Are illegal immigrants entitled to automatic citizenship in the U.S.A.—Citizenship and the Constitution?

2015-08-31T20:00:49-04:00

Are illegal immigrants entitled to automatic citizenship in the U.S.A.—Citizenship and the Constitution? This was a Hot topic in this 2016 Election Year as well! Will it change now after the election?

Someone's Perspective - do you agree or disagree?

Born in the U.S.A.—Citizenship and the Constitution

The Supreme Court has never held that the children of illegal immigrants are entitled to automatic citizenship.

August 29, 2015

In your editorial http://www.wsj.com/articles/born-in-the-u-s-a [login to see]

(Aug. 21) you assert that the language of the Fourteenth Amendment is “straightforward.” It is indeed, but it doesn’t mean what you claim. The amendment sets out two requirements for automatic citizenship, not just one.

A person must be born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction, according to the text. Those who drafted the language were quite explicit; the latter phrase meant subject to the “complete” jurisdiction, “[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else.”

As Sen. Jacob Howard explained at the time, the Citizenship Clause excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the U.S. who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”

In other words, the phrase didn’t mean what they called “partial” or “territorial” jurisdiction such as applies to “sojourners” who are mere temporary visitors, and it certainly didn’t apply to those who were unlawfully present in the county.

This isn’t “circular restrictionist logic,” as you claim, but simply a reflection that “jurisdiction” has two different meanings. Visitors to the U.S., including illegal immigrants, are subject to our laws—our territorial jurisdiction—while present within our borders, but they are not thereby subject to the more complete political jurisdiction intended by the Fourteenth Amendment.

This was the understanding of the Supreme Court in 1873 and again in 1884. And it was not undermined by the Supreme Court’s 1898 holding in Wong Kim Ark, which recognized that a child born on U.S. soil to lawful, permanent residents was a citizen.

The Supreme Court has never held that the children of illegal immigrants are entitled to automatic citizenship, nor should it, as that would mean citizenship could be obtained not by mutual consent but by illegal conduct.

Prof. John C. Eastman
Fowler School of Law, Chapman University
Orange, Calif.

Born in the U.S.A.

A primer on birthright citizenship and the U.S. Constitution, the Wall Street Journal writes in an editorial.

Response by SGT Scott Bell made Aug 31 at 2015 8:04 PM

2015-08-31T20:04:43-04:00

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 31 at 2015 8:06 PM

2015-08-31T20:06:58-04:00

COL Mikel J. Burroughs The United States and Canada are the only developed nations that allow birthright citizenship. It's a great tool for nation building but nations reach a point where it is no longer needed and indeed can become a threat to security. Children born here but indoctrinated in other countries can become threats to our nation. On the other hand if we're going to change this then what will the requirement for citizenship be? Will proof of parent's citizenship be required along with proof of U.S. continued residence?

Response by MAJ Keira Brennan made Aug 31 at 2015 8:12 PM

2015-08-31T20:12:07-04:00

The 14th Amendment, USA v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, and 8 U.S.C. § 1401 pretty much say to me that is you were born here - your a citizen. There's about 150 years of legal precident supporting the idea of "Jus Soli"

Response by PFC Robert Falk made Aug 31 at 2015 8:40 PM

2015-08-31T20:40:04-04:00

If the kids are born to an illegal then the kids should the same.

Response by PFC Robert Falk made Aug 31 at 2015 8:40 PM

2015-08-31T20:40:25-04:00

If the kids are born to an illegal then the kids should the same.

Response by CMSgt Mark Schubert made Aug 31 at 2015 8:56 PM

2015-08-31T20:56:35-04:00

I don't know - I'm no expert or SME on the subject. However, it's my feeling that anchor babies are not "legal" citizens and I think if it was challenged as such, common sense would prevail. I in no way think the intent of the 14th amendment exists to support illegal immigrants coming here to have a baby so it will be a US citizen. At any rate, I can't figure out how anyone could do this - if you do, and you are deported, are you not going to take your child with you? Come on? It's clear that the parents of anchor babies are subject to deportation - and I say boot them out - and hopefully they take their anchor baby with them.

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Aug 31 at 2015 8:57 PM

2015-08-31T20:57:04-04:00

That's easy... "No"...
Unfortunately, with all of the "rights and benefits they are "entitled" to", they may as well be... Last step... Anything for votes, right? smdh...

For those born here, well... that's a different story all together... but my feeling is that, if a child born here is from illegal parents, then the child is an illegal... with a few exceptions...

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Aug 31 at 2015 9:18 PM

2015-08-31T21:18:11-04:00

No, COL Mikel J. Burroughs, illegal immigrants are not automatically entitled to automatic citizenship in the U.S.A.
Whether or not, children of illegal immigrants who (1) just happened to be born here or (2) those who were deliberately born here will be granted citizenship in the U.S.A. is a question that may be decided in the near term or after the next Presidential election.

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Aug 31 at 2015 9:20 PM

2015-08-31T21:20:14-04:00

it seems to be so....however I do not believe it should be.

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 31 at 2015 10:44 PM

2015-08-31T22:44:32-04:00

Apparently they are entitled to just about everything that citizens are.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Sep 1 at 2015 12:21 AM

2015-09-01T00:21:55-04:00

We're a Jus Soli (right of the soil) nation, in addition to a Jus Sanguini (right of the blood) nation.

If you are born within the confines of the USA borders, you are a US Citizen (Jus Soli). If you have parent(s) who are Citizens, you are a Citizen (Jus Sanguini).

These concepts date back to the Naturalization act of 1790, 1795, & 1802, resp. They are commented on in the Constitution, but not expanded upon explicitly, with the phrases that which mention eligibility for office for the President.

MAJ Keira Brennan expands the "more modern" code, but the concepts are still applicable.

The 14a, merely ended the debate when it came to freed slaves, and those of non-European origin, while the other Acts mentioned further codified the issue.

All that said, I understand that the concept of people coming here illegally, having children so that those children can have a better future might be bad to some people. I understand they view that as tapping our limited resources. I can even agree on some aspects of the argument. However, it is within the rules as written.

In the US, the sins of the father are not passed to the child. We don't believe in corruption of blood. Not even for treason, the only crime we bother to define in the Constitution. Therefore, we sure as hell aren't going to believe in it for something this far down the foodchain. Add that concept to Jus Soli, and this issue becomes moot.

Yes, it creates a second order effect, that we must deal with. But being the greatest nation on the planet means that people are going to want to come here. We're going to have to deal with that reality. We're going to have to figure out how to deal with the unbendable rule of Jus Soli, and with Immigration.

