But "who may be so born" is qualified by the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." There has been no Supreme Court decision that has held that children born to illegal aliens are citizens. No Congress has legislated such a right. The notion is based an a 1982 dicta by Justice Brennan which has no definitive legal standing.

So it might be possible to strike down current birth-right for children of illegal aliens by executive order since it has not actually been legislated by Congress nor interpreted as constitutional by SCOTUS. Or it may take and Act of Congress, or even an amendment. But Trump is, in his outlandish seeming way, bringing more attention to the common sense need for the change. And if making an order that is challenged in the Court moves the process along to a critical juncture, that's a good thing. Really. Does it make sense to continue to allow illegal aliens the automatic right to citizenship, or even just the right to take advantage of our system simply by giving birth here. Yeah, the parents aren't going to be deported if they have an anchor baby. So they stay, and can bring relatives, etc. Really? Should this even be a question?

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post

"illegals who would be subject to foreign jurisdiction."

But the German parents (and I presume as well the Chinese and gypsies) were legally residing in the U.S. and in Pennsylvania and were subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

There has been no Supreme Court decision that has held that children born to illegal aliens are citizens.

No Congress has legislated such a right.

So it might be possible to strike down current birth-right for children of illegal aliens by executive order since it has not actually been legislated by Congress nor interpreted as constitutional by SCOTUS.

Or it may take and Act of Congress, or even an amendment.

Really. Does it make sense to continue to allow illegal aliens the automatic right to citizenship, or even just the right to take advantage of our system simply by giving birth here.

Should this even be a question?[/QUOTE]





NOT HERE LEGALLY is the clear distinction but useless arguing it with people who will not distinguish between "here legally" and "here illegally"

France did away with birthright citizenship in 1993.

Ireland was the last of the European Union countries to abolish birthright citizenship, in 2005. Through a referendum backed by nearly 80 percent of Irish voters.

Other countries, including New Zealand and Australia, have also abolished their birthright-citizenship laws in recent years.

The latest is the Dominican Republic, whose supreme court ruled to remove the country’s birthright laws in 2013.

China, Japan, Russia, South Korea—grant citizenship strictly on the basis of whether a baby has at least one parent who is a citizen of the country, as opposed to where the baby is born.

this guy in Canada rails agains Trump and Canadian conservatives for approaching the issue and then goes on to admit it's a problem in Canada....he never mentions or differentiates regarding "illegals" other than to say "certain immigrants" should not be scapegoated

"Birth tourism, the practice of foreign women coming to Canada to have their babies merely to obtain a Canadian passport for their offspring, is by all accounts a real and growing problem. Is it a big enough problem to warrant an end to birthright citizenship here?"

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...t-citizenship/

probably safe to assume that laws, rights and privileges such as these are intended for those obeying our laws and not for those not obeying our laws :)

Republican Hypocrisy on 14th Amendment And 2nd Amendment

Trump and company have said a million times they want strict constructionists when it comes to the Constitution. Right? They just want to stick to the texts especially when it comes to the Supreme Court. That's their argument with the Second Amendment about bearing arms. Don't apply it to now and the reality that we have. It only means what it says. And yet now when it comes to the Fourteenth Amendment they want the opposite. Don't look at what the Framers said, look at what it means today. They never envisioned this.

This isn't about changing the Fourteenth Amendment. It's really about reinterpreting in light of a new reality of illegal entrants. 100% correct CP


funny I have already asked this question here ... no answers shocking

wrong. we know that the 14th amendment was crafted to apply to newly freed slaves. period. the senator who wrote the amendment, said it very explicitly when he introduced the amendment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and the 2a was when arms were muskets ... you can't have it both ways are only slaves only mentioned in the 14th amendment ?? if not you have no argument

X2
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

slaves didn't sneak into the country stupid

hey i agree with you that we need some limitations to what’s available. i’m not asking to have it both ways...many conservatives do, i’m not one of them. Fair enough?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The argument is which is correct to use Jus Soli or Jus Sanguin
The Congressional scholars who did the research for Congress disagree with Trump

