that part that says, "born or naturalized in the US AND subject....". Why would they NOT be subject to the jurisdiction if they were born or naturalized citizens???

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html

The 14th and 15th Amendments were actually national reactions to Black Codes enacted in the South just after the Civil War. Legally, constitutionally, blacks were equal. Many of the Black Code provisions were illegal under the new amendments, and black voters, and even legislators, gained power in the immediate aftermath. But to counter the freedoms gained, eventually new Black Codes were enacted, most of which aimed to deny blacks the vote by means that did not rely on race on their face, but which relied on race at their root. Organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan also rose, intimidating black voters from exercising their new suffrage rights. Poll taxes, literacy tests, and other tactics, both legal and extra-legal, were used to deny blacks the vote. With no voice in the government, the rate of black voters, and any sign of black legislators, quickly disappeared.

I think we're getting too hung up on the wording and not the intent.

Well, I won't say THAT was RIGHT but I think I would vote for a literacy test for these illegals!! Poll tax too if that's what it took. Besides that, it shouldn't even BE an issue because they are NOT AMERICANS and SHOULD NOT BE VOTING!

I understand what you are saying, John. But that isn't helping us now. It seems that the reason Congress keeps throwing out bills or amendments to stop the anchor baby program has to do with the wording of the document, not the historical significance.

Bootsie, so, you think the mother of an anchor babies DO fall under US jurisdiction and that they are legal citizens as stated in the document? Even though she didn't have permission to be here, and is therefore still a citizen of another land?

See--THAT is where my problem is, JJ. NO, I DON'T think that the anchor baby should be a citizen but, from the WORDING, I then have to think that the MOTHER WOULD BE PUNISHABLE BY OUR LAWS if she broke them. Like "our" serial rapist is illegal BUT he will be prosecuted here and, if found guilty, sent to jail here. So I'm just saying I DON'T KNOW how to interpret that clause. The amendment doesn't SAY they are LEGAL citizens so that was why I suggested that Congress could CLARIFY rather than amending the Constitution. See, we KNOW that, when an illegal breaks our laws, they aren't sent back to THEIR COUNTRY for prosecution. So, I'm saying the wording is VERY CONFUSING.

No, foreign nationals are not subject to our jurisdiction. They are subject to the jurisdiction of another country as citizens of that country. It's why when criminals flee to their home country, they are protected, and only through extradiction orders can we get them back here to stand trial for punishment of their crimes. It's why foreign nationals still vote in their own elections. It's why they can run to an Embassy and be on Home Soil. It's why they can find refuge in a Consulate Office. It's why they can't be drafted into war. It's why they can't vote in our electios. It's why if they are here without documents and here illegally, they are subject to deportation not our jurisdiction. Even when they are here with documents, we can't make them stay. They are free to leave at any time.

Being subject to our laws while on our soil does not make them subject to our jurisdiction. Laws and jurisdiction are different. Only American Citizens are subjects of our jurisdiction. Anyone else can leave at any time. We can't. Our citizens who fled to Canada to avoid the draft, were deserters. A Mexican or Guatelamalan who flees home, is just one less alien to deport. If it's a crime like murder, then special agreements between nations arrange for the extradiction of the party back to the scene of the crime. This is international law and politics and has nothing to do with our jurisdiction.

Many countries refuse to extradite criminals back to the US because of our Death Penalty which they find "barbaric".

Giving anchor babies citizenship is the dumbest thing ever.

Stop the nonsense now. Pass the law. Then amend the 14th Amendment, then round them all up and send them home.

To be born an American Citizen, you have to be the offspring of American Citizens--plural.

Thanks!

Laws and jurisdiction are different. Only American Citizens are subjects of our jurisdiction. Anyone else can leave at any time. We can't.

OK that makes sense.
This is the issue we need to tell our senators about, our congressmen, anyone who will listen.....

To be born an American Citizen, you have to be the offspring of American Citizens--plural.

I don't think this is correct. I know people personally who were born in Germany to one American parent and one German parent. Upon their 18th birthday they had to choose which country they wanted to be a citizen of. Of course, since both parents by then were American citizens they chose US citizenship but they did have a choice.

I know people who were born in this country to mothers who have never become naturalized citizens yet their fathers are American citizens. They are Americans.

It only stands to reason that if an American woman has a kid in the US by a Nigerian or something that the kid is an American citizen regardless of whether the father ever becomes one. That is the only thing that keeps some Iranian guy from taking all the kids born in this country to Iran and making another "Not Without My Daughter" scenario.

Only one parent is legally necessary to make the kid an American.