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Sep 1 at 2015 12:59 AM

2015-09-01T00:59:23-04:00

You know we could solve 90% of this illegal immigration problem by invading Mexico, annihilating the drug cartels, and adding another star on the U.S. flag. And for that matter, we could invade all the way to Panama and take back the Canal.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Sep 1 at 2015 3:32 AM

2015-09-01T03:32:25-04:00

There used to be systems where non citizens good get a leg up on citizenship by joining the Military and I see nothing wrong with that concept.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Sep 1 at 2015 3:35 AM

2015-09-01T03:35:52-04:00

"Leviticus 19:34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God" Not that I am really into all the silly cleanliness rules in Leviticus, I'm sure as hell not giving up my Pork, Shellfish, Catfish or Clams.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 1 at 2015 7:20 AM

2015-09-01T07:20:50-04:00

This is a hard question to answer, because I don't think there is a simple solution. For us more than any other country, I think this topic requires a great deal of thought because all of use come form a lineage of immigrants. I think if this issue continues to be pressed, the supreme court will have to get involved and make a decision. Either way, each side of the argument has merit. On one hand, turning people away or not helping children is not conducive to the beliefs and nature of our culture. On the opposite side of the argument, if our current practice was never meant to be conducted and children of illegal immigrants were not meant to be granted automatic citizenship it will be interpreted as such by the courts.

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Sep 1 at 2015 9:30 AM

2015-09-01T09:30:35-04:00

COL Mikel J. Burroughs Sir, I don't agree with what the laws say, if you are not a legal citizen, you should not be able to be born into being a U.S. citizen. It is total BS and draws illegals to our country. This is IMO start the bashing if you want.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Sep 1 at 2015 9:34 AM

2015-09-01T09:34:53-04:00

No, they are not. If one reads the exact wording of the 14th amendment, the authors intent and how they limited it, and the fact that most cases used for precedence are not applicable, for example the Chinese laborers, they were here legally and they DO fit under the provisions. Even the original intent of the modification to the 14th amendment was specifically for the children of format slaves and American Indians.

Response by TSgt Ryan Lee made Sep 1 at 2015 10:10 AM

2015-09-01T10:10:08-04:00

How about "No!" My wife is a green card holder from Germany, when we hear about this on the news or read about it in the paper it really upsets her. Why do illegal immigrants that come to our country get a free pass on becoming a citizen when my wife has to pay all this money to DHS every 10 years to get her card renewed, name changed, or anything else that to do with her immigrant status? She told me the other day, why do I even bother paying for all this...maybe I'll just become an illegal immigrant and I'll get the right of passage like all the other illegal immigrants in the US and get my citizenship.
Some may disagree with this, however I believe as brash and nonpolitically correct as Donald Trump is, he has the right idea in my opinion. You wouldn't get away with being in any other country in the world as an illegal without facing deportation, why are we the safe haven? I understand that things are not good in Mexico or other countries and you want to flee here where it is safer. Ok, well, do through the proper channels and do the right thing. If you want to live in the US, work here, and live the dream, do the right thing, get your documents legally so you don't have to live in fear of being here illegally.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 1 at 2015 10:41 AM

2015-09-01T10:41:11-04:00

Sir,
Controversial topic but exactly the issues that we need to be having a conversation about rather than the renaming of Mount McKinley. The immigration topic is a very sensible and polarizing subject. It is even more difficult and frustrating for me because I am an immigrant. However, I tend to agree with what Governor Chris Christie said on Sunday morning during his appearance on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. “We need to enforce all the laws regardless if we like them or not.” With this in mind, I will say No ILLEGAL immigrants should not be entitled to automatic citizenship in the U.S.A.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 1 at 2015 10:45 AM

2015-09-01T10:45:22-04:00

Nope

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Sep 1 at 2015 11:08 AM

2015-09-01T11:08:40-04:00

COL Mikel J. Burroughs No sir. Our Nation is great. My family came from Ireland because back in the day, it sucked there. They came legally, with suitcases in hand to start their dream lives, LEGALLY, and did they ever struggle. I support any person that wants to come here and BECOME a citizen. I do not support anyone who sneaks in. Come here, do right, prosper to your ability and live life to the fullest. Support our Nation and we grow.

Response by SGT William Howell made Sep 1 at 2015 11:39 AM

2015-09-01T11:39:05-04:00

My understanding is the 14th Amendment was brought into being because there was an argument if former slaves were actually citizens and had the same rights as US citizens that had documentation. Congress made the 14th Amendment a law to remove any doubt that those former slaves and their families born in the US were American citizens. I guess where the gray area comes in is Congress intended this for people that were legally in the US. I am not sure that the color of the law was ever intended for someone not legally allowed to be here to have their child considered a citizen. We have set a precedent over the last 100 years of doing just that. I think this is going to have to go to the Supreme Court it get a final decision.

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Sep 1 at 2015 3:26 PM

2015-09-01T15:26:53-04:00

they are designed to be earned.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 1 at 2015 4:30 PM

2015-09-01T16:30:49-04:00

No Sir. The 14Th amendment wasn't designed to allow any illegal aliens citizenship, even though it has been done for a long time. My thoughts are that even if the amendment is followed like it was written, illegals will continue crossing our borders. They do not know anything about our Constitution, and that is exactly why they need to go through proper channels to become a citizen so they do understand the constitution.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Sep 2 at 2015 12:40 AM

2015-09-02T00:40:01-04:00

COL Mikel J. Burroughs - Mikel; Now here's a twist on the story.

Obviously the children's parents were NOT "accredited diplomats", but the Canadian government is taking the position that "children born in Canada to representatives of foreign governments were not eligible for citizenship". The children's parents "active agents of a foreign government" (read as "spies") even though they were "subject to the jurisdiction" of the Canadian government and were definitely NOT "accredited diplomats".

I haven't heard of any parallel story coming from the US, but I thought that you'd be interested in this one and might want to follow it to get an idea of how the US courts might consider ruling.

From "The National Post"

These brothers were born in Toronto, but their parents were Russian spies, so they cannot be Canadian

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/their-parents-were-russian-spies-so-they-cannot-be-canadian

These brothers were born in Toronto, but their parents were Russian spies, so they cannot be...