Historical Development
Jus Soli Doctrine before the Fourteenth Amendment
There are two basic doctrines for determining birthright citizenship. Jus soli is the principle that a person acquires citizenship in a nation by virtue of his birth in that nation or its territorial possessions.2 Jus sanguinis is the principle that a person
acquires the citizenship of his parents, “citizenship of the blood.”3 The English common law tradition prior to the Declaration of Independence, which was the basis of the common law in the original thirteen colonies and which was adopted by most of the states as the precedent for state common law,4 followed the jus soli doctrine.5 Persons born within the dominion of the sovereign and under the protection and ligeance of the sovereign were subjects of the sovereign and citizens of England; this included persons born to “aliens in amity” who owed temporary allegiance to the sovereign while in his territory.6 The exceptions were persons born to members of a hostile occupying force or to diplomats representing another sovereign.7 The reason was that the children of a hostile occupying force did not owe allegiance to nor were born under the protection of the proper sovereign of the occupied territory. The children of diplomats, although enjoying the temporary protection of the sovereign while in his/her dominions, actually owed allegiance to and had a claim to the protection of the sovereign whom their parents represented at the court of the sovereign in whose dominions they were born. All civilized nations recognize and assent to the immunity of foreign diplomats from their jurisdiction, without which a foreign ambassador might not be able to effectively represent the sending sovereign, but it would be “inconvenient and dangerous to society . . . if [private individual aliens] did not owe temporary and local allegiance, and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country.”8
The original framers of the U.S. Constitution did not define citizenship of the United States, although the Constitution required that a person have been a citizen of the United States for seven years to be a Representative and for nine years to be a Senator,9 and that a person be a natural-born citizen or a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution in order to be eligible to be President (and therefore, Vice-President).10 The Naturalization Act of 1790 and subsequent Acts until the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment did not define citizenship by birth within the United States.11 These naturalization acts specified that only free white persons could be naturalized. As a result of the absence of any definition in the Constitution or federal statutes of U.S. citizenship by birth in the United States, citizenship by birth in the United States generally was construed in the context of the English common law.12 This provided the frame of reference and definition of “citizenship” that the framers of the Constitution would have understood and also provided the pre-independence precedent for state common laws. The acquisition of citizenship by birth and by naturalization in the United States depended on state laws, both statutory and common law, until the enactment of the naturalizationlawin1790.13 TheNaturalizationActof1790,enactedpursuanttothe Congress’ powers under the Constitution,14 clearly established the definition of citizenship by naturalization, but Congress’ silence on the issue of citizenship by birth in the United States caused some confusion and disagreement as to what the appropriate definition was. For example, some persons rejected the idea that English common law provided the proper rule for citizenship by birth in the United States.15 And until the Civil War, some eminent jurists and legal scholars believed that there was no real citizenship of the United States separate from citizenship in a state; that is, a person was a citizen of a state which was part of the Union, therefore a person was a citizen of the United States by virtue of his citizenship in a state.16
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is Barron Trunp an Anchor BAby??? Hmmmmm :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there's that and there's also the fact you may have your right to bear arms infringed upon if you commit a crime ...similarly if you break in to the country you and your offspring should not get citizenship, do not pass go and do not collect $100...if you come in by legal means and you want your child to be an American citizen .....that' s perfectly cool..though I'd think you'd want your kids to have the same citizenship as you.... it seems as though some of the socialist utopias around the world have or are working to ban that as well

You are wrong again. "Arms" is a general term applied to all manner of weapons that can be used offensively or defensively. "Arms" at the time of constitutional ratification did not mean "muskets." At that time there were a great variety of arms--knives of all kinds including bayonets, axes, hammers, bow and arrow, spear, cannon, etc. Many types of arms existed throughout history before the Constitution. The term "arms" as used in the Constitution very well defines the weapons of today.

"Slave" is a more specific term, but as used in the Constitution, it would be anyone who is forced to do labor against his will, is not free to come and go at will, and who is held in bondage purely at the will of a master and whose life is in the hands of that master. What was considered a slave then would be considered a slave today.

Wrong again. It is exactly an application of the text "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," not a reinterpretation of it. That phrase was inserted into the 14A separately written from the exclusion of children of various foreign diplomats. Clearly, it is separate from the diplomats and official foreign government representatives. So the phrase encompasses ALL those who in some way are under the jurisdiction of a foreign country, which would include entrants who have not been naturalized.

That same meaning applies today. Naturalization then, as now, did not occur immediately upon entry. Then it was typically a matter of years in residence. Today it also requires some form of official documentation. In neither instance would someone crossing the border without official permission immediately become a citizen. So would still be under the jurisdiction of the country from which they came. So any baby of theirs born in that time before naturalization would be born of those who were not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., but to the jurisdiction of another country, at least until they were naturalized.

This has already been answered. No, he is not an anchor baby