Why do people think ending the 14th amendment would solve the immigration problem?

Question

Long story short basically says anyone who is under the jurisdiction of US law and was born here is considered a US Citizen hence why children of diplomats are not given citizenship because they are immune from out laws. i do hear many people wanting to end the 14th amendment thinking it will help fix illegal immigration, but really it is mainly going to affect those who have followed the rules and sounds very hypocritical because it basically to me has more of a racial root to it than anything else.

Actually JustsayNo, the supreme court ruled in INS v. Rios and Plyer v. Doe that Illegals do fall under the Jurisdiction of the US hence why their children qualify for birthright citizenship

A the reason I bring race into it is mainly because people are getting their knickers in a bunch because most immigrants are not coming from Europe and many antis seem to hate that second if the framers intended it to be only for people here in the US for multiple generations why didn't they explicitly state this. Unlike most close minded folk who want to abolish the amendment the framers knew that times change so the best thing to do is to keep the sayings very vauge.

JJ using your logic couldn't we also use this for people like Oliver North who sold Arms to IRAN, isnt that Aiding the enemy. Also 14th amendment does not mention anything about treasion which is what you are talking about.

Answer 1

The intent of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to the descendents of slaves. It specifically denied citizenship to Native Americans which were much later granted birthright citizenship by an Act of Congress.
Supreme Court interpretations directly granted citizenship to a child born to parents legally in the US. in US vs Wong Kim Ark. There has never been a case involving a child of illegal aliens birthright citizenship specifically addressed by the Supreme Court.
The main issue is: Are illegal aliens fully submitting to US jurisdiction? They have attempted to circumvent our laws.
They appeal to their consulates for assistance in avoiding deportation and for other forms of assistance, which is placing their primary choice of jurisdiction as their home nation. Their consulates protest decisions in the US routinely, which is also exerting their jurisdiction.
HR 1940 is legislation to clarify that jurisdiction as originally intended by the 14th Amendment.
Those who followed the rules came here legally and HR 1940 would have no effect on their children. It also would not effect children who have already been granted birthright citizenship.
It is not racial for people of many nations, including European nations have babies here without having legal status to reside in the nation. Most of Europe and Asia ended birthright citizenship to children born to illegal aliens or those without resident status (tourists) long ago.
It would serve to remove an incentive for people to come here illegally and resolve some of the issues. Not all.

Re:Phyler: Plyler v. Doe did not explicitly address the question of children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents; the children dealt with in the case were born outside the U.S. and had entered the country illegally along with their parents and asked to strike down denying those children education.
One justice in writing the decision stretched the scope of the case. The decision barely passed and is subject to challenge.
Re:INSvRios-Pineda: The case decision does not mention the 14th Amendment. It dealt with an illegal alien appealing deportation orders, claiming hardship. An appellate court ordered the case be reviewed, on further review, the Supreme Court ruled "Respondents were apprehended in 1978, and they conceded deportability. Nonetheless, over six years later they remain in the United States by virtue of their baseless appeals. In administering this country's immigration laws, the Attorney General and the INS confront an onerous task even without Page 471 U.S. 444, 451
the addition of judicially augmented incentives to take meritless appeals, engage in repeated violations, and undertake other conduct solely to drag out the deportation process. Administering the 7-year requirement in this manner is within the authority of the Attorney General. The Act commits the definition of the standards in the Act to the Attorney General and his delegate in the first instance, "and their construction and application of th[ese] standard[s] should not be overturned by a reviewing court simply because it may prefer another interpretation of the statute."
They ruled hardship eligibility could not be acquired by repeated appeals, basically.

Answer 2

I can see your racial point but that's not it entirely. For one thing, we are simply not capable of handling millions of new immigrants. It's not like 100 years ago when there were plenty of industrial jobs available. Corporate America has shipped millions of jobs overseas. I don't understand why all these immigrants aren't trying to get into China and India where there's pleny of work.

Also, like it or not, from a security perspective it's not wise to allow anyone born in America to be a citizen. Right now if I were Al Qaeda I'd have a cell in America designed to have a pro-Al Qaeda child born and raised here as a citizen. Like Al Qaeda, there are many cultures in the world who hold grudges for centuries and even if we become the world's darling once again we could still have some lunatic blow up a nuclear reactor 20 years from now because of injustices they perceive to be our fault today.

Answer 3

The United States is a people with a government. Not the other way around.

As such, our servants in government make laws and ratify amendments that MUST be respected both for their face-value (wording) and intent (which has always been recorded, verbatim, whether in writing or more recently, by electronic means).

To disrespect those laws and amendments would be to usurp representative governance altogether.

