14th Amendment, Section 1, passed 1866 "All 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." I clearly didn't understand all the details of this. I mean, the 14th was clear and couldn't be misinterpreted and there was a loophole allowing illegals to obtain citizenship to happen...right? Wrong! The meat of the problem is 'Birthright Citizenship. "There are two ways for a person to acquire birthright citizenship. Under the doctrine of “jus soli” (right of soil), a person acquires citizenship in a country by being born in that country or its territorial possessions. Under the doctrine of “jus sanguinis” (right of blood), a person acquires the citizenship of his parents at birth." Many legal scholars believe the 14th doesn't apply to illegals. Why? The ruling of the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, a person born of Chinese immigrants while in America building the railroads, whose family later returned to China, has been the justification for those who support illegal immigrant birthright citizenship. Wong Kim Ark, upon adulthood returned to America and the court agreed he was indeed an American citizen; however, "the case was decided 125 years ago, when federal law didn’t limit immigration, so there were no undocumented immigrant parents when that decision was rendered — or when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed (1866), for that matter." This is the bone of contention; the legal reason scholars believe the 14th is not being applied correctly, because there were no immigrant parents who were living unlawfully in the United States at the time of that ruling - period. So, people who are illegally here should NOT fall under the 14th and be given the same treatment of our Constitution simply because it does not apply to them. Trump took a shot with his Executive Order, to stop this and it got shot down immediately by the courts, which I am positive now he knew would happen. Why? Because he wants to it to go to the Supreme Court for ruling so he is following due process which he can ensure will be completed in his 4-year term. Brillant! Okay, now I get it! Now, I understand...furthermore, I believe the Supreme Court will indeed stop this abuse of the 14th...the sooner the better. A bit of extra information... "Only 33 countries have unrestricted jus soli birthright citizenship. Other countries recognize jus soli birthright citizenship in special circumstances. But in the vast majority of countries, citizenship at birth is determined by the citizenship of the parents." Looking at the attached map, roughly about 50% of countries throughout the world have Birthright citizenship. However, remember of these only 33 countries unrestricted birthright citizenship in the entire world and notice where they are, North and South America. Why? Specifically, the European Powers used the law to grow their colonies and to overpower the native populations. birthright-citizenship-map.jpg (1276×1071) Why birthright citizenship may not apply to children of undocumented immigrants
Courts may have to actually define legal vs illegal aliens.If a person is here on a tourist visa, it is one thing, but what about a green card? Or an Indian citizen working legally with a wife here legally? They have a child here. Is he an Indian national or a us citizen. If they become citizens, is he already one or does he have to be processed as they are? What about people who are here as refugees? They have a legal status, but what are their children? If you are an actor making a movie and have a legal work permit, have a child with an actress with a legal work permit, is the child a US citizen? It is not an open and shut case. There are going to be many decisions in the courts before all the limits are figured out. We may agree that coming into the US for 3 days to have a child is pushing the law, but if you have a legal right to be here? No simple answer. Simple question is to even define citizen, person on a pathway leading to citizen status, legal alien national residing in the US, illegal alien national residing in the US, transient alien nationals. Then there is the question of the above status as one permitted parent and one unpermitted parent with a child and if they were born in the US, on foreign US space, ie military base, ect, or outside the US. And a very right view of the 14 th. It does however list most of the legal arguments for and against the amendment. http://patriotsandtyrants.org/SCOTUS/Born_in_Despotism.pdf Recent changes in the German law indicate how they handle the problem and also to the impact that the new left has had on the ruling. You can be a communist, but not gender specific and become a German citizen! New citizenship law turning point for Turks in Germany Regan reforms in immigration lead to "stricter job controls" and granted about 3 million at least a path citizenship. It failed to reform the work place and just encouraged another 30 million to be in the right place the next time we had immigration "reform". In the long run it has been a total failure.