The sons of two Russian 'deep cover' spies are fighting to keep the Canadian citizenship they acquired while their parents were living in Toronto under assumed identities

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made Sep 2 at 2015 3:05 PM

2015-09-02T15:05:42-04:00

So, an idea that I would have is similar to something that used to exist (maybe still does?). How many military kids were born overseas? Depending on the country, some of them would have "dual citizenship", American and xxxxx. At the legal age of 16 or 18 (depending on the country), the young adult/child would have to determine which country to be a citizen of. Now, while they may have been dual, they still had to reside with their parents. Fast forward to the above situation: Why not provide a child born in the USA a "dual citizenship"...both American and what ever country their illegal parents came from? Send the parents back home with their child....at the legal age of 18, child can decide if they want to be fully vested in the USA or in the country of their parents. They receive NO BENEFITS as a child and only qualify for full American benefits after declaring American citizenship and renouncing the other country's citizenship (unless their parents go through the legal process to become Americans also).

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Sep 3 at 2015 12:14 PM

2015-09-03T12:14:50-04:00

We can shout "yes" and "no" all we want. The fact is that for a VERY long damn time, the answer has been yes and nothing the framer of that amendment said overturns that. Yeah, he said kids of foreign dignitaries are out, but I think you're going to have a hard time proving that some homeless couple from Oaxaca are representing the Mexican government in any sort of capacity.

Note: that "or" is ADDED. Howard didn't say it, and even if he had, he sure as hell didn't write it down. That's akin to people claiming that because old versions of the Constitution say "Sect" rather than "religion", the 1A only applies to Christians.

Besides, Citizen kids guarantee nothing. They and their parents can be deported with the child not being allowed to return until they are 21 unless they themselves have a citizen guardian. Even then, they can't sponsor anyone until they've established themselves enough to responsibly take legal guardianship of said sponsored immigrant, which could be quite some time. Everything else is just policy that can change from president to president.

Response by 1SG Robert Rush made Mar 31 at 2016 1:37 PM

2016-03-31T13:37:12-04:00

No they should not be. But the children born here to illegals, that needs to be settled. Congress needs to take the time to answering this question. They are not doing anything else constructive for this country.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 31 at 2016 5:42 PM

2016-03-31T17:42:03-04:00

Oh hell no! Screw them and the horse they rode in on! I'm sick and tired of priorities being shifted from those who serve and have served this nation. Seriously F them all!

Response by SSG Leo Bell made Mar 31 at 2016 7:13 PM

2016-03-31T19:13:59-04:00

No although you here of it happening in the west but the answer is no

Response by PO1 Kerry French made Apr 1 at 2016 5:02 PM

2016-04-01T17:02:53-04:00

I really do not understand why this is controversial. If someone is here illegally that means they have broken the law to be here and they are not entitled to diddly or squat!! The only reason people want to make them automatic citizens is in the hopes that will vote Democrat

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2016 11:59 AM

2016-06-22T11:59:44-04:00

Off course not - what does that even mean?? It doesn't make sense. Also, what does this tell the rest of the world and people trying to come here, and our institutions...? That we can't enforce our own laws, and on top of it, supplant them with workarounds?

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Jun 27 at 2016 1:57 PM

2016-06-27T13:57:32-04:00

Given that the issue of children was not brought up for a decision to be made, the only issue that can be proven is that a child being born in the USA is a US citizen by birth, which falls under common law because it has been done like that for years; kind of like a grandfathered law.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Jun 27 at 2016 5:52 PM

2016-06-27T17:52:49-04:00

Should not be allowed.

Response by SGT Robert George made Jun 28 at 2016 10:55 AM

2016-06-28T10:55:53-04:00

It seems everybody has taken a drink of Flint water !!! Why are the people in 1898 so much smarter than what we have now ?

Response by Capt Gregory Prickett made Jun 28 at 2016 1:04 PM

2016-06-28T13:04:25-04:00

I'm sorry, but the law is clear on this. If you are born in the United States, you are a citizen of the United States. Period. Even in cases where the parent is being deported, the child is still a citizen if they were born here. See Mariko v. Holder, 632 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011); and Hasan v. Holder, 673 F.3d 26, 27 (1st Cir. 2012). You also missed the point of J. Gray's opinion, "when the parents are domiciled here birth establishes the right to citizenship..." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 18 S. Ct. 456, 473 (1898). Domicile has nothing to do with legal or illegal status.

Professor Eastman can espouse anything he wants on this, but it is merely his opinion, and can be disregarded just as his position on same-sex marriage was.

Response by MCPO Bruce Ormsby made Jun 28 at 2016 2:45 PM

2016-06-28T14:45:36-04:00

No when an illegal, crosses the borders, or even someone who is here legally on a tourist visa e just to have a baby in the USA ( this is being done and their are groups actively recruiting and Promoting this) to gain citizenship it should not be automatic. I would allow for the children, who's parents are that are here legally and are alien residents and have a green card to be granted citizenship.

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Jun 28 at 2016 6:05 PM

2016-06-28T18:05:55-04:00

No, it must be earned so it can be respected. So many people take being an American for granted.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 29 at 2016 2:34 PM

2016-06-29T14:34:14-04:00

At the same time, I think immigrants that serve in the military should get a fast track (assuming the enlistment or commission wasn't voided because of fraud)

Response by SSgt Boyd Welch made Jun 29 at 2016 3:56 PM

2016-06-29T15:56:06-04:00

I think that this is a question of "practice" rather than constitutional merit. We enforce laws when they suit the powers that be and withhold prosecution when that suits them as well. Judicial activism also plays a part in the interpretation of the law.

Response by MGySgt James Forward made Oct 18 at 2016 1:35 PM

2016-10-18T13:35:52-04:00

The Professor is 100% incorrect. So called "Anchor Babies" born in the USA (legal or illegal mothers) . While he mentions the Supreme Court has never held that the children of illegal immigrants are entitled to automatic citizenship, the Supreme Court HAS NEVER ruled on this type of case nor made nay decision regarding this subject. If you are born here, you are American by birth. Period. That is how it has been since day one and see no need to change that now. Now this will more than likely cause a crap storm, but that is the law. Semper Fi

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 18 at 2016 7:36 PM

2016-10-18T19:36:13-04:00

No way man! Totally not right. Send em back.

