In most every other country on the planet only citizens can beget citizens. This was known full well back when the country was founded, and it is known today. It took the first 35 years or so before the first "Natural" citizens were eligible to become President, and any time since then citizenship was and is only eligible to those who go through some sort of naturalization process. Crossing a border and squirting out a child has not EVER been enough, and the people arguing otherwise know it as well.
The 14th was written to ensure citizenship of children of the slaves, and the slaves themselves, after slavery was outlawed, and the Democrat South tried to claim the Negroes were not citizens.
It has served its purpose. The 14th should either be repealed completely, or modified to read that children born to 2 US citizens are citizens no matter where born, and children born to ONE US citize4n and a foreign national are to chose their citizenship upon reaching their 18th birthday - either that of the father or that of the mother. Children LEGALLY brought to the US by their LEGAL IMMIGRANT parents are to chose their citizenship upon reaching their 18th birthday.
It is amazing how far the Democratic Party has shifted over the years. Read the Barbara Jordan report on Immigration from the Clinton Era. It sounds more extreme than President Trump's policies.
Remember Senator Harry Reid, Democratic Party Senate Leader?
Senator Harry Reid has certainly changed his opinion on Illegal Aliens since 1993.
Mr. Reid also made sure that the basis of birthright citizenship, the foundation of the 14th Amendment, was “clarified” - ending citizenship for babies of immigrants who were in the United States illegally.
The bill also featured a broad array of tough-on-illegals provisions that would make Mr. Reid’s liberal Senate allies blanch. These included reforming asylum laws so illegal aliens could not use fraudulent asylum claims as a ticket to legal status, harsher penalties for not leaving the United States when ordered, and the addition of alien smuggling as a crime listed under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
In support of his bill, Mr. Reid sounded like a common-sense Republican: “In response to increased terrorism and abuse of social programs by aliens, [I] today introduced the first and only comprehensive immigration reform bill in Congress. Currently, an alien living illegally in the United States often pays no taxes but receives unemployment, welfare, free medical care, and other federal benefits. Recent terrorist acts, including the World Trade Center bombing, have underscored the need to keep violent criminals out of the country.”
“subject to the jurisdiction thereof“ and what that really means.
Are they "subject" to the draft? (if they were male)
Jurisdiction in this case seems to be in reference to loyalty or attachment to the country (not just economic benefit)
The other key part of the SCOTUS ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) is that his parents were long time legal residents of the US.
In my mind the ruling applies only to (legal) immigrants, but excludes non-immigrants such as tourists and illegal aliens.
As hazard goes, this is one of the most serious threats to our society. Once the baby is born a citizen the parents, siblings, and more remote relatives are entitled to fast-track their way over here. It’s a multiplier.
The other issue is that we are an open society that votes for leadership and with enough votes you can take over without firing a shot (viz. NYC).
I would expand that to legal permanent residents, since we do not want a situation with a permanent (multi-generational) second class of non-citizens in the USA.
I want to agree with you, as I'm 200% against birthright citizenship. The problem is defining subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Those of us who agree with you define it as being here legally in one form or another. That's not how some on SCOTUS define it, wherein they say "If you can be arrested for violating a law, you are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That changes the whole thing. I'm concerned there are too few Supremes who agree with us to get it done.
In most every other country on the planet only citizens can beget citizens. This was known full well back when the country was founded, and it is known today. It took the first 35 years or so before the first "Natural" citizens were eligible to become President, and any time since then citizenship was and is only eligible to those who go through some sort of naturalization process. Crossing a border and squirting out a child has not EVER been enough, and the people arguing otherwise know it as well.
Lawyers are paid to find loopholes and exploit them.
Lawyers are elected to Congress.
Our laws are full of Swiss cheese holes. 🤷♂️
At this point I'm tending towards the Heinlein approach: citizenship must be earned even if you are born here.
The 14th was written to ensure citizenship of children of the slaves, and the slaves themselves, after slavery was outlawed, and the Democrat South tried to claim the Negroes were not citizens.
It has served its purpose. The 14th should either be repealed completely, or modified to read that children born to 2 US citizens are citizens no matter where born, and children born to ONE US citize4n and a foreign national are to chose their citizenship upon reaching their 18th birthday - either that of the father or that of the mother. Children LEGALLY brought to the US by their LEGAL IMMIGRANT parents are to chose their citizenship upon reaching their 18th birthday.
It is amazing how far the Democratic Party has shifted over the years. Read the Barbara Jordan report on Immigration from the Clinton Era. It sounds more extreme than President Trump's policies.
Remember Senator Harry Reid, Democratic Party Senate Leader?
Senator Harry Reid has certainly changed his opinion on Illegal Aliens since 1993.
Mr. Reid also made sure that the basis of birthright citizenship, the foundation of the 14th Amendment, was “clarified” - ending citizenship for babies of immigrants who were in the United States illegally.
The bill also featured a broad array of tough-on-illegals provisions that would make Mr. Reid’s liberal Senate allies blanch. These included reforming asylum laws so illegal aliens could not use fraudulent asylum claims as a ticket to legal status, harsher penalties for not leaving the United States when ordered, and the addition of alien smuggling as a crime listed under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.
In support of his bill, Mr. Reid sounded like a common-sense Republican: “In response to increased terrorism and abuse of social programs by aliens, [I] today introduced the first and only comprehensive immigration reform bill in Congress. Currently, an alien living illegally in the United States often pays no taxes but receives unemployment, welfare, free medical care, and other federal benefits. Recent terrorist acts, including the World Trade Center bombing, have underscored the need to keep violent criminals out of the country.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/13/reids-unrepentant-immigration-hypocrisy/
“subject to the jurisdiction thereof“ and what that really means.
Are they "subject" to the draft? (if they were male)
Jurisdiction in this case seems to be in reference to loyalty or attachment to the country (not just economic benefit)
The other key part of the SCOTUS ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) is that his parents were long time legal residents of the US.
In my mind the ruling applies only to (legal) immigrants, but excludes non-immigrants such as tourists and illegal aliens.
As hazard goes, this is one of the most serious threats to our society. Once the baby is born a citizen the parents, siblings, and more remote relatives are entitled to fast-track their way over here. It’s a multiplier.
The other issue is that we are an open society that votes for leadership and with enough votes you can take over without firing a shot (viz. NYC).
I agree with you fully
Citizenship must only be granted to children born to citizens.
I would expand that to legal permanent residents, since we do not want a situation with a permanent (multi-generational) second class of non-citizens in the USA.
I want to agree with you, as I'm 200% against birthright citizenship. The problem is defining subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Those of us who agree with you define it as being here legally in one form or another. That's not how some on SCOTUS define it, wherein they say "If you can be arrested for violating a law, you are subject to the jurisdiction thereof. That changes the whole thing. I'm concerned there are too few Supremes who agree with us to get it done.