I believe that Birthright Citizenship ONLY applies to those of parents LEAGALLY here in the United States, and NOT to those born of parents ILLEAGALLY here! THIS is the question SCOTUS Must Answer, and in that, the whole thing gets settled once and for all! These so called "Dreamers" need to STFU and be ready to leave, just because they were born here, doesn't automatically grant them citizenship rights and protections at all, NOPE, if your folks broke the law by crossing the border and then failed to show up for court to plead for immigration papers and start the process to becoming a citizen, then GTFO!
Lots of good questions, Duane. I won't try to research all of them, but I can answer one from personal knowledge. A Green Card holder residing here is not a US citizen (must wait 5 years then apply for citizenship); however, under the 14th, the child born here is automatically a US citizen. Now, that doesn't make the parents automatically citizens, they still must go through the citizenship process...which more or less is rubber stamped at that point. I actually have a good friend, a Russian woman, that this happened. However, there is a HUGE difference since the Green Card holders are here legally and have followed the immigration process. A Green Card is nothing more than a permanent residence card that allows you to live and work here. You can get what is called an ITIN in place of an SSN so you can work...and pay taxes (of course). After Five years of residing in the states, you can apply for citizenship. Some people never apply for citizenship (like grandparents). They simply use the Green Card to visit their family here and reside much of the time in another country. I seem to remember you must live so many days out of a calendar year in the states to retain your Green Card status but would have to look it up the exact number. The Green Card is the path to citizenship, it does not grant citizenship. For example, an American soldier marries his foreign sweetheart, and he brings her home. She has a Green Card. She is not a citizen, not until she goes through the process...BTW as long as she remains married to him for 2 years, she can then walk away from him and retain her Green Card status. Seen that happen before too! 2 years and 1 day and she packed her bags and left! LOL! I don't know about a child born here while on a work visa...but I do know by law that while the child is automatically an American citizen, it cannot sponsor you until it is 21 years old, and the birth doesn't make the parents citizens but...I would bet, like illegals having a baby here, the USCIS will find a way to allow them to stay.
The 14th Amendment was originally written to give citizenship to newly freed slaves, and later to Hispanics in the West Chinese and American Indians. Millions of European immigrants also benefitted from birthright citizenship. However, like many things the court might need to revisit this and maybe twike it a little. I can't believe that the Founding Fathers intended for someone, anyone to enter the county illegally, squat down, squirt out a kid and claim US Citizenship and all of the rights and benefits that entails.
Beat me to the keyboard on that one, @Wildbilly. The intent of the 14th amendment was never to allow illegals to come here and have anchor babies. Democrats use that as an argument for not splitting up families, which means mom, dad, brother, sister, cousin, aunt, uncle and grandparent illegals all suddenly have some kind of a right to stay here by extension, according to them.
I think the 14th Amendment is actually okay. The problem is how it is applied. It does not apply to illegals - period. Why this hasn't made it to the USSC yet in all these years for determination is beyond me, but it can be laid at the politicians' feet - every damn one of them. A huge majority of them have done nothing to resolve the major problems of this nation except kick the can down the road, letting the problem(s) grow larger and larger. Changing the 14th is a huge deal and would take a lot of years. First you need 2/3 in both Houses to pass it then you need 3/4 of the states to ratify it. Hell, our politicians can't even agree how many genders there are... The statistics are spotty, it's nothing but a best guess, but the Center for Immigration Studies estimate ~250,000 anchor babies for 2023. That is a massive number that could be eliminated immediately with a ruling from the USSC. How Many Births to Illegal Immigrants?: A Preliminary Estimate @Altoidfishfins "Democrats use that as an argument for not splitting up families, which means mom, dad, brother, sister, cousin, aunt, uncle and grandparent illegals all suddenly have some kind of a right to stay here by extension, according to them." Yes, that is exactly right. By law, a family member who is here legally can only sponsor an immediate blood relative. So, you could sponsor your sister, brother, mother or father, son or daughter NOT an uncle, aunt, nephew or niece. How these USCIS creeps can circumvent the law is beyond me.