Response by MSG Dan Castaneda made Oct 20 at 2016 12:46 PM

2016-10-20T12:46:17-04:00

There was a time when I believed that if a child is born in American soil, he/she should be granted American citizenship. Then I started noticing a trend of thousands of pregnant women coming here illegally, solely to have their child, and I started not supporting the idea. Illegal pregnant women come here, the American tax payer pays for their birth, and now expects the child's rights to get her a citizenship, plus her other children. Why, "because we can't tear families apart." Not to mention the free housing, welfare, and medicare. This is just crazy.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2016 3:58 AM

2016-10-21T03:58:55-04:00

This question answers itself. There are a couple key words "illegal" and "immigrants" that I would point to. If the person in question is both illegal and an immigrant they are not entitled to anything. The United States of America owes nothing to someone who openly disregards its law before being granted citizenship (which is basically like committing a foul before the game even starts). The fact that anyone who is not a legal citizen of this great nation thinks they are entitled to anything we have to offer is ridiculous and wrong.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Oct 21 at 2016 12:46 PM

2016-10-21T12:46:56-04:00

Sir the 14th is vague in that sense of that, but in the same breath, Art One clearly states "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".

Just with that alone, any child born here to illegal immigrants is entitled to everything we have as natural born or legal immigrants. I've spoken with others on this and they are in favor of amending this, and no matter how much I tell them it's a disaster waiting to happen, they say taking away auto-citizenship would stop the flow of illegals. Many seem to forget this is a nation founded on immigrants, and since they are born here naturally, they can decide who and who is NOT a citizen. They could revise it enough that I possibly could be seen as an immigrant even though I clearly was born here. Were my ancestors slaves, yes. I know for a fact there were some, and my family is doing their genealogy now. That slope could wipe out everything my family is and was, and should lead to others. How far are we willing to take it? We're already separating families who are having kids here in the US illegally. What we are not doing is stemming the tide of Asians who come on vacation leave with a new born citizen. If what they're doing was to take hold in more countries, the US would wind up paying more to support these kids in their "home" countries than anywhere in the US. We could set up places in airports where pregnant women coming from Asian countries are screened to see how far along they really are, and if a doctor states that they lied to fly, then they can be denied the right of automatic citizenship. Maybe set up a part of the Airport where there is proper medical staff that can assist them in having the child, but the child never leaves the airport and is sent home with the mother never making it past customs, and not becoming citizens. This would be a case that does make the SCOTUS define what really can make someone a citizen, and address profiling which it would be called.

Response by Maj William W. 'Bill' Price made Oct 22 at 2016 8:11 PM

2016-10-22T20:11:17-04:00

COL Mikel J. Burroughs - In my opinion, illegal immigrants are not entitled to any benefits accorded to United States citizens (assuming that there is still any meaning to being a citizen of the United States). Period.

Response by SPC Sheila Lewis made Nov 22 at 2016 3:17 PM

2016-11-22T15:17:44-05:00

no.

Response by CWO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2016 9:20 AM

2016-11-23T09:20:24-05:00

No to amnesty and/or blanket citizenship. Most of us were fortunate enough to have been born here so it's easy to be complacent about it. I have no problems with immigration but only if it's legal. I'm sure it's a hassle but is a small price to pay to become an AMCIT. I'm for citizenship earned through military service because that demonstrates commitment and service. Besides all the financial and legal impacts it's unfair to all the immigrants that have gone through the lengthy process to allow others to skip it. If you've ever waited your turn in a barber shop then imagine the feeling of someone walking in and taking a seat in the first chair available. I welcome others to enjoy the benefits of citizenship but think they should do it legally. Offspring should also apply and not be allowed to until their family does also. It's a start and will not happen overnight, but is at least a first step toward legalizing those already here. Preventing others from entering is another issue and is not as simple as a wall. How about tunnels, ships, trains, planes, buses, cars etc.? They are finding tunnels all the time that are far from crude. Some are large enough to drive through and are primarily used to smuggle drugs vice people. I read somewhere that the only thing a 25 foot wall would do is promote sales of 21 foot ladders.

Response by MAJ Alan Reiter made Nov 23 at 2016 9:32 AM

2016-11-23T09:32:38-05:00

Under current immigration law, illegal / undocumented immigrants do not have a path to citizenship. Generally, only permanent residents legally living here in the US for a period of five years can apply for citizenship. Only congressional action or court precedent can modify the conditions governing a path to citizenship other than what is specifically enumerated in the US Constitution.

Response by SPC Jill Drushal, RN, MA made Nov 23 at 2016 9:38 AM

2016-11-23T09:38:40-05:00

In 1907, my great-grandfather, my pregnant great-grandmother and their two young daughters (9-months-old and 2-years-old) LEGALLY immigrated to the US. My great-grandfather's two brothers and one of their wives came with them. They were Catholic refugees from Chancellor Otto von Bismarck's Germany. He hated Catholicism, the Vatican and the Pope. He believed that the Vatican would set up a papal state in Germany. As a result, Bismarck instituted numerous anti-Catholic laws. Catholic associations and meetings were broken up. Monasteries and convents were closed. Bishops and priests were imprisoned or exiled.

My ancestors were sponsored by a priest in Rockford, IL. They traveled on Swiss papers and had a sponsorship letter naming the priest and their destination city. The Church helped the men find jobs. All five of the adults took classes and learned the language to become naturalized citizens. There was a process through which the German-born children became citizens, too. Of course, the baby my great-grandmother was carrying was a US citizen when he was born, as was my grandmother when she was born a few years later. These people are the maternal family of my mother. Her father's family immigrated around 1850, before Ellis Island became the huge immigration station that it was.

My point is that like most of us, I am a descendant of immigrants. Citizenship was not automatic for any of them, not even the German refugees. They all did what was necessary to become citizens. As we know, Ellis Island is a thing of the past, but that doesn't prevent new immigrants from meeting the same kind of requirements as my ancestors to become US citizens.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 23 at 2016 10:06 AM

2016-11-23T10:06:42-05:00

Illegals and their children should not be granted citizenship. We are not supposed to reward people for breaking our laws.

Response by PO1 Kevin Arnold made Nov 23 at 2016 10:47 AM

2016-11-23T10:47:48-05:00

I don't think that citizenship should be automatic for those whom come from a different country. Yes we all came from immigrants with the exception of American Indians but for the most part had to apply or become American citizens. For they had to prove themselves to others that they were worthy of staying in the United States. They had to be able to get a job and learn to read and write English. For there was nothing automatic about the process back when America was being founded and created to what it is today. For immigrants need to be able to do the same now as they did before. For yes there are immigrants today that have proved themselves by taking a citizenship test and have proved themselves. However, there are other immigrants who are taking advantage of our country by just taking what others have worked so hard for granted. All they do is take and not provide anything back to the country. They take our jobs which takes our money, don't pay any taxes for what they get is usually cash under the table. Then they expect to collect unemployment, social security, free housing, free food, free clothing at the expense of the American people/government.

