How do Republicans expect this to pass?

[Crunch]

I'm really wondering if this legislation isn't being proposed to serve a larger purpose, as in forcing the SCOTUS to address illegal immigration in regards to the 14th amendment. Barring that, it could open the door to a drive to amend or repeal the 14th amendment.

No need to repeal the 14th if you read what it says with an open mind.

This is the part of the 14th that was perverted to allow anchor babies:

1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Notice the parts I bolded, they are key.

Born or naturalized...... meaning one or the other.

And subject to the jurisdiction thereof..... note that it isn't subject to the jurisdiction therein

So how can someone here illegally be subject to the jurisdiction, or rule of law of the land?

During the debates in Congress Senator Lyman Trumbull cleared up what was meant by jurisdiction in the 14th amendment.

“What do we mean by ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
–Judiciary Committee Chair Senator Lyman Trumbull during the Citizenship Clause debate, 39th Congress, 1st Session (1866)

I think Arizona wants to take this to the Supreme Court…. They would win.

 

[Crunch]

I suppose it is, but it is past time we considered that we need an Amendment that says "children born in the USA with at least one parent who IS a citizen, are natural born citizens."

The anchor-baby loophole needs to be closed.

Read my sig...... why would you want to change the meaning of a term of art?

 

[Moon]

No need to repeal the 14th if you read what it says with an open mind.

This is the part of the 14th that was perverted to allow anchor babies:



The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Notice the parts I bolded, they are key.

Born or naturalized...... meaning one or the other.

And subject to the jurisdiction thereof..... note that it isn't subject to the jurisdiction therein

So how can someone here illegally be subject to the jurisdiction, or rule of law of the land?

During the debates in Congress Senator Lyman Trumbull cleared up what was meant by jurisdiction in the 14th amendment.

“What do we mean by ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
–Judiciary Committee Chair Senator Lyman Trumbull during the Citizenship Clause debate, 39th Congress, 1st Session (1866)

I think Arizona wants to take this to the Supreme Court…. They would win.

I wouldn't say "would".

 

[Crunch]

I wouldn't say "would".

Sorry..... I should have said should. :mrgreen:

 

[Moon]

Sorry..... I should have said should. :mrgreen:

I agree that Arizona should win, but I don't take anything for granted. The point I was trying to make is that their intent might be to force the issue one way or another.

 

[American]

No need to repeal the 14th if you read what it says with an open mind.

This is the part of the 14th that was perverted to allow anchor babies:



The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Notice the parts I bolded, they are key.

Born or naturalized...... meaning one or the other.

And subject to the jurisdiction thereof..... note that it isn't subject to the jurisdiction therein

So how can someone here illegally be subject to the jurisdiction, or rule of law of the land?

During the debates in Congress Senator Lyman Trumbull cleared up what was meant by jurisdiction in the 14th amendment.

“What do we mean by ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
–Judiciary Committee Chair Senator Lyman Trumbull during the Citizenship Clause debate, 39th Congress, 1st Session (1866)

I think Arizona wants to take this to the Supreme Court…. They would win.

I think this was the intent all along, they just didn't say. The AZ legislature knew all along that the Fed govt would get involved. I think it's part of the plan. If the Executive Branch doesn't want to take care of this, they'll let the Judiciary Branch take it on.

 

[Zyphlin]

No need to repeal the 14th if you read what it says with an open mind.

This is the part of the 14th that was perverted to allow anchor babies:

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Notice the parts I bolded, they are key.

Born or naturalized...... meaning one or the other.

And subject to the jurisdiction thereof..... note that it isn't subject to the jurisdiction therein

So how can someone here illegally be subject to the jurisdiction, or rule of law of the land?

During the debates in Congress Senator Lyman Trumbull cleared up what was meant by jurisdiction in the 14th amendment.

“What do we mean by ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
–Judiciary Committee Chair Senator Lyman Trumbull during the Citizenship Clause debate, 39th Congress, 1st Session (1866)

I think Arizona wants to take this to the Supreme Court…. They would win.

I disagree...

First, yes, there is an "or". Meaning the individual doesn't need to be born AND nautralized, but simply needs to be one of the two. Anchor babies fit into the "born" portion.

Second, regarding jurisdiction, this is up for interpritation. Some countries, like Mexico, state that being born outside of the country to a citizen still makes the child a citizen. Other countries do not. For countries that don't, then the child is not a citizen of another country and thus doesn't have other alliegances. Additionally, to suggest that individuals within our borders do not fall under our jurisdiction would be stating that non-citizens are free to commit crimes without action taken against them within our borders, which is false. As such a legitiamte argument could be made that while in this country they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

I don't think its as slam dunk and simple as you make it out to be

 

[Rightwingnutjob]

I read the first couple of pages before getting irritated enough to reply. How does it make sense to allow an ILLEGAL citizen--a person not recognized by the United States--to have a child here and have it become a legal citizen? Now on the 14th...

The 14th Ammendment:

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
------------------------------------------------------------

The bolded part seems to indicate that we can, in fact, declare anchor babies as non-citizens. Now whether due process means an amendment or something else can be discussed.

 

[wbreese91]

I read the first couple of pages before getting irritated enough to reply. How does it make sense to allow an ILLEGAL citizen--a person not recognized by the United States--to have a child here and have it become a legal citizen? Now on the 14th...

The 14th Ammendment:

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
------------------------------------------------------------

The bolded part seems to indicate that we can, in fact, declare anchor babies as non-citizens. Now whether due process means an amendment or something else can be discussed.

The bolded part is the wrong part to consider.

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.

The first sentence is all you need. The due process and equal protection clause do in fact say that people can be prosecuted in court, but the Constitution clearly switches from "citizen" to "person" in this section, indicated that all people within our borders must recieve due process and equal protection. More over the priveledges and immunities clause would indicate that the children of illegal immigrants, be Constitutional citizens of the United States are entitled to all the rights that entails, including a jury trial before any action is taken against them.

 

[Crunch]

The 14th Ammendment:

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you read the bolded part as "jurisdition" meaning "within the borders of the United States", you must leave that part out of the section or it would read...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and all persons born in the United States , are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Obviously, "jurisdiction" means something else, and that something else is being subject to our laws and under our laws..... being here Illegally doesn't meet the requirement.

 

[Nacas]

If you read the bolded part as "jurisdition" meaning "within the borders of the United States", you must leave that part out of the section or it would read...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and all persons born in the United States , are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Obviously, "jurisdiction" means something else, and that something else is being subject to our laws and under our laws..... being here Illegally doesn't meet the requirement.

I would actually consider the jurisdiction clause more as being for areas in the US not subject to it's full laws, i.e. foreign embassy or reservations. The later case being why the Indian Citizenship Act was needed in the first place.

 

[tlmorg02]

I would agree. Because of the clarity of the 14th Amendment, even though creating "anchor babies" was not it's intent, the only solution I can see is to Amend the Constitution.

Any amendment to the constitution is going to be a far stretch as Latino's make a very large voting block now.