Should their be an end to birthright citizenship for those born to parents here illegally?

Question

Should there be a clarification that makes it clear that if you are not here legally, you child is not considered a citizen.
It might stop the risky passage across the border of pregnant women.

Most of our ancestors who arrived on either coast came here leqally and many who came from the north and south came here legally, too. I am talking about people who don't wait in line, people who come here illegally...

Answer 1

Well, this is JD's answer:

The problem is that this (Fourteenth Amendment)
has been misinterpreted in recent years
to mean simply that anyone born in the U.S,
under any circumstances, is an American citizen.
This is neither the original intent of the law
nor the way it was interpreted by the courts
in subsequent decades.

Some Americans speak of birthright citizenship
as if it were an immutable law of nature.
It is not, and most other nations do not, in fact, recognize it.
It is only a BAD HABIT that could be broken
with a simple Executive Order.

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??)

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.

Answer 2

Absolutely! And the sooner, the better! This law is so outdated and should have been stricken from the books years ago - at least at the time of the last amnesty. All enticements to illegal immigration need to be removed!

Yars and Mimi: Yes, I agree with you and JD has said this many times. I wonder how the attorneys and immigration professionals are coming with this? It would be great to hear how it is going with this.

Whoops: You don't know what the heck you are talking about, so I sure hope you DON'T get chosen as the best answer here! My gawd! You are giving out such incorrect information, it isn't even funny! Why do you answer when you do NOT know the answers? If a US citizen gives birth anywhere else in the world, that child is recognized as a US citizen! I know this from experience! As well, I don't know of a country in the world that does not have this policy! Therefore, there would NOT be children without a country, if the US stopped the Anchor Baby law!

Answer 3

When this amendment was ratified(1868, post-Civil War), the United States truly had an "open border" policy, accepting pretty much anyone who was not a public health risk. Millions had died and the U.S. was desparate for population growth to replace the labor force it had just lost in the war.

Unfortunately, hindsight is 20/20, and it is now apparent that this Amendment has become a huge burden, forcing the citizens of the U.S. to support (both via welfare and other social services) the "anchor babies" of illegal immigrants and their families.

Unfortunately United States v. Wong Kim Ark only makes provisions to exclude citizenship for children born to foreign diplomats, occupying hostile forces, and Native Americans. It should absolutely be amended to exclude the children of those who are here illegally.

Answer 4

While the citizenship issue is part of the problem, it applies more to illegals living here already. Illegals who come across the border for delivery do so for improved medical services and to have the procedure carried out without the hospital having legal recourse to collect fees.

Answer 5

Hello claddaghmamma,

What a terrific Question! (You are very wise my friend!)
Oh my! I want to say yes to ending "birthright" citizenship.
But...here are some new problems that I think would be caused by ending birthright citizenship.
Just as the we do not extend birthright citizenship to children born to American citizens living aboard, neither will foreign countries recognize the citizenship of Children born to their citizens living outside of their countries. (Why should they, we don't?) As a result there could be a population of children without ANY country that would recognize their citizenship. They would be in a "citizenship legal limbo". (Not exactly the kind of international legal tangle that America would want to be a part of)
And in terms of legality, (or morality) it's not a very good idea to begin denying the civil rights of a minor, based on the misdeeds or illegal acts of their parents. For sure, I don't want to be judged by the "sins of my fathers" and I'd bet that you wouldn't want to be either.
Which by the way was one of the reasons that our country was based on democratic principles, and not as another caste-based monarchy.
All of this could also lead to a "slippery slope".
ie: the creation of a class system of citizenship with different civil rights for one class of citizen and another set of rights for another class of citizen. Or denial of citizenship rights to people with unpopular political views, or denial of citizenship to people based on their lack of financial capacity or their gender or sexual orientation. (Any of these could be possible. It just depends on who would be making the final decsision. And it could be very arbitrary, that is to say..."political".)
Illegal imigration into the country IS a HUGE problem.
But I don't think that this would be a real solution to the problem. And more importantly I wouldn't want us begin compromising the very ideas that make this such a great country, for any reason. Anyway, you have a lot of "brain power" to think of such a good question, and you are making everybody out here think hard to try and catch up...Good for you! Thanks

by the way...will u pleez pick this as best answer. U R sweet if u do. thin-Q vfy mch!

Answer 6

What I enjoy about reading Yars232 posts is that he gets beyond the emotion and puts out all the facts. He shares information that we all need to know. He certainly cleared this one up for me.
Perhaps if we gave families the choice, take your anchor babies with you or put them up for adoption in America, because that will be the only way they can stay. These children are being used. A commodity to open a door for the adults to stay in America. I wonder if the mothers thought having these innocent children was not so much an act of love but a ticket to stay here and drain our tax-services.

Answer 7

A child should share the citizenship status of it's parents until the age of 18. A child with at least one American parent is American, but a child of 2 illegal aliens is not a citizen, and is not entitled to any rights.

Answer 8

Yea, keep the regulation and then yous will be screwed like our united states of america. Which changed into captivating 30 years in the past yet now with each and every of the third international foreigners (pretty pacific islanders) has became to shi*. Our united states of america is that undesirable that we've illegals utilising and abusing our loose maternity care/loose health care to the quantity that the really New Zealanders omit out and function to be placed on waiting lists. we honestly have asians coming right here to have toddlers, only to sign up them as New Zealand electorate. there turned right into a study performed that categorical 70% of asian nz electorate do no longer even stay in this united states of america. God knows what those meant "NZ electorate" are doing. i presumed American immigration rules were plenty stricter then ours yet of route i'm incorrect. Immigration only would not artwork for human beings that've surely no longer some thing to provide a united states of america. case in point if i will pass to u.s. or the united kingdom i visit do positive, I talk the language english, i may have a reliable pastime earlier i go over, i may have a good volume of money kept up for a house and emergency money. Why might want to i favor to pass to Mexico without money, surely no comprehend-how of their language or subculture? So i'd be a burden to their monetary gadget?might want to they even provide me Social Welfare? low-cost authorities housing? nutrition Banks? Yea actual

Answer 9

Are you out of your freaking mind ...... The first inmigrants came when there was no inmigration laws, if they would had been, they would had been also considered illegals, then not even white people would be americans, they're still englands. If you are born here you are an american, children are innocent and they have nothing to do with inmigration. So thats not even a consideration girl so get that out of your mind.

Answer 10

Yes, put an end to that, it's getting ridiculous how can someone cross the border (illegally) of another country and have a baby and that baby automatically becomes a citizen.....only in America!! That $*** needs to stop!!