Thread: 14th AMENDMENT

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. There are two important Supreme Court precedents, set by the cases of Elk v. Wilkins112 U.S. 94 (1884) and United States v. Wong Kim Ark169 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 were therefore not natural born citizens of the United States. Indian tribes, which payed taxes, were exempt from this ruling; their peoples were already citizens, by an earlier Act of Congress. The decision in Wong Kim Ark upheld the jus soli which had often (with exceptions) been practiced before the adoption of the 14th Amendment. In short, the Court found that the 14th Amendment re-affirmed jus soli. Wong Kim Ark did not overturn or weaken Elk v. Wilkins; it simply defined jus soli. The Court found that Wong Kim Ark, having been born to Chinese citizens, who were lawfully residing within the United States, and with the intention of amicably obeying its laws, was a citizen of the United States. Under these two rulings, the following persons born in the United States are explicitly not citizens:

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.

Under these rulings, the citizenship status of the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants is in a gray area. Neither ruling explicitly denies or grants them citizenship. Various aspects of both Elk v. Wilkins and Wong Kim Ark lend reasoning that such children are not US citizens. Wong Kim Ark is often cited as granting the children of illegal aliens US citizenship, but the ruling is explicit in that it applies to the children of aliens who are legally within the United States. Some may even argue that it implicitly denies them citizenship by doing so. However, in terms of Supreme Court rulings, or the rulings of any court, implicit is meaningless. The status quo is that the children of illegal aliens are US citizens, and it will remain that way until government policy changes or is challenged, and the Supreme Court inevitably makes an explicit ruling. 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. [1]. 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 [2]. Neither of these measures has come to a vote......

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

Thank you gofer.

That was the clearest and most concise representation of what the 14th Amendment is all about.

All we have to do now is get our politicians to enforce it. That should be our next battle.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm18.cfm

This is a very informative article on the 14th Amendment. It's too long to cut and paste but it's well worth the time to read it.

Fantastic guys.

Thanks Pinestraw:

That was worth saving in .pdf form. I can present it to my pro-illegal friends the next time they bring up anchor babies.