Thread: repeal the 14th amendment.

The time has come to either repeal or rewrite the 14th amendment. My understanding of the 14th amendment is that it was actually meant to enhance the emancipation proclamation. It was designed to make former slaves and their off spring fully equal natural citizens. This purpose has been fulfilled for several generations now and the 14th is no longer needed for the purpose it was originally written for. If anyone has a different historical interpretation feel free to mention it. I no longer see any modern purpose for the 14th amendment but if there are any legitimate reasons to keep it maybe it could be rewritten. I just don’t believe its purpose was ever to make children of criminal trespassers citizens.

The purpose was too guaranty full citizens rights to all people born under the legal jurisdiction of the United States. Thirty years later as a result of a misinterpretation by a Supreme Court Justice it got made a precedent to reinterpret to mean born within the territorial jurisdiction. This was a new and considerably different meaning. We need to go back to the original meaning not repeal it..

PFitter - welcome to ALIPAC.

It would be so much better in the long run if we could just clarify the 14th amendment, rather than having to repeal or rewrite it. It was NEVER intended to allow what we have now, which is a literal invasion-by-birth. It has been misinterpreted and misapplied. And this misapplication is obviously being blatantly exploited by the illegal aliens and their accomplices.

Repealing or rewriting it might be more expedient. But doing that would be no small move. It could open the door for others who really want to change or rewrite much of our constitution.

It would be better in the long run if we could just clarify it. Problem is that would probably take more time. Clarifying it would likely require taking it to the Supreme Court. If they decide it does mean that U.S. born children of illegal aliens are citizens, then we could repeal or rewrite the 14th amendment. The problem with all that, of course, is that it could take a lot of time, years.

No easy answer, but I think we just need to do something, anything. I would be okay with whatever action is taken. There have been bills in Congress in this regard, but they haven't yet got much further than being introduced.

The case used to decide this issue was Wong. It was a very convoluted case and really bears no resemblance to the issue we face today. For all practical purposes if it had not been outright illegal for Chinese to be in the United States at that time, ( despite the importation of thousands to build the railways), Wong would have been a Citizen being that his parents had a quasi legal status before leaving to go back to China. At the time they would have been considered legal resident aliens had it not been for the fact laws were in place legally preventing Chinese from entering the U.S. In addition He was actually considered a British subject further complicating the issue , since all persons in British colonies and territories were given British Citizenship whenever they were established. This was the deciding factor , or one of them, it was determined he was not a subject of the Emperor of China, therefore enabling a co-mingling of English and American law determining him to be " under the jurisdiction of the U.S ", giving him American Citizenship.

What little research I have done in reading the definitions of natural citizen I found it to be unclear and confused and would like to see that clarified. Could be I don't quite understand the intent of the 14th but I did always think it was part of emancipation and the method used to grant former slaves and their children natural citizen status. I guess when it was written there were not near the records of every citizen there are today so it may have partly been just to insure all the people born out in the sticks without a lot of records were not losing citizenship.

Originally Posted by PFitter

What little research I have done in reading the definitions of natural citizen I found it to be unclear and confused and would like to see that clarified. Could be I don't quite understand the intent of the 14th but I did always think it was part of emancipation and the method used to grant former slaves and their children natural citizen status. I guess when it was written there were not near the records of every citizen there are today so it may have partly been just to insure all the people born out in the sticks without a lot of records were not losing citizenship.

At the time slaves were only considered 3/5ths of a person, this was due to the North not wanting them counted a whole people. Had this been the case, Southern States would have gotten more representation due to the total number of slaves in the South.After emancipation they were no longer property but nor were they whole people or citizens. As slaves they never had the right to vote they were only counted as to representation in Congress. The 15th Amendment gave Former slaves the vote.

Originally Posted by dsprtt

The case used to decide this issue was Wong. It was a very convoluted case and really bears no resemblance to the issue we face today. For all practical purposes if it had not been outright illegal for Chinese to be in the United States at that time, ( despite the importation of thousands to build the railways), Wong would have been a Citizen being that his parents had a quasi legal status before leaving to go back to China. At the time they would have been considered legal resident aliens had it not been for the fact laws were in place legally preventing Chinese from entering the U.S. In addition He was actually considered a British subject further complicating the issue , since all persons in British colonies and territories were given British Citizenship whenever they were established. This was the deciding factor , or one of them, it was determined he was not a subject of the Emperor of China, therefore enabling a co-mingling of English and American law determining him to be " under the jurisdiction of the U.S ", giving him American Citizenship.

I have always understood at least one of Wong's parents, I thought his father, WAS a legal resident of the U.S. at the time of Wong's birth.

Originally Posted by dsprtt

Originally Posted by PFitter

What little research I have done in reading the definitions of natural citizen I found it to be unclear and confused and would like to see that clarified. Could be I don't quite understand the intent of the 14th but I did always think it was part of emancipation and the method used to grant former slaves and their children natural citizen status. I guess when it was written there were not near the records of every citizen there are today so it may have partly been just to insure all the people born out in the sticks without a lot of records were not losing citizenship.

At the time slaves were only considered 3/5ths of a person, this was due to the North not wanting them counted a whole people. Had this been the case, Southern States would have gotten more representation due to the total number of slaves in the South.After emancipation they were no longer property but nor were they whole people or citizens. As slaves they never had the right to vote they were only counted as to representation in Congress. The 15th Amendment gave Former slaves the vote.

I am a descendant of slaves and it makes my blood boil to witness this Amendment deliberately and willfully being abused. I couldn't agree with you more, it is way past time to rescind it and stop illegal aliens from breeding America out of existence.

I have always understood at least one of Wong's parents, I thought his father, WAS a legal resident of the U.S. at the time of Wong's birth.[/quote] It is unclear whether his parents had " Green Cards" so to speak , but even assuming they did, The Chinese exclusion act prevented them from ever becoming naturalized Citizens. The Court was wrong in this decision for the fact that to be under the jurisdiction should mean and apply only to U.S.Citizens. The fact that one is a legal resident alien does not place one under the FULL JURISDICTION OF THE U.S. While holding a " green card" all aliens are still foreign nationals. From reading the case I believe they did have resident status. The courts use of English Common Law to decide the case was where things went wrong. There is no recognized common law within the Constitution, and the dissenting opinions noted this. The most recent case using Wong Kim Ark was Plyler v. Doe a Texas case 1982 regarding the education of Illegal Children. Texas lost and was forced to educate the children of Illegals born here as well as those brought here. No Amendment is needed and the 14th should be left alone. A simple birthright law would open the review of the courts decision of Wong. If English common law were not used , there would be no doubt that for the purpose of determining Citizenship children of non- citizens would not qualify. As stated in Wong, American Indians not being taxed were not considered being under the Jurisdiction of the U.S. , hence the American Indian Naturalization Act of 1924 . This seems to conflict under the idea of an "ordinary person" being born on American soil being a Citizen at birth. Would Illegals who do not pay taxes and have never paid taxes be excluded under the Native American model of accepted criteria for Citizenship?

Pfitter, the solution is quite simple.

Section 5 of the 14th amendment says: "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by apprpriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

All Congress has to do it pass a law and of course the President must sign it. The law would say that anyone born in the U. S. shall be a citizen only if at least one of the parents is a U. S. citizen or legal resident at the time of birth.

This is far simpler to do than amending the Constitution and it would preserve the 14th amendment. We need to protect the 14th amendment.