Response by LCpl Donald Faucett made Nov 23 at 2016 11:19 AM

2016-11-23T11:19:31-05:00

Citizenship for everyone should be achieved the way it was designed. No grandfathering in.

Response by Sgt William Straub Jr. made Nov 23 at 2016 11:32 AM

2016-11-23T11:32:26-05:00

While not an attorney, nor a Constitutional scholar, I do not believe that a child born in the US because his Mother managed to illegally cross the border into the States should automatically become a US citizen. I consider it in the same vein as evidence gained by police in an illegal search. I think the term is Fruit of the Poisonous Tree. A result of an illegal act should not become legally binding.

Response by SPC Erich Guenther made Nov 23 at 2016 11:57 AM

2016-11-23T11:57:28-05:00

I believe the current process and path to Citizenship is OK. Additionally, at least one of your Parents is an American Citizen or your born on the soil you should be an American Citizen.....which is the current practice is OK as well. Honest opinion here, we can't have a $1 Trillion Dollar infrastructure program (which will probably end up being $2-3 Trillion before we are done) without allowing the immigrants within the United States to work on it. We are going to find ourselves very short handed if we attempt that. I think your going to need once again to have some kind of amnesty for those illegal immigrants that are already here and have been positively contributing to the country for X number of years. As politically unpalatible as that is, I can't see any other way for us to avoid a large labor shortage with our planned spending over the next 4-8 years. It would be shortsighted to deport all the illegals and then beg for them to come back later.

Response by CPL Brad Keel made Nov 23 at 2016 1:29 PM

2016-11-23T13:29:58-05:00

Absolutely not. If you wanna be part of this great nation there are procedures and guidelines that must be followed. I served with many people who wanted to be Americans and loved our country enough to enlist. If you love this country enough to serve then I am proud to call you brother/ sister

Hoooah!!!!!!

Response by Maj Marty Hogan made Nov 23 at 2016 1:53 PM

2016-11-23T13:53:16-05:00

The designation of illegal defines that they are here illegally and this should not be citizens because of where they stand. Pretty cut and dried in the law as well- those for it look past the law. Me I want to be rich- with this thinking that illegals should be citizens I should in turn be able to rob banks until I am confident I can maintain that lifestyle I deem to be rich. Extreme example- think not. Can't change your way of thinking to frame your argument as it bleeds over into other areas. Good question COL Mikel J. Burroughs

Response by SFC Jeff Couch made Nov 25 at 2016 3:02 AM

2016-11-25T03:02:24-05:00

My opinion on the matter is that our four fathers never had this kind of insight of problems with immigration they wrote the the constitution on what they knew at the time and some great men were writing for the the future based on what might or could happen in my opinion the problems stem from those interrupt the constitution as the will and others make a educated guess if you truly think about it when the colonies were first being founded how many family lines can truly say they were for all intense purposes say they were born Americans and not the offspring of immigrants. Just a humble persons oponion

Response by PO2 Pete Haga made Nov 25 at 2016 3:40 PM

2016-11-25T15:40:21-05:00

I feel like we leave to many things in the constitution up to a small group of people in Washington that is not even elected to office and serves for life this is something that we need to decide not the Supreme Court. put it on a state by state ballot. let the people decide not the powers that be in Washington!

Response by MAJ Milton P. made Nov 26 at 2016 6:44 PM

2016-11-26T18:44:05-05:00

I am a firm believer that to receive automatic citizenship at birth one of two conditions must be (or should be) meet 1) at least one of the parents are a U.S. citizen or 2) the parents are both legal immigrants (not on a student, business or visitors visa) in the process of becoming a citizen in this case the child reeves citizenship when the parent does. This stops anchor children of both illegals and those who come here of visitors or other types of visa for the sole purpose of giving birth to a anchor child (we have seen a lot of this in the last 10 years from Asia paying thousands to do so)

Response by SPC Mary J Randall made Feb 16 at 2017 7:27 PM

2017-02-16T19:27:32-05:00

No illegal alien should be granted automatic US citizenship ever. A illegal alien is like a thief who breaks into your house, steals your money, food, furniture and etc. They are not entitle to anything even though some are decent people. Neither should their children be given US citizenship unless one parent is a US citizen. period.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made May 23 at 2017 4:57 PM

2017-05-23T16:57:28-04:00

If you are born in the United States you are a "Natural Born" Citizen. That is a Constitutional Requirement for President. If any of you, like me had children overseas you know the drill. I had to go to the embassy and claim citizenship for the child. At this point the child was issued a certificate and a passport. If you do not do this the child will have to go through the naturalization process to become a citizen. Ted Cruz has not produced any of these documents so far so I doubt if he his even a citizen. John McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone , which we operated on a Lease, it was never US property, nor is Gitmo. We were supposed to return Gitmo to Cuba in 1999. McCain had the certificated but he was not a Natural Born Citizen. When McCain ran for President the Senate passed a resolution declaring him a Natural Born Citizen. Mitt Romney's father George Romney was brought north from Mexico by his parents. He ran for President but withdrew. Mitt is a Natural Born Citizen, but his father was an illegal.

Response by SSgt Boyd Herrst made May 24 at 2017 2:50 PM

2017-05-24T14:50:03-04:00

No, go back for 10 years, be a good citizen while home then apply and come in the right way !!

Response by PO3 John Wagner made May 24 at 2017 8:49 PM

2017-05-24T20:49:27-04:00

No. They are not and where they are born has absolutely nothing to do with anything. The entire idea is a fiction given weight by feel good crap in a lot of movies and Disney cartoons. I am not anti immigrant however, the notion that these people have any "rights" granted by birth to citizens of the United States is the koolaid that has been served up to the public forever. It is also fodder for those whose narrative includes the "breaking up families" theme. No need to break up the families at all. Send the whole bunch packing. Does it sound harsh? It is not. We are either a nation of laws or we are not. The left will exploit every possible feel good narrative to convince those who obey the rule of law to turn a blind eye to whatever particular crime they are endorsing to curry favor with or grow their base. The democrat base will probably never see that their champions would have them in cuffs if they showed up uninvited to a party at their homes and will use the police against them anytime it suits their purpose to do so. Seal the border first. Then address the situation from there. No one wants to eject people wholesale however, we must stop the flow. It is a complete insult and horribly unfair to those who have done the footwork to come here legally or to the American companies who have sponsored these people and paid a great deal of money to the government in order to get their citizenship status. Ask the illegals who have been here for years and managed to establish themselves in their own communities how they feel about the flood of new undocumented immigrants. They will side with me I assure you.

