The US Constitution (not the ship)

[Rogerbh]

Eh, not sure I agree. When it comes to babies the courts look to the best interest of the baby, not the intent of the parents. Can't see a US court saying that being a US citizen is not in the best interest of the baby. (When I say intent of the parents, I am thinking of cases where the parents agree that one parent doesn't have to do much financially and the courts throw out this agreement and force the parents into whatever financial arrangements the court deem are in the best interest of the baby.)

[Decadence]

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.

[Rogerbh]

Elk (an American Indian) was denied US citizenship because he owed immediate allegiance to his tribes, and they were not considered part of the people of the United States at that time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_v._Wilkins He was deemed not meeting the "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US part of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship This analysis seems to indicate that the 14th Amendment does not grant automatic citizenship to babies born in the US and seems to interpret the "subject to the jurisdiction" as pertaining to the parent's foreign country - not as my plain reading of the section seems to indicate - to the baby.

Congress is supposedly working on this issue - in regards to changing the automatic issuance of citizenship to children born in the US of foreign parents.

[savage560]

Originally Posted by Rogerbh

http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship This analysis seems to indicate that the 14th Amendment does not grant automatic citizenship to babies born in the US and seems to interpret the "subject to the jurisdiction" as pertaining to the parent's foreign country - not as my plain reading of the section seems to indicate - to the baby.
Congress is supposedly working on this issue - in regards to changing the automatic issuance of citizenship to children born in the US of foreign parents.

This is what has been indicated by one of the GOP candidates for US president.I won't mention his name because most here do not consider him a serious candidate ,only very few here.After looking at the wording of the 14th, & believe you me, I am far from a scholar on interpritations, or have any legal training on this issue,but IMO ,I can see why this amendment may not grant legal citizenship to women's children born here, if the said women who give birth here to children,who have not immigrated here legally?Or even come here to take advantage of the "jus soli" right in this country.

Canada ,I believe recently has looked into clarification of this,"citizenship definition", by visiting of women that practice "birther tourism",to even to exclude women who visit Canada legally,for the sole purpose of giving birth to anchor babies on Canadian soil, & the children may not automatically given citizenship.Nor illegal immigrant women there who give birth in Canada can claim, their children are entitled to Canadian citizenship, in most cases, if they were ,or are successful in the future,to change their "birther" issue law?

http://www.cicnews.com/2014/08/gover...on-083672.html

It appears a few nations already clarified this "birth tourism" issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism

IMO & there is only "one" Candidate here would challenge the "jus soli" interpretation of the 14th amendment.Even if this has to be clarified by an addendum to this archaic amendment,as most constitutional amendments & statements, are out dated by modern times & vague in interpritations, due to a changing world,some times 200 years into future , laws can be reworked to adjust to our new WW society , & those who take advantage of these archaic laws,that need to be delved into,for the sake of retaining our status as a Nation,by definition, of boarders,language,culture, & laws.

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

[apocalypse666]

Don't know how it could be clearer...14th amendment was not written to address American Indians, but disenfranchised slaves who were emancipated, this bestowed on them citizenship. If they wanted birthright citizenship, they would have left out "and, subject to the jurisdiction thereof"...and i this case, jurisdiction does not mean geography, but whether they have allegiance to America. Sen. Jacob Howard included that clause, and by it he meant that they were "not subject to any foreign power" and not "Indians not taxed." He also stated in the debates that that excludes “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." I think therefore that children of illegals should be excluded, don't you? And even if it is not clear, Congress has the ultimate say under Article 1 Section 8 clause 4.

[knobby109]

Hang on , isn't the nationality of a baby defined by International Law ?
I'm not sure what is meant by "Illegals" .....to the original inhabitants of the country all incomers are illegals.And looking at how some states became part of the US it looks like the pot calling the kettle black.

[Dr Pepper]

Originally Posted by savage560

It appears a few nations already clarified this "birth tourism" issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism

NZ altered our laws a few years back to stop this 'birth tourism' nonsense-which was becoming an increasing problem at the time. Round about the same time-or possibly as part of the same law review-they tightened up considerably the laws on citizenship for migrants-now requiring residency for a minimum of 5 years before eligibility for NZ citizenship. This was driven quite noticeably by the 'trans Tasman rort' problem whereby migrants rejected by Australia would settle in NZ for the minimum period (2-3 years)-obtain NZ citizenship and a NZ passport and then emigrate to Australia without restriction under the existing-and still extant- visa free entry.

Needless to say the Australians weren't happy-and I for one do not blame them in the slightest-and things got very heated at very high levels (behind closed doors!) resulting in a raft of immigration law changes. NZ was seen then as a soft touch-much the way Europe is seen at present. Things are a lot tighter now-and should probably be made a lot tighter still....

[savage560]

Just heard a couple of days ago about how T. Jefferson wrote a treatise, that he believed a "constitutional convention" should be held every 20 years or so, so it the US Constitution keeps up with current times.For the purpose to be amended or revised!Isn't that interesting, a founding father was being more progressive than the conservative stiffs of today, in not admitting nothing should be done to this document, because it was written not by mortals ,but by the gods!Which he knew wasn't true in the least!Obviously because he had the foresight to realize that mores & conditions change, so do the needs of the citizenry & the nations changing conditions. Not one that has vague constitutional wording, on certain issues,that has not kept up with modern societies needs, or the abilities to keep a nation with rational laws & the ability to keep its sovereignty .Also amendments that can be ambiguous, can be clarified ,hey like the 14th, can be spelled out so the insanity of anchor babies will no longer be an issue!

[savage560]

The 14th amendment must be clarified.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ9JNKuCR6k

[LadyLuck]

Originally Posted by savage560

Just heard a couple of days ago about how T. Jefferson wrote a treatise, that he believed a "constitutional convention" should be held every 20 years or so, so it the US Constitution keeps up with current times.For the purpose to be amended or revised!Isn't that interesting, a founding father was being more progressive than the conservative stiffs of today,

What purpose would a Constitutional convention held every twenty years really serve in this day and age if the same mechanisms for amending the Constitution are still in effect? Think about the time in which Jefferson lived versus today. We have a twenty four hour news cycle. News and information can spread around the globe almost in real time with radio and television and the internet. In his day the idea made sense. It would have provided people with an opportunity to convene and share ideas. Technology has rendered that point moot.