Question to those who want to change the 14th amendment

[Slartibartfast]

More specifically section 1

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If someone is born in this country, but their parents are illegal, currently they are citizens, under this amendment. For those who wish to change the 14th amendment to not confer automatic citizenship, what should we do with the stateless people that result? If they are not citizens of any country, where would you send them?

 

[MaggieD]

More specifically section 1

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If someone is born in this country, but their parents are illegal, currently they are citizens, under this amendment. For those who wish to change the 14th amendment to not confer automatic citizenship, what should we do with the stateless people that result? If they are not citizens of any country, where would you send them?

They'd folllow the citizenship of their parents or parent,

 

[Slartibartfast]

They'd folllow the citizenship of their parents or parent,

Not every country confers citizenship based on parenthood though.

 

[MaggieD]

Not every country confers citizenship based on parenthood though.

Since our major problem concerns Mexican citizens, let's look at their laws:

Citizenship is extended to those individuals born abroad if one or both of their parents was a Mexican national born in Mexican territory. I'm not real worried about Mongolia. ;-)

Mexican nationality law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Bob Blaylock]

They'd folllow the citizenship of their parents or parent,

Not every country confers citizenship based on parenthood though.

Not our problem nor our responsibility. At least it wouldn't be when/if the Constitution is amended as necessary to close the “anchor baby” loophole.

I think citizenship ought to be hereditary, and that it ought to be each nation's responsibility to accept as citizens, those who are born children of its extant citizens, regardless of where the birth actually takes place.

A pair of Mexican citizens in America (legally or not) who have a child, that child ought to be a Mexican citizen, and not an American citizen.

It should not be our responsibility to accept as citizens, those who are not wanted by their own countries.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Not our problem nor our responsibility. At least it wouldn't be when/if the Constitution is amended as necessary to close the “anchor baby” loophole.

It can be very much so if there is no place we are able to send them without causing an international incident.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

It can be very much so if there is no place we are able to send them without causing an international incident.

There's no such case. Whatever nation the parents are citizens of, that's the nation that is responsible for the child. Send the whole family there. That's no more an “international incident” than allowing another country to dump its unwanted on us.

 

[gmeyers1944]

More specifically section 1

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If someone is born in this country, but their parents are illegal, currently they are citizens, under this amendment. For those who wish to change the 14th amendment to not confer automatic citizenship, what should we do with the stateless people that result? If they are not citizens of any country, where would you send them?

The important point is this. Are those people born to illegal aliens considered "subject to the jurisdiction therreof"? I say NO! Therefore they are not citizens. Their parents should voluntarily return to their homeland and take the baby with them. If they want to come to this country, do it LEGALLY.

 

[spud_meister]

The important point is this. Are those people born to illegal aliens considered "subject to the jurisdiction therreof"? I say NO! Therefore they are not citizens. Their parents should voluntarily return to their homeland and take the baby with them. If they want to come to this country, do it LEGALLY.

If they're not '"subject to the jurisdiction", then you can't remove them anyway, as they're outside the law.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The important point is this. Are those people born to illegal aliens considered "subject to the jurisdiction therreof"? I say NO! Therefore they are not citizens. Their parents should voluntarily return to their homeland and take the baby with them. If they want to come to this country, do it LEGALLY.

This does not address my question. The question is, what should be done after the deed is done. If you are having trouble with it, pretend the parents are dead or in jail and the child is stateless and has nowhere to go.

 

[MaggieD]

This does not address my question. The question is, what should be done after the deed is done. If you are having trouble with it, pretend the parents are dead or in jail and the child is stateless and has nowhere to go.

Aren't you confusing two issues? #1: Is the child a citizen? #2: Should the child be forced to leave the country? In the scenerio you've drawn, both parents dead or in jail, there's no way we'd be deporting a child. BUT that doesn't make him a citizen. There's a difference.

 

[jamesrage]

More specifically section 1

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If someone is born in this country, but their parents are illegal, currently they are citizens, under this amendment.

Section 1 of the 14th amendment has been misinterpreted to allow the children of illegal have birth right citizenship.
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Howard
In the Senate, he also served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

For those who wish to change the 14th amendment to not confer automatic citizenship, what should we do with the stateless people that result? If they are not citizens of any country, where would you send them?

