Was the Fourteenth Amendment, the basis for the Anchor Baby debate, constitutional?

Question

When the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified by the House and the Senate, many senators and representatives were disallowed from voting due to the recent Civil War. There is proof that many of the Southern states were coerced into ratifying the Amendment.

Should Congress and the Supreme Court reopen the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and verify it's constitutionality?

I had already knew about the conflict about the 14th amendment, but if you care to read about it

http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html

is a good source of nonbiased info on the topic.

Answer 1

The key to undoing the current misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is this odd phrase

"AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF."

The whole problem is caused by the fact that the meaning of this phrase, which was clear to anyone versed in legal language in 1868, has slipped with changes in usage. Fortunately, there is a large group of court precedents that make clear what the phrase actually means:

The Fourteenth Amendment EXCLUDES the children of aliens. (The Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873))

The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. (Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874))

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" REQUIRES "Direct And Immediate ALLEGIENCE" to the United States, NOT just physical presence.
(Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884))

There is NO automatic birthright citizenship in a particular case. (Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898))

The Supreme Court has NEVER confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, temporary workers, and tourists.
(Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n.10 (1982))

There are other cases referring to minor details of the question.

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.”

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.

According to estimates, some 200,000 so-called anchor babies are born in the United States every year.
Once a mother has birthed a child on American soil, she can then seek to obtain citizenship for herself on the strength of the family-reunification laws.
Even before this happens, she is very hard to deport, as the mother of an American, and the full panoply of welfare benefits is available to her, as is affirmative action if she is a member of a racial minority.

A group of attorneys and immigration experts are trying to do something about the problem RIGHT NOW.

Craig Nelsen, director of Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement Stated :

"The situation we have today is absurd,There is a huge and growing industry in Asia that arranges tourist visas for pregnant women so they can fly to the United States and give birth to an American. This was not the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment; it makes a mockery of citizenship."

(Sound Familiar??)

Answer 2

There has never been a case of re-opening the ratification of an Ammendment to The Constitution. It's not likely that it would proceed. By definition, a ratified Ammendment to The Constitution IS constitutional.

I would hardly describe the linked diatribe an unbiased source of information as it only presents one side of the argument.

Of course it's been the basis for the "Anchor Baby" debate. This is further codified rather succinctly in Title 8 USC, CHAPTER 12, SUBCHAPTER III, Part I, § 1401. The only possible vaguarity is the phrase ", and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;". The 140+ years of tradition of granting US citizenship to anyone birthed on US soil pretty well seals that issue up to now.

Could Congress change § 1401 and more clearly define it? Sure. Will that affect anyone up to the date the change takes effect? No, it won't -- not negatively, at least. Would an Ammendment to The Constitution be a better way to clarify the issue? Probably so.

A border fence isn't necessary. If we just start enforcing the laws currently on the books, the problem will go away largely on its own. The principal reasons that illegals come here is economic. If it cost their employers less to hire legal workers, they'd be climbing all over themselves to get back home to their families; there would be no jobs for them here. We could deal with the remaining ones (crimminal element) fairly easily.

Answer 3

No, looking up the 14th amendment DIRECTLY on the web will give you an 'unbiased' view of the amendment. I saw your website, there, and it claims that the amendment is unconstitutional. Again, the sooner we get the border fence in place, the better off we'll be.

Read the amendment for yourself, straight from the horse's mouth, stop listening to third parties that have an agenda,
don't even listen to me, for that matter...but, if you can't see for yourself that Mexico's trying to 'vote'/reproduce its' way into the United States, then you're either not really paying attention, or you're a part of it...that's my view, anyway...After you get done with that, read the whole Constitution of The United States. Notice that it doesn't say "And Mexico" at the end, there.
Mexico needs to solve their own problems, and stop trying to worm their way into the United States. It's tough, it's a bad situation they're in, but they have to do it eventually, may as well be sooner rather than later...

Answer 4

It is part of the Constitution so it is tautologically Constitutional.

The Supreme Court did specifically reserve in one case the question of whether it would grant citizenship to children where neither parent is here legally. However, I don't know how they would come down if the issue was brought before them. There are plenty of laws interpreted according to the intent of the law to begin with, and other court decisions refuse to follow interpretations that would permit fraud. It is possible they would say that children of illegals are not citizens here but of the country where their parents are legal citizens.

However, all that has to happen is to amend immigration law to take away the family reunification that allows family to come in ABOVE any quota for citizens. It could be removed for everyone, or could be conditional upon the sponsor's having not only been born or naturalized here, but if a citizen by birth, having had at least one citizen parent at the time of their birth.

The family reunification benefit is relatively new, and could be changed much easier than the Constitution can be amended.

Besides, I just think we should consider it long and hard before we mess with the Constitution.

Answer 5

Yes, it is constitutional, even if all those arguments are true, I've read the same arguments over the tax code.

The purpose of the 14th amendment wasn't to make illegal alien's kids citizens, it was to make slaves citizens, and to proclaim that ultimately the people are their own leaders.

Now, there's no such thing as an unconstitutional amendment. The constitution is the highest law in the land, and cannot be struck down no matter what it says unless be another amendment - and that is what is needed to stop the anchor babies.

Keep writing your congressmen - keep watch who is on your side, and vote! And let everyone know!

Answer 6

Good question Unfortunately yes the 14th amendment was the basis for the Anchor baby problem, and if you take only the first part separately on out of context as our court system now does so often then yes it is constitutional. I guess. but maybe you are right and we should reexamine it in todays light. Of course congress assumed back then that the people born here had parents who had come or been brought here, ie slaves, legally and according to our immigration policies.

Answer 7

Regardless of the Amendment's history (history is often messy), I don't see the problem with the Amendment. If there is no specific complaint about the Amendment, then it should just be left alone. We have much bigger problems.

By using the dirty details of history, you could declare almost anything invalid, or in need of looking into. When the Founders signed the Declaration of Independence, they technically committed treason against the King of England. Should we look into that?

I say we only look into specific problems (there are plenty) and develop specific solutions. Too many people complain about things without working toward a solution.

Answer 8

Liberal judges that were legislating from the bench did not read the key language in this language: 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. Key language is "subject to the jurisdiction." Diplomats who vacation in the US and their wives that have babies while on vacation do not and cannot declare their children born on US soil to be US citizens. People that come here to do so are only doing so for another agenda. Sponge off of the US citizens/taxpayers. The language is clear. Only when white robed judges sit on the bench, will we have real justice.

Answer 9

most mexicans breed anchor babies to get citizen and benefits revoke anchor babies they abuse loophole 14th amendement