# Congressman King and the 14th Amendment **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 23, 2010, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congressman-king-and-the-14th-amendment/561691 "2010-11-23T19:46:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congressman-king-and-the-14th-amendment/561691/41 "2010-11-27T21:25:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s not relevant what they meant, is it? I mean, if you’re amending their language, then you’re amending their language. Seems the correct question would be, “What do we want our policy to be?” I agree. Parsing the intent of the founders beyond what is stated in the Constitution is a subjective goose chase that will lead to nothing but chaos. The Founders were a very diverse bunch, and you can find support for both sides of just about any issue that can be raised, but that does not mean the Constitution should be changed on account of it. The Constitution represents the consensus that was reached only after months of spirited debate. Unless we are contemplating amending the Constitution, what any one of the founders intended is irrelevant; what is important is what the majority agreed on and what the states ratified. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2010, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congressman-king-and-the-14th-amendment/561691/42 "2010-11-27T23:51:31Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > Remember that in _Wong Van Ark_, his parents were here legally. My understanding is that the decision could be read to apply to anchor babies and so it has been assumed to be so. I suspect King’s strategy may be to exclude anchor babies as not being eligible under the 14th Amendment and force SCOTUS to definitively rule that the 14th Amendment does apply to children born to illegal immigrants. I don’t think that he anticipates it working, but in this anti-illegal immigration culture it is sure to make SCOTUS (and through them Obama) unpopular. I think you may be giving Mr. King a little too much credit. ---
**Author:** ![ruadh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d2c977/32.png) [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2010, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congressman-king-and-the-14th-amendment/561691/43 "2010-11-28T07:46:47Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Parents of US citizen children are somewhat less _likely_ to be deported by immigration judges. Any cite for that? > [@jtgain](#): > > The mother breaks the law in order to confer citizenship on her newborn. And that then gives her a contact to become a legal immigrant herself. Yeah, 21 years later. I’d like to know how many people have actually managed to immigrate on that basis. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2010, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congressman-king-and-the-14th-amendment/561691/44 "2010-11-28T13:11:16Z")
I don’t know the stats but we can certainly consider changing the citizen by birth clause if it no longer serves our national interests. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/congressman-king-and-the-14th-amendment/561691.md?page=2)