IMO the SC needs to clarify what it means --the 1889 review did not foresee the wave of illegal aliens evading our country just to drop a kid and get the entire extended family in. IMO the conservative court will over rule this blanket anchor baby insanity. No other country on this planet does this
There is nothing inherently wrong with the 14th, rather the language doesn't include certain things which the lefties use to make it legal, which is is not! The issue here is the illegal status, the 14th envisioned people seeking citizenship and the process to which they could apply for it, NOT simply allowing people to come here and drop anchor and say here I am, gimmy gimmi gimmi! This is where we have the hang-up, the forefathers didn't contemplate a mass of people coming here un checked, is saw only a "Port Of Entry" that would handle any arrivals and settle the issues before entry was granted, it also assumes any applicants would actually follow the laws and appear for any hearing dealing with their immigrant status moving forward! It never for saw what we have today, nor did it include any mecinisism to handle such as it is today!
I think the battle for arguing validity of the 14th Amendment is a brilliant smokescreen to allow the Patriots and Maga movement to effectively shut down the border. The key to understanding all of this is not to get caught up in whether the 14th even applies to the current situation, but to address the very real threat to our border security to begin with. In other words, if we actually had a fully functioning immigration/naturalization system and properly controlled border security, there wouldn't even be an issue. And this is the genius I speak of. By making this a legal battle, it proves there's an actual emergency in the first place. And if anybody reads anything I've posted through the years, an emergency warrants the rule of necessity to be invoked. If I'm correct, the POTUS does have the supreme authority to make the call on this without legal interference. We will see how this all plays out, but maybe I am giving them too much credit. And just to clarify, the rule of necessity is precisely how the FDR New Deal came into being, how every form of government we know today that sprang up from the Great Depression followed. Almost every part of what transpired was unconstitutional, but FDR asked for the power and Congress gave it to him...and those powers have never waned. That's right, EWP in full force, just as I've explained on this forum before. Did anybody take notice to the first actions of the last handful of Presidents? They are signing Executive Orders, making Proclamations. These are not ordinary activities for a Constitutional Republic. This is what happens only under Emergency War Powers, the rule of necessity must be applied. Lincoln was the first to use such authority, and it has continued to expand through time. If it's too much to handle, think of it this way -we are exchanging one dictator for another every 4 to 8 years. This is what the pattern proves. Now, I think most of us can agree that Trump has no intention of being a dictator, I'm merely saying the powers afforded the President (USCA Title 12, Section 95(b) TWEA as amended from March 6, 1933) exist and will continue to exist... On another note, and more closely to the subject at hand, tightening our border and beefing up the border patrol and maintaining 'Remain In Mexico' and other policies will do far more than any alteration to the 14th Amendment. After all, the radical leftists do not care about LAW, they never cared about it, they ignore every legality and do whatever the hell they want, just as every radical extremist in history has proven. But, if we can build a wall, tighten security to the point where most Americans accept the change, it will be much harder for the next radical leftist coup to tear it all down. This is why I think the battle for altering the 14th is a diversion to take the heat off the southern border agenda, or at the very least -to grant it legitimacy in the form of an emergency.
I think in addition to birthright citizenship due to blood I believe children of green card holders that are born in the US should get citizenship as well as children of immigrants here on long term work visas (years) that are in the process of getting their green card. no citizenship for the children of illegals or the children of people here on student, tourist or other temporary visas. also i say send the “dreamers” who’s parents brought them over as citizens back to the country of their birth. Now if they have grraduated highschool here in the US and never had legal issues while here I would not prohibit them from applying for a immigrant or work visa in the future. People who we forcefully deport should be banned for life.
Exactly, if Trump handles it correctly, declares it to be a National Emergency, or National Security Issue, Game Over, NO COURT challenge will stand against that, PERIOD! They can rant and rave like the lunatics they are, but NOPE, even SCOTUS has Zero authority over that, Game Over! So, who blinks first, the States already suing, or Trump who has every intention of seeing this through to the very end!
