Is It Time To Repeal The 14th Amendment ?

[jclalor 12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I don't think the original writers of this amendment could have imagined how it would end up being used.

I do not begrudge anyone who wants a better life for their children and themselves, If I was in a similar situation and I was able get my children citizenship, of course I would do the same.

And to save time I also know that I am evidently very afraid of brown, black, and yellow people for even suggesting that breaking our immigration laws are wrong.

[quade 3]

I assume you're referring to Section 1;

Quote

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Emphasis mine.

If you repealed it, you'd have to come up with a new definition.

What exactly would you want that to be and how would that affect the citizenship status of of your yet-to-be-born children?

I think the writers knew exactly what they were doing. The intention was that individuals born in the US are automatically citizens. Their parents may or may not become citizens, but the children absolutely are given it as a literal birthright.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jclalor 12]

Quote

***

Quote

I assume you're referring to Section 1;

***
Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Emphasis mine.

If you repealed it, you'd have to come up with a new definition.

What exactly would you want that to be and how would that affect the citizenship status of of your yet-to-be-born children?

[RackJR 0]

Quote

You do realize that was written to guarantee that slaves and their children would be citizens?

I really don't know the answer to this question but....

jcalor are you the kind of person who would like to amend the 2nd amendment because the founding fathers weren't talking about assault rifles? Would you favor changing that amendment in the direction of greater control over the right to bear ams because we have lots of problems in the US with gun crime?

I know it's a drift, but hopefully not far. If you would indulge me and explain your answer a little that would be great, especially if your answer is no.

Say what you mean. Do what you say.

[quade 3]

Quote

You do realize that was written to guarantee that slaves and their children would be citizens?

That was one reason by way of providing Constitutional protection for the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The other reason was that up until that time, there was no actual definition of what it was to be a citizen.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jclalor 12]

Quote

Quote

You do realize that was written to guarantee that slaves and their children would be citizens?

I really don't know the answer to this question but....

jcalor are you the kind of person who would like to amend the 2nd amendment because the founding fathers weren't talking about assault rifles? Would you favor changing that amendment in the direction of greater control over the right to bear ams because we have lots of problems in the US with gun crime?

I know it's a drift, but hopefully not far. If you would indulge me and explain your answer a little that would be great, especially if your answer is no.

Believe it or not I have never voted anything but Democrat my whole life. I have also always thought that the Democrats had the middle class American's best interest at heart. not so any more. ( at least on the immigration issue)
As far as the second amendment, I have always believed in the right to own arms. Although I have always thought the argument in the " Well regulated militia" was a bit of a stretch. ( we already have the national guard) I own three guns. one a semi auto HK 91, Full autos have no place in the hands of civilians.

[Andy9o8 0]

Everyone's getting distracted with tangential issues. Let's re-focus on the OP.

The bottom line to the OP's question is:
Should US citizenship - today - be changed from "anyone born in the US, regardless of any other factors" (that's what currently is the effect of the 14th Amendment; for example it appears that Canada has a similar law) , to "anyone born here where at least one parent is either a citizen or a permanent resident of the US" (for example, it appears that Australia has such a law).

By the way, it would require a formal amendment of the US Constitution to do that. Not impossible by any means, but not simple, either: amending the US Constitution is deliberately designed to be a cumbersome process.

[lawrocket 3]

At least jclalor is proposing an appropriate method for making change. This is a political decision - and something that would hopefully require a Constitutional Amendment versus use of the judiciary to strip the meaning.

I believe that there are legitimate concerns. However, I think that people should note that "illegal" is on the basis of statutes passed by Congress. The reason why so many people (and governments) point to problems with immigration is that illegal immigrants "drain resources."

This means that the problem is not immigration - the problem is socialism. I'd personally like to see an amendment that amends the commerce clause to state language that limits the reach of the federal government.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[RackJR 0]

I guess what I was getting at was this...

Illegals in the US are a problem. Should we change the constitution? Gun crime is a problem. Should we change the constitution? I would guess that a lot of the people who would argue to change the 14th amendment would also argue strenuously NOT to change the 2nd. Just a guess, admittedly.

Just for the record, I think there needs to be greater gun control in the US. Until there is, I own 2 handguns, and when I'm in the US, I carry one wherever I go.

Say what you mean. Do what you say.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Although I have always thought the argument in the " Well regulated militia" was a bit of a stretch. ( we already have the national guard)

Yeah, about that... link

Quote

There is of course the modern 10 US Code §311, which defines the unorganized militia of the U.S. as essentially all males 18-45 and certain women, and the organized militia as essentially the National Guard. There are also various State statutes (Arizona's defines the state militia to include women as well as men).

10 U.S.C. §311 dates from the Dick Act of 1903, which repealed the Militia Law of 1792, and first wrote the term "National Guard" into law. The Guard as we now know it (dual enlistment: members of State National Guard units required to enlist in the U.S. Reserves) dates from the Army Act of 1940. (Why dual enlistment? In 1912 the Attorney General ruled that NG units could not be sent outside the US, because they were part of (note "part of") the militia, and the Constitution allows the militia to be called up only for domestic purposes -- to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and execute the laws of the Union. As a result in WWI Guard units were broken up and members drafted into regular Army units as individuals, an inefficient operation and one displeasing to the Guard).

The NG isn't the militia.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[GeorgiaDon 340]

My youngest daughter was born here, while my wife and I were legally in the country but not yet permanent residents. She is a US citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment, but it isn't obvious to me that there is any other compelling reason why she should be a citizen. I do appreciate the generosity of the US constitution in saving me the trouble of sponsoring her through the permanent resident/naturalization process, but I did it for the rest of the family and I could have done it for her too. I suppose there may be some situations where kids born here could find themselves without citizenship anywhere, if the home countries of the parents don't recognize children born abroad as citizens, but I can't think of any example countries. On the other hand, I know someone who was born in the States (=US citizen) to a Brazilian father (=Brazilian citizen) and French mother (=French citizen, = employment eligible anywhere in the EU). He had passports from all 3 countries too.

So I suppose it could be changed with relatively little adverse effect, except that the reason for the change would be abundantly obvious and would send a negative (but probably fairly truthful) message about how America regards would-be immigrants. The question is, is the "damage" done by allowing citizenship as a birthright greater than the cost that would be incurred to police the new standard, not to mention the cost to the reputation of the US? In order to assert citizenship, under the change people would need to prove not only their place of birth but also the citizenship of their parents. Of course, if the parents were not "legitimate" citizens because their parents were not citizens, then the kid wouldn't be eligible either. So a few generations down the road, we'd have a situation where a prospective US citizen would have to prove the authentic citizenship of at least one parent, and the grandparents, and so on going back generations, in addition to proving their place of birth. Good business for genealogists I suppose, but potentially a nightmare for the rest of us.

I say, leave things as they are.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[BikerBabe 0]

No.

See, there's the OTHER part of the 14th that prevents some very sticky situations, like...oh...yanno...civil war...

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[kelpdiver 2]

implementation would be a mess.

right now - you have a birth certificate, you're set. Hospitals keep good records here.

But they're really not in the business of collecting and vetting citizenship of a parent. And what about the kids who are born and given up (no questions asked policies to discourage mothers from dumping the kids in dumpsters) ? Are they deemed non citizens because of their useless parents?