Posted on Feb 8, 2017
Should the 14th Amendment be amended to correct a legal oversight?
12.2K
72
44
8
8
0
The 14th amendment states if you were born in the United States even if your parents are here illegally the child is automatically considered a United States citizen. Should the 14th amendment be amended so that illegal immigrants can't have anchor babies in order to reap the benefits of having a child that is a US citizen? i.e correct legal oversight
Immigration
Constitution
Citizenship
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 16
14
14
0
Brother, the 14th amendment doesn't say that if one's parents are here illegally, he or she is automatically a U.S. citizen. That's the way the courts have chosen to interpret it. It would have been just as easy to say that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" excludes illegal immigrants. I don't think a revision of the amendment is necessary, but a better interpretation would be in order.
(14)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Capt Gregory Prickett - Probably not, brother. There are plenty of things which should happen, but are not likely to.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
So does your question mean that those of us that are Native American can declare that all non Native American are illegals.
(6)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
SFC Shirley Whitfield - The rules of society change with the times, and facing facts the US continues to improve, it is sad that some want to go backwards while the rest of the world goes forward. In the long run, such ideas will only makes us weaker, because human evolution is funded on adapting to survive. Crazy that people forget that the ARMY gives us shots to immunize us against known illness to make us stronger, which is what the Amendments do for the USA.
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
SFC (Anonymous) - DNA does hold up in court, and backed by treaties, we will interesting.
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
SFC (Anonymous) - You quote European beliefs about the Bering Straight, but DNA mapping of all the Native Americans in the North would prove useful, with your argument of who created the US, because the contracts (treaties) that were signed are still in effect; now think about the laws that you quote and DNA mapping. Reservations Good one!
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
SFC (Anonymous) - Laws govern the US, and contracts (treaties) are enforce by laws. Example the issue of casinos on reservations.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
The part of the 14th Ammendment you're referring to SSG(P) (Join to see) is Section I (there are five):
"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 first line seems to be the one in question which states: "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."
Welit says all persons born or naturalized in the United States which seems to indicate that just fine. But wait there's more!
It says and;
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
So there are two requirements to be a citizen of the United States and the State in which you reside: You must be born or naturalized there AND you must be subject to its jurisdiction.
So what does subject to its juridiction mean? Well that would mean that its laws and courts have primary (or first/greatest) claim on you. Which means that a foreign citizen on holiday that gives birth to a child in the US should not have their child immediately granted US citizenship since the child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the State it is born in or the USA. WHich means the courts and popular understanding of what the 14th says have been the polar opposite of what the text says.
Color me shocked. Not.
So the end answer is what CPT (Join to see) said, "a beter interpretation would be in order." Of course he said that without writing a whole report, because he's more concise than I am. But to answer the original question, No the 14th does not need to be ammended, it just needs to be interpreted more sanely.
"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 first line seems to be the one in question which states: "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."
Welit says all persons born or naturalized in the United States which seems to indicate that just fine. But wait there's more!
It says and;
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
So there are two requirements to be a citizen of the United States and the State in which you reside: You must be born or naturalized there AND you must be subject to its jurisdiction.
So what does subject to its juridiction mean? Well that would mean that its laws and courts have primary (or first/greatest) claim on you. Which means that a foreign citizen on holiday that gives birth to a child in the US should not have their child immediately granted US citizenship since the child is not subject to the jurisdiction of the State it is born in or the USA. WHich means the courts and popular understanding of what the 14th says have been the polar opposite of what the text says.
Color me shocked. Not.
So the end answer is what CPT (Join to see) said, "a beter interpretation would be in order." Of course he said that without writing a whole report, because he's more concise than I am. But to answer the original question, No the 14th does not need to be ammended, it just needs to be interpreted more sanely.
(5)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
Capt Gregory Prickett They CAN be tried and held because it is part of the process of being granted leave to enter the country at its borders (or airports) that the traveler must consent to abide by the laws of the nation they are entering. But, if the country of their citizenship asks for an extradition and to try them in their courts, in most cases the claim of their country would be given primacy and upheld (obviously there's loads of exceptions, ifs, ands, and buts; but the most straightforward reading is generally the most correct). And, while they may be held responsible and tried for any crimes committed, they do not hold other areas of being in the jurisdiction of the State they are in and the USA. For instance, the State and country do not have the right to tax an individual who is on holiday but they would tax a citizen or resident, and I'm sure you could think of other examples besides this.
While a claim can be made about "being under the jurisdiction because its where you 'ARE' or becauseyou agreed to abide by the laws of the land while in the land" it smacks of nitpicking the letter of the law rather than the spirit of it. The kind of loophole groping that is used to justify what one knows to not be the clear intent of the law, but which seems like "a good idea" and "feels right" to the person doing it. Which is why the courts have ruled the way they have so far.
While a claim can be made about "being under the jurisdiction because its where you 'ARE' or becauseyou agreed to abide by the laws of the land while in the land" it smacks of nitpicking the letter of the law rather than the spirit of it. The kind of loophole groping that is used to justify what one knows to not be the clear intent of the law, but which seems like "a good idea" and "feels right" to the person doing it. Which is why the courts have ruled the way they have so far.
(0)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
Capt Gregory Prickett Here is what the argument in either direction hinges on: The Definition of jurisdiction (this definition comes from the Merriam-Webster dictionary)
1: the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law <a matter that falls within the court's jurisdiction>
2 a : the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate
b : the power or right to exercise authority : control
3: the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised
It seems that the third definition is the one that most obviously supports the idea that the 14th gives anyone born in US territory citizenship. But that is already covered in the first half of Section I: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States." So if we are to interpret jurisdiction as, "the limits or territory in which authority may be exercised" then it makes the entire second clause for citizenship completely redundant. If it is redundant, then it should not be there in the first place, so I believe we can safely rule this interpretation out.
Going off either of the remaining definitions puts us back where we already were. I can see where you can argue either way.
1: the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law <a matter that falls within the court's jurisdiction>
2 a : the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate
b : the power or right to exercise authority : control
3: the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised
It seems that the third definition is the one that most obviously supports the idea that the 14th gives anyone born in US territory citizenship. But that is already covered in the first half of Section I: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States." So if we are to interpret jurisdiction as, "the limits or territory in which authority may be exercised" then it makes the entire second clause for citizenship completely redundant. If it is redundant, then it should not be there in the first place, so I believe we can safely rule this interpretation out.
Going off either of the remaining definitions puts us back where we already were. I can see where you can argue either way.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google