Here, read from a folks more knowledgeable than us on constitutional law: Birthright Citizenship: Game On! https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2741&context=lawreview https://www.claremont.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/CCJ-Amicus_Hamdi-v_-Rumsfeld1-1.pdf Birthright Citizenship: A Response to My Critics - Claremont Review of Books https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...0e2998-8912-11e8-85ae-511bc1146b0b_story.html x.com
The so-called 14th amendment was never properly ratified either. In the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968), the Utah Supreme Court recited numerous historical facts proving, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the so‑called 14th amendment was likewise a major fraud upon the American People. Those facts, in many cases, were Acts of the several State Legislatures voting for or against that proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Law Library has a collection of references detailing this major fraud. The U.S. Constitution requires that constitutional amendments be ratified by three-fourths of the several States. As such, their Acts are governed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution. See Article IV, Section 1. Judging by the sheer amount of litigation its various sections have generated, particularly Section 1, the so‑called 14th amendment is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written in American history. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” is properly understood to mean “subject to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress.” (See Answer to Question 19 below.) For this one reason alone, the Congressional Resolution proposing the so-called 14th amendment is provably vague and therefore unconstitutional. See 14 Stat. 358-359, Joint Resolution No. 48, June 16, 1866. 19. What is municipal law, and are the IRC’s income tax provisions municipal law, or not? Answer: Yes. The IRC’s income tax provisions are municipal law. Municipal law is law that is enacted to govern the internal affairs of a sovereign State; in legal circles, it is also known as Private International Law. Under American Law, it has a much wider meaning than the ordinances enacted by the governing body of a municipality, i.e. city council or county board of supervisors. In fact, American legal encyclopedias define “municipal” to mean “internal”, and for this reason alone, the Internal Revenue Code is really a Municipal Revenue Code. A mountain of additional evidence has now been assembled and published in the book “The Federal Zone” to prove that the IRC’s income tax provisions are municipal law. One of the most famous pieces of evidence is a letter from a Connecticut Congresswoman, summarizing the advice of legal experts employed by the Congressional Research Service and the Legislative Counsel. Their advice confirmed that the meaning of “State” at IRC section 3121(e) is restricted to the named territories and possessions of D.C., Guam, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico. In other words, the term “State” in that statute, and in all similar federal statutes, includes ONLY the places expressly named, and no more. The pertinent court cases have defined the term “United States” in these Clauses to mean “States United”, and the full term means “Citizen of ONE OF the States United”. See People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870); Judge Pablo De La Guerra signed the California Constitution of 1849, when California first joined the Union. Similar terms are found in the Diversity Clause at Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, and in the Privileges and Immunities Clause at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1. Prior to the Civil War, there was only one (1) class of Citizens under American Law. See the holding in Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914‑915 (1918), for definitive authority on this key point. The second class originates in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, where the term “citizen of the United States” is used. This Act was later codified at 42 U.S.C. 1983. Notice the lower-case “c” in “citizen”. The pertinent court cases have held that Congress thereby created a municipal franchise primarily for members of the Negro race, who were freed by President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation (a war measure), and later by the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery and involuntary servitude. Compelling payment of a “tax” for which there is no liability statute is tantamount to involuntary servitude, and extortion. Instead of using the unique term “federal citizen”, as found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, it is now clear that the Radical Republicans who sponsored the 1866 Civil Rights Act were attempting to confuse these two classes of citizens. Then, they attempted to elevate this second class to constitutional status, by proposing a 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As we now know, that proposal was never ratified. (See Answer to Question 6 above.) Numerous court cases have struggled to clarify the important differences between the two classes. One of the most definitive, and dispositive cases, is Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914‑915 (1918), which clearly held that federal citizens had no standing to sue under the Diversity Clause, because they were not even contemplated when Article III in the U.S. Constitution was first being drafted, circa 1787 A.D. Another is Ex parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855) in which the California Supreme Court ruled that there was no such thing as a “citizen of the United States” (as of the year 1855 A.D.). Only federal citizens have standing to invoke 42 U.S.C. 1983; whereas State Citizens do not. See Wadleigh v. Newhall, 136 F. 941 (C.C. Cal. 1905). Many more cases can be cited to confirm the existence of two classes of citizens under American Law. These cases are thoroughly documented in the book entitled “The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue” by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., now in its eleventh edition. See also the pleadings in the case of USA v. Gilbertson, also in the Supreme Law Library. LINK: 31 Questions and Answers about the IRS, Revision 3.4
