Would you be willing to change the constitution?

Question

Would you be willing to change the contatution,

sense the constitution does not allows citizenship to children of illegal aliens, would you be wiliing to amend the constitution so it does allows citizenship to children of illegal aliens?

You have to dig a bit deeper to understand the 14th amendment. The constitution does not offer citizenship to children of illegal aliens.

The intent of the framers is express and clear, as recorded in the May 30, 1866 edition of the Congressional Globe. Senator Jacob Howard, author of the clause, said, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers ...".

Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, elaborated:

"What do we mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States? Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means ... It cannot be said of any (one) who owes allegiance ... to some other government that he is 'subject' to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Five critical words here proscribe automatic citizenship - "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof...". Those who enter illegally, in other words, not under the aegis

of the United States government, are therefore not under its jurisdiction.

The "automatic" citizenship conferred on children of illegal aliens is the result of overreaching judges who read into the constitution what they wished it to mean, in defiance and contempt of both the intent of the framers and the understanding of the framers' intent by those who voted to ratify it.

Answer 1

No, I would not be willing to change the Constitution so it would ALLOW automatic citizenship. Although I DO think that the 14th amendment should be abolished so there would be a clear line between what a citizen is and isn't. The 14th is outdated and taken advantage of to the detriment of the USA.

Answer 2

The Supreme Court ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case had nothing to do with "illegal aliens". Wong Kim Ark's parents were legal immigrants to the United States.

However the Supreme Court stated 30yrs earlier in the Elk v. Wilkens case that "subject to the jurisdiction" of the 14th amendment required complete and immediate alliegance to the United States and not just physical presence in order for citizenship to attach at birth.

Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment, made the following statement in May of 1868 after the amendment's ratification ... "[T]he constitution as now amended forever withholds the right of citizenship in the case of the accidental birth of a child belonging to foreign parents within the country."

So in reality the Constitution doesn't grant citizenship to anchor babies. The Supreme Court has NEVER ruled that anchor babies are citizens. The U.S. government has willfully and deliberately misinformed the public on this subject for the last 50 - 60 years.

How does the U.S. government plan to achieve an unconstitutional north american union? 1) Dumb down citizens by degrading the public education system, 2) Flood the country with false citizens that have no alliegance to the country and no desire to preserve it the way it is!

Answer 3

No matter what the writers of the 14th amendment intended the wording of the amendment is plain. Anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen like it or not. If lawmakers intend to write a bill outlawing blue cars but write and pass one that says all cars must be blue then what do you do. ignore the real law because that was not the intent or follow the law and paint your car blue. I understand the intent of the 14th amendment but it's intent and what it says are not the same. The only possible claim that they are not citizens of the U.S. is that they are not under the jurisdiction of the U.S. . If they are some how above the laws of the U.S. then maybe they are not citizens. Other wise they are according to the 14th amendment.


By the way Jurisdiction means subject to the laws of a given nation. Not allegiance. West Germany was under the jurisdiction of the U.S. after ww2. We had control. They obeyed our laws. They didn't give the pledge of allegiance to us. They had to obey us. They became our allies and friends but never swore allegiance to us did they .

Answer 4

No, we don't want to attract MORE illegals them we already have. The dream act will not be passed and is not supported by the people of this country. Honestly we also need to put an end to the 14th amendment being abused by criminals in a way that was never it's original intent.

And yes, ANCHOR BABY is a most appropriate term. How many times did we hear about Elvira's son and how she shouldn't be deported for "his" sake? What are the odds that if she hadn't been deported once already she would have be given a "humanitarian" waiver?

Anchor babies are also the start of a chain migration of entire families, this has been demonstrated time and time again. Baby-parents-siblings-siblings spouses-siblings children etc.

Answer 5

in accordance to analyze, 80 4% of the international is "religious", which skill that throughout straightforward terms sixteen% is non. Being that maximum religions have faith in God, the main section, Christians, then Democracy has a say in what would be or no longer. Why could desire to the minority rule and opt to do away with what maximum of the human beings prefer left in the form? Or Delcaration of Independence? In no Democracy, does the minority rule. it fairly is not awesome. If the minority prefer to consume potatoes and maximum of the human beings needs beans, it may be beans, for dinner. So....maximum of the human beings desires to get off its butt and vote to maintain the God in our shape and in our courts and everywhere else it was once. God has a kingdom, even though it is likewise a central authority. The Vatican is a central authority... And yet, those 2 can artwork and stay with faith and government. Why can no longer we? And our militia forces are frequently....Christian. and that they are additionally element of the government. So can we additionally do away with them from our service? Afterall, faith and govenment can not be. in spite of the fact that it fairly is been for some hundred years.

Answer 6

I am sorry but you have this backwards. Our constitution does currently allow all children born in the United States to be citizens. The immigration status of the parents is irrelevant.

And by the way FYI for one of the other posters. Children born in the United States to children of illegal aliens cannot sponsor (apply for legalization for or be used as the basis for legalization) their parents until they reach the age of 18 and furthermore are in a position to show that they can support the parent(s) for whom they are petitioning. Therefore, in my opinion the term "anchor" baby is not only truly offensive but is actually a misnomer since they cannot serve to "anchor" their parents immigration status. Babies are not anchors they are human beings and should be treated as such regardless of their race or ethnicity!

The issue over citizenship in the 14th Amendment was originally drawn up to assist the children of former slaves. However, even the best legal scholars in this country have interpreted to include the children of illegal aliens and frankly if we were to clarify it now it would cause a serious problem. Imagine for example that the mother is legal but the father is not will the child then be 1/2 a citizen--the red tape would be outrageous and our hospital staff would be relegated to becoming immigration officials instead of health care workers--there would be no end of problems.

I know you will probably balk at this but our constitution is not perfect since for example the people (over 500,000+) in the District of Columbia still have taxation without representation and our founding fathers never envisioned that, i.e. D.C. currently has more people than most of the first colonies.

Diversity was and always will be our strength. We need to embrace that diversity and remember our compassion for those that are truly seeking the American Dream which is freedom!

Answer 7

The ruling on ther automatic citizenship of those born within our borders goes back to the US Supreme Court case, United States V. Wong KimArk, of March 28, 1898. The court relied on precedence going back over 100 years.

Answer 8

I would be willing to amend it to put it in clear and un-manipulative terms that anchor babies are NOT given automatic citizenship. Then change it to where atleast 1 parent MUST be a citizen. Maybe both parents. to end this fake marraige for the sake of citizenship.

Answer 9

You are right that our Constitution does not grant citizenship to children of illegal aliens, although it has been interpreted to do so by our corrupt leaders. I would not want to change it so that it does either. It is a privilege that has been seriously abused and should be ended immediately.

Answer 10

You would definitely flunk the citizenship test. You have it WAY WAY backward.