Citizenship From Birth

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And the framers of the 14th Amendment never intended it to apply to citizens of foreign nations, but that, again, has been gone over many times and people will still disagree.

I'll see your intolerance and raise you justice.

To gain advantage from an illegal act is wrong. Yes, or no?

Repeating that lie over and over won't make it become true. You need to read beyond the Right Wing rhetoric and actually read the factual history leading up the Birthright Citizenship Clause. You seem to have no basic understanding of what jus soli means. Aren't you British but now a naturalized USC? You owe it to yourself as a USC to at least know what the hell you are talking about or refrain from engaging in U.S. political discussions.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

And yet the Supreme Court says he is.

Oh really. The Dred Scott case stated that allegiance and citizenship spring from the place of birth. The 14th Amendment specially written because of the Dred Scott case as was argued in the 1866 debates that allegiance is not inconsistent with birthright citizenship because a person owes his allegiance to the country of his birth and that country owes him protection. The focus of the 14th amendment is not on the parents birth place but the child's. The citizenship clause states,

Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 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.

The Supreme Court is illiterate.. Hmm ok.

Are you really this damn ignorant not to be able to read what the authors said about the 14th amendment and it only applying to those who were not subject to the jurisdiction of foreign powers?

You don't get it. You can spin things all you want. The 14th amendment was a guarantee for the birthright of slaves and their children because they had been here all of their lives (forced to be by Americans) and were denied citizenship after they were freed.

They were careful though in their authoring to make sure that it was understood that no foreigners would be entitled to the same citizenship though for their children. Read and learn and stop posting the way you want them to be.

[Atencio 43]

Few grasp context here, or the reality that you couldn't just get on a plane and travel to the US from any part of the world. Or the fact that when the legislation was drafted, less than 38 million lived in the US.

And how is that relevant to the case exactly?

I only ask because back when this was written Mexico was in the same place it is now.

[Atencio 43]

Are you really this damn ignorant not to be able to read what the authors said about the 14th amendment and it only applying to those who were not subject to the jurisdiction of foreign powers?

You don't get it. You can spin things all you want. The 14th amendment was a guarantee for the birthright of slaves and their children because they had been here all of their lives (forced to be by Americans) and were denied citizenship after they were freed.

They were careful though in their authoring to make sure that it was understood that no foreigners would be entitled to the same citizenship though for their children. Read and learn and stop posting the way you want them to be.

Blah blah blah. As I told Pooky what I stated is from the opinions of the Supreme Court. You may feel you are a more learned legal scholar than they are but I am pretty sure you are the ignorant one in this regard.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Are you really this damn ignorant not to be able to read what the authors said about the 14th amendment and it only applying to those who were not subject to the jurisdiction of foreign powers?

You don't get it. You can spin things all you want. The 14th amendment was a guarantee for the birthright of slaves and their children because they had been here all of their lives (forced to be by Americans) and were denied citizenship after they were freed.

They were careful though in their authoring to make sure that it was understood that no foreigners would be entitled to the same citizenship though for their children. Read and learn and stop posting the way you want them to be.

Go crawl back into your hole. Atencio knows what he's talking about. You need to be defanged and declawed. Your opinion on legal matters is about as meaningless and irrelevant as an ore made of swiss cheese.

[Heracles 417]

As I said Hercules, get rid of the all the illegal aliens and secure the border, then changing this law makes sense I suppose. Otherwise it is just feel good talk and does nothing to correct the real problem....a porous border

You can't get rid of them without people crying murder about rights. What you can do is stop the incentive to coming here illegally.

The biggest issue I see is that people from 2nd and 3rd world countries are becoming more aware that you simply need to have a child in the US and they are automatically a citizen; hence, why so many are making a business out of bringing people from 2nd and 3rd world countries, to simply pop kids out. It's not the scandals that are the problem per say, but those that will use this is an anchor into the country.

Thanks to Steven, I now realize that only second and third world countries still have automatic citizenship by birth, with a no questions asked policy. The thought of wanting to be like them and frowning on the first world is crazy talk.

Who in their right mind would advocate and condone their country being used and abused like that? I had doubts about citizenship prior to this but I certainly do not want it now, when every man and his dog can get it, like some town bicycle.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Heracles

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Go crawl back into your hole. Atencio knows what he's talking about. You need to be defanged and declawed. Your opinion on legal matters is about as meaningless and irrelevant as an ore made of swiss cheese.

as opposed to what? your expertise on stanch liberalism and blind foolishness?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Blah blah blah. As I told Pooky what I stated is from the opinions of the Supreme Court. You may feel you are a more learned legal scholar than they are but I am pretty sure you are the ignorant one in this regard.

so you say "blah blah blah" to history and the authors because like many other hacks out there on both sides of the aisle you like to bastardize the constitution to your will? Good for you. Glad you feel that it's worthless to protect this nation as the authors did their best to do in the way they worded and explained it. Of course as I said, people like you and Steve seem to like to ignore what it took to write the amendment and what the belief of what was right and that was making sure that this nation couldn't be invaded by some opposing people or some opposing culture by bringing their brat children from another country to get birthright citizenship automatically.