Response by SPC Douglas Bolton made May 24 at 2017 8:51 PM

2017-05-24T20:51:04-04:00

COL Mikel J. Burroughs Sticky subject, but in my mind they need to do what it takes to be legal, or hit the road. I feel for them. They want a good life, but so does the millions of legal Americans.

Response by SP5 Robert Ruck made May 24 at 2017 9:07 PM

2017-05-24T21:07:47-04:00

Excellent interpretation of the law. Unfortunately no matter how logical the reasoning, those who are in favor of unlimited illegal immigration will never accept the truth of the Constitution.

Response by Capt Dwayne Conyers made May 24 at 2017 9:33 PM

2017-05-24T21:33:26-04:00

When I was a green butterbar, I met two 2LTs who were getting their citizenship via active military service. One was British, the other from South Africa. Perhaps this could become the defacto pathway to citizenship?

Response by PO1 Martin Findley made May 24 at 2017 9:41 PM

2017-05-24T21:41:27-04:00

The key word in that is "Illegal". You do NOT deserve nor are you automatically granted citizenship in this great country! IMHO any immigrant coming into America MUST go through the proper channels or be deported. I know I sound cold hearted, but I believe in the law and will do what ever I can to uphold it. Too many illegals already in this country, tearing down the civilized society. But that is just MY opinion, and I don't expect anyone else to share nor agree with it. Another reason I served 20 years in the Navy, "freedom of speech" and opinions. :-)

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made May 24 at 2017 10:18 PM

2017-05-24T22:18:20-04:00

Nope

Response by SFC Dave Beran made May 24 at 2017 10:22 PM

2017-05-24T22:22:12-04:00

I say it should be a case by case basis. Parental status is important. But if they are working and paying taxes and not a burden on society, why not.

Response by Sgt Albert Castro made May 24 at 2017 10:26 PM

2017-05-24T22:26:06-04:00

A touchy controversial topic indeed CPT Ferdinand Zoa. But it should not be. As a retired Senior Border Patrol Agent, all I can speak to, is what I was taught. All Trainees at the BP Academy have to pass 2 semesters of U.S. Immigration Law condensed into a 22 week course of study. The laws studied, apply to Illegal Entry, Apprehension, Admissibility of the legal classifications allowed to enter, Smuggling, Detention and Removal. The topic now called "Anchor Babies" is not covered. As I have learned, birthright citizenship came about at the beginning of the "progressive movement" before and continued under FDR. Supposedly it became acceptable to protect the children of Chinese workers brought in to the US to help build the railroads. The Constitution does not allow for citizenship to foreigners, but to children of US citizens born abroad. Politically, I believe the topic now can only be changed by a Constitutional Amendment to the 14Th Amendment. Sadly I believe that won't happen because our politicians are more worried about losing the Latino/Hispanic vote than defining the clause "jurisdiction there of." Since this can become a political conversation I'll stop right there. Anyone on the RP feel free to correct me if I misspoke. And No. Babies born to Illegal Aliens should not derive US citizenship.

Response by SGT Eric Knutson made May 24 at 2017 10:26 PM

2017-05-24T22:26:49-04:00

Well Col, Mikel Burroughs, with the exception of the (assumed) amendment referancing the Indians, I think that all that is actually needed is remidiale English and then forcing certain persons to read what you just posted. Considering the reason for the 14th, was to try to make some amends to the children of the slave, and give them stakeholders rights in this country. As such, and considering there is no (wholesale) slavery in this country for more than 100 years, then the premise no longer exsists then the 14th might well be abolished.

Response by SCPO Morris Ramsey made May 24 at 2017 10:49 PM

2017-05-24T22:49:49-04:00

What is it about illegal that people do not understand.

Response by Gary Henson made May 24 at 2017 11:25 PM

2017-05-24T23:25:00-04:00

Absolutely not.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made May 24 at 2017 11:29 PM

2017-05-24T23:29:11-04:00

No.

Response by PFC Jim Mills made May 24 at 2017 11:45 PM

2017-05-24T23:45:09-04:00

The law being " subject to jurisdiction " subject meaning the persons here ! Are they here legally or illlegally ? Jurisdiction meaning are the protected by the laws of the United States? If you aren't an established citizen then you don't meet the jurisdiction clause . Period ! So an illegal person who sneaks over the border and has a baby here isn't due any process nor is the child !

Response by SFC James Shanks made May 24 at 2017 11:49 PM

2017-05-24T23:49:54-04:00

The term Illegal should speak for itself. No, I do not think there should be any automatic citizenship. If 2 illegal aliens have a baby, it is simple math, now there are 3 illegal aliens!!!

Response by PO1 Kevin Dougherty made May 25 at 2017 12:02 AM

2017-05-25T00:02:06-04:00

Illegal, no. There is a legal process by which immigrants can become legal citizens. It should be followed in all cases. In the case of a child born in the US, to me the big question is are the parents permanent residents here legally, i.e. green card residents? In that case it is cut and dry. In the case of those whose parents are here illegally, while I appreciate their plight, I have to say no. Perhaps they should be exempted from the full process, but they should at least be required to take the oath upon reaching some age, perhaps 18. As to their parents and others here illegally, it may not be feasible to ship them home, but they should at a minimum be required to wait a full five years (perhaps with a penalty time added on?) and pay some sort of fine.

Response by SSG Ray Elliott made May 25 at 2017 12:55 AM

2017-05-25T00:55:38-04:00

Automatic no!! I think they should be given the opportunity to apply to stay and be evaluated on a case by case basis, but it should not be automatic. Some of these illegals may be in danger if they return to their country, so if they haven't committed a crime (other than being here illegally) the humane thing to do would be to allow them to stay.

Response by Lynda Key made May 25 at 2017 12:57 AM

2017-05-25T00:57:11-04:00

No. I think birthright citizenship should be abolished.

Response by Stephanie Jones made May 25 at 2017 3:44 AM

2017-05-25T03:44:13-04:00

No and no

Response by SGT Joseph Gunderson made May 25 at 2017 4:35 AM

2017-05-25T04:35:12-04:00

I believe that you answered your own question with your citation. The answer is No.

