Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogerbh
So how would you interpret section 1 of the 14th Amendment in terms of how it should apply to anchor babies?
|
In my opinion, I wouldn’t apply it to the anchor baby situation at all.
In the Elk case I referenced in a previous post, 16 years after this passed, it was deemed that it didn’t even cover Native Americans. People who had been here since the dawn of time weren’t even covered by the amendment. It’s a stretch to believe that the intent was to allow anyone successfully playing “Catch Me If You Can” with border agents to sneak in, have a child, and be granted citizenship. I just can’t get there.
The Elk decision went on to say:
“The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black ... should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside."
And
"No one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent."
This was about freed slaves. Not illegals. Not even Native Americans. There have been several such ‘interpretations’ over the years, and not being a skilled law clerk, I can’t find them all. I’m not sure when this was bastardized to include illegals, but I’m sure it’s out there, along with further rebuke about that being its intent.
It really doesn’t matter. Under the current administration, the southern border is an open floodgate. Nothing stopping anyone from coming in, nothing making them leave. Even the repeat felons. Deportations in America are at a 10 year low (according to the Associated Press).
As long as this is the case, interpretation of the 14th Amendment is largely academic.