[Atencio 43]

You don't get it. You can spin things all you want. The 14th amendment was a guarantee for the birthright of slaves and their children because they had been here all of their lives (forced to be by Americans) and were denied citizenship after they were freed.

History lesson for Paul

The issue of birthright of slavery?

Text from members present during the writing of the 14th amendment.

Senator Jacob Howard added the text " that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.

Senator Cowan argued that this proposal would increase the number of Chinese and Gypsies in Pennsylvania. (hmm, were they slaves?)

Senator John Conness responded that "The proposition before us relates to children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in the this constitutional amendment, that the children born of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others."

[Heracles 417]

Senator Cowan argued that this proposal would increase the number of Chinese and Gypsies in Pennsylvania. (hmm, were they slaves?)

Senator John Conness responded that "The proposition before us relates to children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in the this constitutional amendment, that the children born of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others."

Were their parents legal residents?

[Atencio 43]

You can't get rid of them without people crying murder about rights. What you can do is stop the incentive to coming here illegally.

Yes I agree with you in part. Stop the incentive. The biggest incentive though is work, not having babies. If they are working the babies care will still be paid for from Medicaid. The kid will still go to school. After all, people would cry murder if we did not care for the children. What have you really accomplished.

[Atencio 43]

Were their parents legal residents?

Did we have that term back then?

Have no idea what the immigration process was back then.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Thanks to Steven, I now realize that only second and third world countries still have automatic citizenship by birth, with a no questions asked policy. The thought of wanting to be like them and frowning on the first world is crazy talk.

Your misrepresenting the facts. Go back and read that Wiki entry on Jus soli and there you will see that even countries like Australia have a modified version of Jus soli (birthright citizenship). It also indicated that the U.S. has benefited from it in that we have been this great melting pot. Even though we have enclaves like Little Tokyo or Little Saigon in Southern California, the people there consider themselves Americans and proudly so. As for the countries that have conditions on birthright citizenship, there are problems with classes of people who are stateless, and unfree labor from a helot underclass. You have Greek ancestors, so I'm guessing you know something about helots?

[Atencio 43]

so you say "blah blah blah" to history and the authors because like many other hacks out there on both sides of the aisle you like to bastardize the constitution to your will? Good for you. Glad you feel that it's worthless to protect this nation as the authors did their best to do in the way they worded and explained it. Of course as I said, people like you and Steve seem to like to ignore what it took to write the amendment and what the belief of what was right and that was making sure that this nation couldn't be invaded by some opposing people or some opposing culture by bringing their brat children from another country to get birthright citizenship automatically.

Read the history of the amendment and not base opinions on anti-illegal immigration websites

As I have said countless times I want to protect this country by securing the border, not by denying some kid that is all ready here citizenship status. You want to waste time and money changing a law that is not going to fix the real problem.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

For the historically challenged:

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution reads, in pertinent part, "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." This makes citizens of all persons born in the United States, provided they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction at the time of their birth - that is, they are not the children of foreign diplomats and like persons who, having diplomatic immunity, are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction while they are in the country for diplomatic purposes.

At the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified (1868), it excluded Aboriginal Americans because they were not considered subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and, thus, were not American citizens. Congress declared it policy to extend citizenship to all Aboriginal peoples in 1924, which was realized in 1968 with the Indian Civil Rights Act.^[9]

This scope of the Amendment was formally considered in 1898 by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898). In a 6-2 decision, the Court rejected arguments that petitioner was not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States because that phrase applied to exclude (1) children born to foreign diplomats and (2) children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory. Petitioner did not fall within either category. The Court also rejected the government's attempt to limit Section 1 of the 14th Amendment by arguing it was intended solely to allow former slaves and their descendants to become citizens. The Court held the petitioner, a child of subjects of the Emperor of China whose parents were lawfully living in the United States where he was born, was a U.S. citizen by birth. Notwithstanding the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, his citizenship status could not be revoked because his parents were not American citizens at the time of his birth, or because they and he made several trips to China afterwards.^[10]

Any remaining doubts about the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment were resolved by the Supreme Court's decision in Plyler v. Doe, which held that “the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State’s territory. That a person’s initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State’s territorial perimeter.”

Nevertheless, some lawmakers and activists have proposed abolishing jus soli,^[2][11] but these efforts have so far failed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli