Quote:
Originally Posted by Cool Beans
It matters not one whit, what the lot of liberals on here believe... This will end up in front of the Supreme Court and they will read and clarify the simple words of the 14th amendment and reinstate it as it was written and enforced up until the 1960s when it was used to increase the draw for immigrants to come to the US, in my belief to increase a permanent lower class of democrat voters. US law clearly states concerning the 14th Amendment that babies born of valid diplomats or ambassadors within the US are not eligible for citizenship. It also stated that the 14th did not apply to native American Indians. The southern states did not want freed slaves to have full citizenship, so the 14th Amendment was crafted to ensure they would be given full citizenship. Please research this and understand that Trump is not trying to change the Amendment, he is attempting to enforce it as written. Not unlike our immigration laws, when prior leaders chose not to enforce the law, and when a leader finally decides to enforce the law, he in NO WAY is changing the law.
|
I did research this.
He is trying to change the amendment and ignoring the written record of the original debate surrounding the issue.
This is from Congressional Research Service, a part of the Library of Congress
The Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866
Although the primary aim was to secure citizenship for African-Americans,
the
debates on the citizenship provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the
Fourteenth Amendment indicate that they were intended to extend U.S. citizenship
to all persons born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction regardless of
race, ethnicity or alienage of the parents. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 declared that
“all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding
Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”31 The
Fourteenth Amendment declared that “[a]ll 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.”32 The Civil Rights Act of 1866 differs from the
Fourteenth Amendment by using the terms “not subject to any foreign power” and
“excluding Indians not taxed.”
During the debates on the act, Senator Trumbull of Illinois, chairman of the
committee that reported the civil rights bill, moved to amend the bill so that the first
sentence read, “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign
power, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States without distinction of
color.”33 Senator Cowan of Pennsylvania, who opposed both the Civil Rights Act of
1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment, asked “whether it will not have the effect of
naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?” Senator
Trumbull replied, “Undoubtedly.” The two disagreed as to whether, under the law
in existence prior to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, ChineseAmericans
were citizens of the United States. Cowan raised the specter of unfettered
Chinese immigration to California, resulting effectively in something tantamount to
a takeover of California by the Chinese empire, if the proposed language were
adopted.
Trumbull asked Cowan whether the children born in Pennsylvania to
German parents were not U.S. citizens, to which Cowan replied that Germans were
not Chinese, Australians or Hottentots or the like. Trumbull replied that the law
made no distinction between the children of Germans and Asiatics “and the child of
an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European.” Later in the debates,
Senator Johnson of Maryland urged Senator Trumbull to delete the phrase “without
distinction of color” because it was unnecessary since even without the phrase he
understood that Trumbull’s proposed amendment “comprehends all persons, without
any reference to race or color, who may be so born.” Trumbull felt that it was better
to retain the phrase to eliminate any doubt or dispute as to the meaning of his
amendment.34