Should the 14th Amendment be amended to correct a legal oversight?

2017-02-08T17:55:51-05:00

The 14th amendment states if you were born in the United States even if your parents are here illegally the child is automatically considered a United States citizen. Should the 14th amendment be amended so that illegal immigrants can't have anchor babies in order to reap the benefits of having a child that is a US citizen? i.e correct legal oversight

Response by CPT Pedro Meza made Feb 8 at 2017 5:58 PM

2017-02-08T17:58:27-05:00

So does your question mean that those of us that are Native American can declare that all non Native American are illegals.

Response by SSgt Christopher Brose made Feb 8 at 2017 6:05 PM

2017-02-08T18:05:14-05:00

I'd be for that. Simply add the requirement that the parents of any newborn must be in the country legally, or specify which types of visas for the parents would qualify the baby for citizenship.

Response by SCPO Morris Ramsey made Feb 8 at 2017 6:12 PM

2017-02-08T18:12:19-05:00

Definitely should be taken up for discussion. If possible keep politics out of the discussion.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 8 at 2017 6:20 PM

2017-02-08T18:20:08-05:00

Brother, the 14th amendment doesn't say that if one's parents are here illegally, he or she is automatically a U.S. citizen. That's the way the courts have chosen to interpret it. It would have been just as easy to say that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes illegal immigrants. I don't think a revision of the amendment is necessary, but a better interpretation would be in order.

Response by SFC George Smith made Feb 8 at 2017 6:23 PM

2017-02-08T18:23:38-05:00

With out a Doubt but getting thru the Congress Critters and the Liberals in the country would be almost impossible Now...

Response by Capt Gregory Prickett made Feb 8 at 2017 6:25 PM

2017-02-08T18:25:53-05:00

Deutschland für Deutsche, er, I mean America for Americans.

Response by SSG Robert Webster made Feb 8 at 2017 6:44 PM

2017-02-08T18:44:33-05:00

IF the law was applied properly, this would not be a subject of question. All that needs to be done would be to check Section 1992 of the U.S. Revised Statutes, where the same congress that had adopted the 14th Amendment, confirmed the principle that should be applied.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 8 at 2017 6:55 PM

2017-02-08T18:55:36-05:00

The part of the 14th Ammendment you're referring to SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member is Section I (there are five):

"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."

The first line seems to be the one in question which states: "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."

Welit says all persons born or naturalized in the United States which seems to indicate that just fine. But wait there's more!

It says and;
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

So there are two requirements to be a citizen of the United States and the State in which you reside: You must be born or naturalized there AND you must be subject to its jurisdiction.

So what does subject to its juridiction mean? Well that would mean that its laws and courts have primary (or first/greatest) claim on you. Which means that a foreign citizen on holiday that gives birth to a child in the US should not have their child immediately granted US citizenship since the child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the State it is born in or the USA. WHich means the courts and popular understanding of what the 14th says have been the polar opposite of what the text says.

Color me shocked. Not.

So the end answer is what CPT Private RallyPoint Member said, "a beter interpretation would be in order." Of course he said that without writing a whole report, because he's more concise than I am. But to answer the original question, No the 14th does not need to be ammended, it just needs to be interpreted more sanely.

Response by PO2 Robert Aitchison made Feb 8 at 2017 7:51 PM

2017-02-08T19:51:48-05:00

I disagree that it was an oversight.

Those who would seek to reinterpret or redefine the constitution are no better than the liberals who want to redefine the second amendment.

Response by CPL Roy Tanner made Feb 8 at 2017 10:09 PM

2017-02-08T22:09:01-05:00

Now would be it's best chance with Republican Majority.

Response by SGT David T. made Feb 9 at 2017 7:44 AM

2017-02-09T07:44:30-05:00

I think this is a slippery slope. If we can strip some natural born citizens of their citizenship then what is to stop the government from expanding this later? Now I firmly believe that if the parents are illegal, then having a citizen child should have no bearing on if the parent is deported or not. The kid wouldn't be deported but if the parents choose to take them then that is on them.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2017 7:49 AM

2017-02-09T07:49:10-05:00

It wasn't an oversight, there are contemporaneous writings with the same thoughts

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Feb 9 at 2017 12:00 PM

2017-02-09T12:00:39-05:00

"Legal oversight"? That's a leap. I'm an engineer history buff which means I'm a rarity I guess. The citizenship issue was 95% former slave and 5% native american driven, or thereabouts. Although Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 over President Andrew Johnson's veto, there was concern that the citizenship conferred on former slaves was on shaky Constitutional grounds as the Supreme Court could overturn it as a legislative attempt to toss their Dred Scott decision. There were several iterations, but it had leverage as the former Confederate states were on the hook to ratify as a condition of regaining seats in the House and Senate, post war. The Reconstruction Acts essentially kept replacing those state's political leadership until they played ball. Although there were some discussions about kids born to diplomats, etc., immigration was pretty much wide open at the time because the country was growing. Interesting thing was the European immigrant was OK, but the Chinese weren't. It took the Wom Kim Ark decision in 1898 set the precedence for all nationalities. Although ratified, a number of states existing at the time didn't ratify it until later. Kentucky was the last in 1976. It'd be an interesting research paper on how the Kentucky dynamic played out.

So the issue is to what extent does the judiciary go to deal with changing times? We are all over the map on that one. Some is OK but a lot isn't? In all likelihood, the Reconstruction Acts were the most blatant in stomping on state and individual rights. The newly ratified 14th equal protection aspect runs headlong into what the Feds were doing in the South that they weren't doing in the North.

Response by Lt Col Jim Coe made Feb 9 at 2017 12:55 PM

2017-02-09T12:55:27-05:00

The 14th was intended to guarantee that former slaves, born in the US, were considered citizens. Its later exploitation by illegal aliens to bare children creating a little citizen is unfortunate, but legal. I agree an additional amendment stating "Children born in the US are considered Citizens of the US only if one of their parents, at the time of their birth, is a US Citizen. Congress may make such laws as necessary to enforce this amendment." This puts legal alien residents in a difficult spot and their circumstance may need some accommodation. The child of two Syrian refugee legal aliens born in the US is a citizen of Syria? What if his or her parents never leave the US and become Citizens after 10 or 15 years? Does the child then become a citizen? I would like the amendment to say "at the time of conception", thus admitting that life and Citizenship begins at conception, but I don't think that's politically acceptable. Also, this could create a whole marriage for citizenship of the child industry, so Congress would have to deal with that.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Feb 9 at 2017 5:32 PM

2017-02-09T17:32:11-05:00

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Response by SFC Jim Ruether made Feb 9 at 2017 7:18 PM

2017-02-09T19:18:01-05:00

Yes there should be no anchor babies!

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2017 8:28 PM

2017-02-09T20:28:25-05:00

No. Born in America = American.

Response by PO1 Mac MacIntyre made Apr 27 at 2017 7:13 AM

2017-04-27T07:13:04-04:00

The 14th amendment doesn't say that if you are born in the US you are a citizen, I am not sure where you get your interpretation, but it is incorrect.