Response by MSgt Wayne Morris made May 25 at 2017 6:46 AM

2017-05-25T06:46:05-04:00

Citizenship should be a privilege, not a right for those born here and for those that immigrate legally to this nation. Frankly, I can think of some citizens we have who have not earned the right to be here and I consider to be a detriment to this nation. For those who think this nation is so horrible they need to see and experience other nations and not by a 10 nation in 10 day tour through a shiny bus window but as we have. You don't see grinding poverty and corruption as a tourist or celebrity but by living among the locals. We as Americans have it better than most nations in the world warts and all and it should not be something handed out like free samples at grocery store.

Response by CPT Scott Sharon made May 25 at 2017 9:19 AM

2017-05-25T09:19:43-04:00

We should always follow the rule of the law. We can't keep changing our immigration policy every time we elect a new President. We have processes to change the law if it needs to be changed.

Response by LTC Orlando Illi made May 25 at 2017 10:50 AM

2017-05-25T10:50:48-04:00

Short answer NO. The operant word being ILLEGAL. If this offends anyone please refer to the following definition of ILLEGAL ALIEN (assuming that you can comprehend the meaning): "...a foreign national who is living without authorization in a country of which they are not a citizen..." No where in that definition does it imply that an ILLEGAL ALIEN has an alienable right to U.S. Citizenship.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 25 at 2017 10:58 AM

2017-05-25T10:58:55-04:00

Not only no, but hell no. We have enough homegrown criminals, we don't need anyone elses criminals. And yes, as soon as someone crosses an international border without proper documentation, they ARE a CRIMINAL regardless of where they're from or what gender or age they are.

Response by PO1 Robert Johnson made May 25 at 2017 11:29 AM

2017-05-25T11:29:33-04:00

It is my opinion that no person or group of persons who have entered the jurisdiction of the United States of America in any manner other than through the proscribed channels established by law has violated the law and therefore have no entitlements. The host nation (USA) has no obligation toward those persons.
Persons born in the jurisdiction of the USA as a consequence of illegal entry by one or both parents should not have any special consideration
If a person or persons have entered the Jurisdiction of the USA illegally but is seeking asylum, they should immediately report themselves to proper authority to begin that process.
I have heard the arguments over and over that all the illegal immigrants want is a better life for themselves and their family but that does not entitle them to commit a crime to do so. Until the Congress changes or creates new Immigration laws, there is not a way for illegal immigrants to become citizens.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made May 25 at 2017 11:43 AM

2017-05-25T11:43:28-04:00

To the question, 'Are illegal immigrants entitled to automatic citizenship in the U.S.A.?' To me the word 'illegal' gives you the final answer in my opinion. Additionally, the addition 'entitled' needs to be deleted because citizenship is not an entitlement it is or it is not.

Response by PO3 John Wagner made May 25 at 2017 12:46 PM

2017-05-25T12:46:42-04:00

We seem to have focused on the illegal immigration from Mexico. Our semi legal immigration and tolerance of customs from other parts of the world has far more lethal consequences than simple economic disruption.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlicter/2017/05/25/fewer-tears-fewer-lies-and-more-righteous-anger-n2331247?
utm source=thdaily&utm medium=email&nutmeg campaign=nl&newsletterad=

Kurt Schlichter - Fewer Tears, Fewer Lies, And More Righteous Anger

Enough of changing your Facebook photo to the flag of the abattoir du jour, enough of the candlelight vigils, and enough of the #_____Strong hashtags. No more pleas for unity and pretending not to understand.

Response by SSgt Terence Crooks made May 25 at 2017 2:11 PM

2017-05-25T14:11:46-04:00

Hot topic sir, i would not want to deny anyone the right to freedom, that's what we fight for here in the USA, but as long as you put in parameters for ppl entering the country and we follow them as they are written rather than shoot from the hip when the mood hits us, then give them the opportunity to become legal citizens.

Response by MSG Mark Million made May 25 at 2017 2:35 PM

2017-05-25T14:35:42-04:00

Controversial topic, I'd say that we really need to work on securing our borders, and stemming the flow of illegals into the country first, then tackle what to do about citizenship for those here currently illegally and for those born here under illegal circumstances. You can't solve every problem at the same time. So I advocate taking it one step at a time.

Response by SSG Steven Mangus made May 25 at 2017 3:44 PM

2017-05-25T15:44:55-04:00

I would have to say no the 14th Amendment does not include children born to illegal immigrants. To understand the the goal and function of the aforementioned amendment, to include, the wording; one must look at the basic premise for the amendment. The 14th Amendment addressed the legal validity of the civil rights bill ratified in 1866 and also clearly defines citizenship, which ended criminal black codes established under the former rebel states. To include the fundamental rights (under Article IV, Section II of the Constitution) of former slaves, which became legal citizens after Lincoln's emancipation. This created an equal footing under law for both white and black citizens. In 1868, when ratified, the Federal Government did not limit immigration. The result, there were no illegal immigrants within the USA. It should be noted the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American born persons from automatically gaining citizenship whose allegiance to the USA was not complete. In 1873, during the Slaughter-House cases, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed the interpretation of the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" excluded "children of ministers, consuls and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." Another case reaffirmed the first interpretation; in 1898, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case, the ruling was strictly based on the 14th Amendment concluded the status of the parents was "crucial" to determining the citizenship of the child. With today's misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part on the presumption that Wong Kim Ark encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of both legal and illegal immigrants, but rather determine allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the word "domicile." Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have legal domicile within our borders, the ruling did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. In reality the ruling further solidified the original intent of the 14th Amendment. Simply put, the status of the parent determines the citizenship of the child. All this information is public knowledge, so why is there an issue with immigration. Furthermore, I don't have an issue with immigrants coming here; just do it the right way.

Response by PVT Raymond Lopez made May 25 at 2017 10:50 PM

2017-05-25T22:50:47-04:00

I am first generation American my family all came to the United States from Spain legally through Ellis Island and I still have my mother’s Spanish passport and my father’s American citizenship certificate. When I moved to the Commonwealth of Virginia in 2002 the Virginia Department of Transportation made me get a copy of my birth certificate I had not seen the original since I enlisted in the United States Army at seventeen. They accepted my Pennsylvania operator’s license. Guess what they would not accept as proof my United States citizenship? FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT CREDENTIALS!!!!!!!!! I was born in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania!!!

Response by SSG Eduardo Ybarra Jr. MS Psyc made May 25 at 2017 11:36 PM

2017-05-25T23:36:59-04:00

This is one of the contested questions where not many Americans witness the impact first hand. Along the southern border people from these areas see first hand the impact that the influx of illegals have on an economy. This being said we've seen first hand pregnant women who come here just to have their children here in which they and their infant child qualifies for government subsidies. The travesty is Americans have a much more difficult time in receiving benefits.