If we stopped granting automatic citizenship to the children of illegals? Send them to their home country which is country their parents are citizens of. if their country does not take them then oh well that child's parents will have to deal with any legal issues themselves.No one forced the parents to come here to try to pop out a anchor baby.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Aren't you confusing two issues? #1: Is the child a citizen? #2: Should the child be forced to leave the country? In the scenerio you've drawn, both parents dead or in jail, there's no way we'd be deporting a child. BUT that doesn't make him a citizen. There's a difference.

I was trying to rephrase the question in a way that people would give an actual answer rather than state how much they dislike the current state of affairs. We already know that people dislike the current state of things, so this is not useful information.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Section 1 of the 14th amendment has been misinterpreted to allow the children of illegal have birth right citizenship.
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution
Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."


Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the Senate, he also served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

I think I agree with you regarding the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, but I think that it is flawed in the way it is written, and that as written, it confers citizenship on anyone born on U.S. soil. It also seems not to confer citizenship on children born abroad of parents who are U.S. citizens, though that could be handled by a lower law.

I think that a new Amendment is called for, that supersedes the Fourteenth as far as conferring citizenship, and which clarifies that U.S. citizenship is only automatically conferred at birth on any child who has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, regardless of whether that birth occurs on U.S. soil or abroad.

 

[jamesrage]

I think I agree with you regarding the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, but I think that it is flawed in the way it is written, and that as written, it confers citizenship on anyone born on U.S. soil.

I think back then people understood " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part.This is why for a long time native Americans, the children of diplomats and other people were not citizens even though they were born here and legally present in the United states.

It also seems not to confer citizenship on children born abroad of parents who are U.S. citizens, though that could be handled by a lower law.

Other laws were created to handle this. Kind of like laws similar to the indian citizenship act which made native Americans citizens.

I think that a new Amendment is called for, that supersedes the Fourteenth as far as conferring citizenship, and which clarifies that U.S. citizenship is only automatically conferred at birth on any child who has at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, regardless of whether that birth occurs on U.S. soil or abroad.

I agree that it should be amended but there should be a DNA test requirement because any sap on the street can yes thats my child.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I agree that it should be amended but there should be a DNA test requirement because any sap on the street can yes thats my child.

Yes, I agree. At least if anyone cares to challenge the citizenship of a particular individual based on claims about that individual's parentage.

What about a case where the child has parents of two different citizenships? Say, a Mexican mother and an American father? I'm inclined to think that such a child should provisionally be recognized as having dual citizenship, but that at some point, not very far into adulthood, he should be required to choose one or the other.

 

[jamesrage]

Yes, I agree. At least if anyone cares to challenge the citizenship of a particular individual based on claims about that individual's parentage.

What about a case where the child has parents of two different citizenships? Say, a Mexican mother and an American father? I'minclined to think that such a child should provisionally be recognized as having dual citizenship, but that at some point, not very far into adulthood, he should be required to choose one or the other.

I am against dual citizenship period.At 18 that individual should pick whether they he wants to be the citizen of his father's country or be the citizen of his mother's country. While growing up the child should be with what ever parent has custody.

 

[spud_meister]

I agree that it should be amended but there should be a DNA test requirement because any sap on the street can yes thats my child.

:shock: You want the government to DNA test every single child and parent?

 

[jamesrage]

:shock: You want the government to DNA test every single child and parent?

I never said that every child should be DNA tested. The DNA test should be required if a foreign national is claiming their child's father is an American.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I am against dual citizenship period.At 18 that individual should pick whether they he wants to be the citizen of his father's country or be the citizen of his mother's country. While growing up the child should be with what ever parent has custody.

I'm against dual citizenship as anything other than a temporary provision for someone whose citizenship is ambiguous, which I would consider to be properly the case of a child whose parents are of different citizenships. Such a child should, I believe, at some point, be compelled to choose one or the other. I certainly don't think that child can reasonably be expected to make that choice before reaching adulthood, and even at the threshold of adulthood, I think more life experience may well be necessary before he can reasonably make that choice. I don't really have any basis on which to come up with a solid definition of where that point is, but I think it must be somewhere past 18 years of age; probably no later than 25 or 30. Perhaps some privilege of adulthood should be contingent on having made that choice; getting married, voting, receiving some category of government benefits—I don't know. This part of my thoughts on the matter is not well-defined. I don't think anyone can be fully an American citizen as long as he also holds citizenship in another nation as well.

 

[mike2810]

If they're not '"subject to the jurisdiction", then you can't remove them anyway, as they're outside the law.

Not true.

Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

the child is a citizen of the country the parents are.