The clearly stated intent of the 14th Amendment - in particular, the citizenship clause to which you refer - was to EXCLUDE children born to aliens, though they be born on U.S. soil.

Doubt it? Read the Congressional Globe, 39th Congress - 1866 to 1868.

Not one single statement in that entire time suggested including alien children for the birthright citizenship. Yet EVERY statement attributed to the debates - again, recorded verbatim - DENIED and EXCLUDED aliens' children.

The Supreme Court, from its earliest decisions, has seen fit to defer its own power to the powers of intent expressed by framers and authors of the Constitution and its several Amendments.

If they should, and they represent the highest court in the land, then who are we to correct them?


...

Answer 4

It would help solve the problem by eliminating the motive to get here illegally and have a baby so we can't kick them out. I don't care if they come from Mexico, England, Germany, China, or where ever, if they're illegal, they should get out. This will have no effect on the people that follow the rules, because they'll be citizens and hence their children will as well.

Answer 5

Because now those who sneak across and have a child immediately get prenatal care plus free child birth plus food stamps and WIC 'for the child' plus when the child is 21 (that is a new wrinkle, the age cut off) the child can petition to bring in the parents and bootstrap those who came illegally.

It isn't enough to 'cure' illegal immigration in itself, but it is definitely a necessary piece. That is why every EU country that had it has abolished automatic birthright citizenship.

Answer 6

In first place children of diplomats are usually born at the embassy which is their nation's soil. And if they have to be taken to the hospital their rooms are considered as part of their nation's embassy.
The same holds true for our diplomats overseas.
It is pretty well standard procedure the world over about being a citizen of the country you are born in..
Doubt that will ever happen because to pass or change an constitutional amendmental
First:
You have to get 2/3 of both houses of congress to approve:
Second it goes to the states for approval
You have to have 2/3 of the states approve it by 2/3 popular vote in each state
So it will have to pass in 34 states by a 2/3 or 66% popular vote in each of those states.
Lot harder than people thing to pass an amendment to the constitution.

Answer 7

It is funny how Pro's use the 14th when it suits them but ignore the parts that don't.

Section 3, 14th Ammendment: “ No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such a disability.”

I do not recall hearing that such a vote has been taken; this means the proponents of any form of an amnesty policy are guilty of offering aid and comfort to declared enemies and as such are in violation of their oath of office.

Unless there is some way of separating MEChA and La Raza with their plans of reconquista and dreams of Aztlan from the simple workers; any form of an Amnesty proposed by our Government falls under this section as a crime.

See the 14th Ammendment is a good thing, if ALL of it is followed.

When the Government has admitted to being unable to enforce the law, and are willing to overlook the law, then no law exsists.
This is our country, perhaps it is time we enforce the law..

EDIT: Yep, I do believe it should be used on people like Ollie. I remember the 444 days Iran held our citizens, they have always been our enimies in my eyes.
And I do believe that aiding or giving comfort to our enemies is a treasonus action, it is certianly a violation of their oath to defend this country and represent our people, not to mention uphold our laws.
If you mean that I am proposing treason, no, I don't believe so.
I am proposing vigilantism, I am also proposing that we take back our Government.
We are not being properly represented. Wasn't that the catalyst for the formation of this Country.
I personaly believe the Founders would agree with me on this.

Answer 8

The 14th ammendment was originally intended to secure the rights of newly freed slaves and their families born into the states back in the 1800s. It has since been severely abused by illegals seeking citizenship here in the states by coming here and birthing children. If we get rid of the 14th ammendment it no longer gives illegal aliens (and I do stress ILLEGAL) rights to citizenship here just by having an anchor baby. That is a slap in the face to our forefathers and every other immigrant that fought to come here the RIGHT way.

Answer 9

Here we go with the "raza" card again. It's a sure sign that you're dealing with someone who can't think for themselves.

The *only* racism in this issue comes from the people and organizations who demand that criminals be allowed to freely commit crimes just because of the color of their skin.

When you finally get your head wrapped around that very simple and inarguable fact, then maybe you'll be ready to discuss more serious matters, like the Constitution.

JMB

Answer 10

First, I think it's really horrible that a crude nickname (which I refuse to repeat) which insults children of immigrants has become so common here.

Second, I think a lot of people don't understand the rules. Having a minor child who is a US citizen does nothing for you in terms of your legal immigration status. People aren't having children in the US to help themselves. They'd need to wait a minimum of 21 years to immigrate through their children, but probably much longer because parents of adult citizens are low priority and have a long waiting list.

People are having children in the US because they happen to be in the US when they want children. Some people are sneaking across the border to give birth, but those people are doing it for the sake of their children, not for their own sake.