So as to the question should children born of illegal parents be considered legal citizens just because they are born here? Well lets look at it for what it is. 1. A law was broken when the parents came here illegally. 2. If a person who came here illegally and is now receiving benefits, wouldn't that be considered theft? 3. Why is the financial impacts these towns face not being reported? So yes they (children of illegals) should not be given the status of American citizenship because normally when a child is born here of American parents laws are not being broken. So why make Americans financially responsible for those who continuously break our laws to gain benefits which do not belong to them?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 26 at 2017 1:59 AM

2017-05-26T01:59:10-04:00

If you ask me, I feel that you must SUCCESSFULLY serve an enlistment in the armed services to be considered for US citizenship. Meaning, if you get discharged for any reason other than honorable conditions or general under honorable conditions then your eligibility should be voided

Response by Sgt Bruce C. made May 27 at 2017 8:37 PM

2017-05-27T20:37:49-04:00

NO, but I believe all f them should be given a chance to become US Citizens. There are some/many out there that are good people, lets keep them around, and kick the bad ones out.

Response by SGT John Hamby made Jun 3 at 2017 5:32 PM

2017-06-03T17:32:51-04:00

to answer that question, my straight-forward answer is OH HELL NO!!!!!! if they want to become U.S. Citizens, then let them go about it the right & legal way!!!!!!!
NO AUTOMATIC CITIZENSHIP WHATSOEVER !!!!!!!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 3 at 2017 10:52 PM

2017-06-03T22:52:19-04:00

Join the military, and earn the right, nothing is a handout here. Just my two cents. Wanna be a citizen do something worthy of getting established.

Response by SSG David Fetty made Jun 3 at 2017 11:05 PM

2017-06-03T23:05:33-04:00

COL Mikel J. Burroughs - Two things come immediately to mind here that I've never seen mentioned before.
1. Benefits from a crime. I don't know of any criminal acts that allow you to keep the benefits you gained from a crime, whether it be bank robbery, embezzlement, Identity Theft, etc.
2. The illegal entry isn't the only crime committed: If you want to work when you come here illegally, you'll need a SSN. Seems that results in using someone else's SSN, since as far as I know, you cannot be here illegally and obtain a SSN. Now you're addressing identity theft as well as the illegal entry.

I'm sure if you look father, you'd find other infractions as weel.

As has been noted by many others on here, it's certainly not an inducement to do things the correct legal way, and sooner or later the entire system is going to break down. Ethically, morally, and legally it's not fair to the people who want to come here legally, spend large sums of their own money and huge amounts of time to become a citizen, only to see others who snuck in, continue to commit crimes, being treated as equal to them.

Response by Sally Webster made Jun 4 at 2017 2:00 AM

2017-06-04T02:00:01-04:00

Um, I am ok and right on target with Prof. Eastman EXCEPT when he uses the term illegal immigrant.There is no such thing as an illegal immigrant. One is either here illegally and has not properly immigrated into our country or HAS immigrated and is now a legal citizen of the united States of America.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 4 at 2017 2:54 AM

2017-06-04T02:54:20-04:00

wow. Just knowing that a good percentage of our armed forces is made up of CITIZENS born of undocumented immigrants makes me wonder what your little comments are doing for moral. I see CSMs and field grade officers who most likely have several US born citizens of immigrant parents among their ranks spewing nothing but hate. Glad to see you have great faith in your troops..............

Response by LCpl Scott Greenwood made Jun 5 at 2017 10:12 AM

2017-06-05T10:12:40-04:00

Working in the blue collar sector has definitely changed my perspective. None of the Latino's I've worked with fall under the "entitled" to anything and these jobs have a 70% vacancy rate.

I can't get any of the "entitled" young people to show up on time or ready to work in fact no one under the age of 30 seems to have any work ethic so far.

As a marine and a combat vet, this topic gets me hot because I personally know men that have served this country that have been lead to believe they had a home after a few tours just to be shown the door.

Call me old fashioned but I'm a Quid pro quo sort of guy. If our system isn't taking care of our own then fix it or get rid of it.

Response by PVT Mark Zehner made Oct 14 at 2017 5:14 PM

2017-10-14T17:14:25-04:00

No because people that worked hard to become citizens have paid their dues and by others being given citizenship it takes away from their hard work

Response by MSG Louis Alexander made Feb 11 at 2018 11:00 AM

2018-02-11T11:00:25-05:00

Take the dreamers (DACA)for instance. Their parents brought them illegally into the US. Two decades later they are educated and have assimilated to our way of life. They voluntarily enlist to serve our nation, as one of us. Some face the horrors of war, they shed their blood with ours, suffer through the same ordeals. They serve honorably. My personal belief is they have shown they are willing to fight and die like you and I, therefore they should be rewarded full citizenship without question. This doesn’t mean it applies to chain migration, only to the individual who served.

Response by MSG Judson Brooks made Nov 11 at 2018 8:10 PM

2018-11-11T20:10:52-05:00

This is still an 'open question' as pertains to the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and any ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States with respect to illegal aliens residing within the U.S. and their entitlement to birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court as such has never issued a ruling on births by illegal aliens; however, it is also held by many scholars and jurists that the U.S. Congress has the power to clarify once and for all if the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to include illegals or not. It is widely held that the amendment did not automatically confer citizenship to children of aliens, because the child's parent had not made herself subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. [re: See history of the Slaughter House Cases].

Response by MSG Judson Brooks made Dec 6 at 2018 2:37 PM

2018-12-06T14:37:25-05:00

In the words of Professor Lino Graglia.... "Birthright Citizenship is Unreasonable, Harmful, Irrational and It's Self-Contradictory." In a very recent commentary proffered by the good professor dated October 30 2018, he makes the case in-full to support the aforestated assessment. That commentary can be accessed at the following URL. I would suggest this is a 'must read' for all who may be interested in this topic. https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/lino-graglia/birthright-citizenship-unreasonable-harmful-irrational-and-self

Birthright Citizenship: Unreasonable, Harmful, Irrational and Self-Contradictory

It is often said that there are two sides to every argument, but the argument about birthright citizenship for children born here of illegal aliens shows that it isn’t true. There is nothing to be said for one side of the argument. A policy of granting birthright citizenship to children born here of illegal aliens is not merely unreasonable and harmful, but irrational and self-contradictory, a matter of both punishing and rewarding the same...