The 14th amendment clearly states that citizenship is limited to "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."
Those who wrote the 14th put out their own papers to explain in depth its' meaning, just like the federalist papers. You can find their explanation in law libraries. It definitely did not mean that anyone who wandered into the US and gave birth could bestow on that baby automatic citizenship.
However that amendment was perverted a few years ago to mean anyone would qualify. Thus the name "anchor" baby and why so many aliens will come here to give birth.
Throughout most of the rest of the world the new baby is assumed to have the same citizenship as its mother. This has been true for many decades.
The 14th also made it clear that nobody could hold dual citizenship. You either had loyalty to the US OR another nation, NOT both. That too has been perverted and that is why Chertof holds citizenship in Israel and the US, and Gonzales holds citizenship in Mexico and the US. It is like being married to 2 or more people. You cannot have total loyalty to more than 1 person.
This way of thinking will destroy our country and our culture.
2007-05-21 11:49:55
·
answer #1
·
answered by keywestbeaner 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes, it's still true. Citizenship hasn't been amended by the US Constitution yet. What has been changed is that illegal parents of US citizens (even citizens under the age of 18) no longer are allowed to stay in the US, which means the US government is depriving lawful US citizens who are children the ability to be raised by their parents. This is SICKENING.
One of the great things about the United States is its very universal definition of citizenship. We don't have the law of blood; we have the law of birth. That's just an amazingly beautiful concept, isn't it? I hope that never changes.
To the poster challenging the 14th Amendment, you're misinterpreting it. A child cannot be guilty for the sins of his parents. This is called corruption of blood and is also unconstitutional. The parents are guilty of breaking the law, not the child, which is why being born in the United States is the determining factor of citizenship.
2007-05-21 11:16:37
·
answer #2
·
answered by TheOrange Evil 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
It's true and the 14th Amendment answer's right.
But I just wanted to point out that, if a child's parents are deported, there is no law saying that the child has to remain in the U.S. Naturally, he or she has the right to go with their parents and the right to return here when ever they want. They're not being deported, they're just staying with their family. And as mentioned, they'll be welcome to return, go to school, work, etc whenever they wish. But, their parents will have to find a way to become legal if they want to do the same.
This is just common sense and there's nothing evil about it. The US is not forcing the children in either direction. In many cases, they will hold citizenship in their parent's country due to the fact that one or both of their parents is a citizen. Depends on the country. The children probably will have no legal trouble entering and staying in that country as long as they claim citizenship there. They do not lose US citizenship unless they renounce it as an adult. (Just a side note - the US does not recognize dual citizenship but many countries do, including the majority of those whose citizens tend to reside here illegally. The US considers you only a US citizen unless renounced).
Some people send their children to boarding schools, some don't. If I was born in England, and my parents were deported, they would take me with them. And I'd be just fine, even if I was going to a poor country, one with out any political turmoil or any other reason to be afraid other than lack of $$.
That is life....
Some people have all the luck, others get all the pain. (Rod Stewart reference...sorry) You can come back, or not leave, and stay with grandma or family friends and go to school in this country. Or, you can stay with your family and go to school in their country. And while a visa is usually needed to go to school in another country, a dual citizen can go to school in either country without a visa. Many people who are dual citizens from many countries do this without deportation being involved. The only reason it comes up as an excuse is when either deportation, or $$, or both are an issue. So if you think about it, the child isn't really being deprived of anything. And if he goes with mom and dad, later, he can come back and get a job, vote, and do everything else a citizen can do. He can even run for President. And if his opportunities are less because of having grown up in a poor country...ask any kid born in a poor inner city slum in New York City, or in a shack in the Ozarks, what he thinks about that.
That's life...
So for me personally, having a US born child is not, by itself, a good excuse to avoid deportation. But it is frequently used for that purpose.
Emotional issues are sometimes just smoke and mirrors when the true issue is $$. And like I said before...
...that's life.
2007-05-21 12:49:10
·
answer #3
·
answered by undercover brother 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
It's generally true, but it's usually misunderstood. The 14th Amendment doesn't say that just anyone born here is a citizen. It begins: "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 key phrase here is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." In my opinion, any child born to illegals is not really subject to the jurisdiction of this country, so their citizenship should not be automatically granted.
To the poster who can't read: I'm not saying the babies are "guilty" of anything. I'm saying that being the child of illegals, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, so they should not automatically receive citizenship.
JMB
2007-05-21 11:12:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by levyrat 4
·
4⤊
1⤋
Any child born on US soil is automatically a citizen of the United States. Any child born of a US citizen is automatically a citizen no matter where they are born.
2016-05-19 01:48:32
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
YES .... there was a time that was NOT true ... but unfortunately the Supreme Court ruled that way .... their decision spun on the word jurisdiction .... if you go into the Congressional Record from the 1700s you will read the words from the floor of the Congress that, that was not intended.
Now it will take a Constitutional Amendment to fix what should never have been broken.
2007-05-21 11:15:12
·
answer #6
·
answered by Judy V 1
·
0⤊
2⤋
It is still true. Any child born on American soil is automatically an American Citizen.
2007-05-21 14:01:36
·
answer #7
·
answered by jensantosleon 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It is my understanding that birth on our soil is not the criteria for citizenship. If you are born of illegals, I think you're an illegal, too. I read something about this regarding our forefathers statements that birth was not enough to make you a legal citizen. I'm sorry that I can't quote it, but it was pretty clear.
2007-05-21 11:14:11
·
answer #8
·
answered by Ms.L.A. 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
Unfortunately,The child would be called a Mexican-American.If the parents are deported,take child to Mexico with the parents.
2007-05-21 11:18:58
·
answer #9
·
answered by dmja 45 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes very sad, but still true. This law needs to be changed.
2007-05-21 11:16:09
·
answer #10
·
answered by Jason C 1
·
0⤊
0⤋