The language isn’t 100% clear.
“subject to the jurisdiction thereof” could easily be interpreted to not include people here illegally.
The SCOTUS decided in 1898 that the amendment passed in 1868 allows illegals born here citizenship. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to take another look at it.
Nah. Graboids. With frickin’ laser beams attached to their heads.
This, I think, is a good idea. There’s a lot of things people are against having registrations for, but even most of them would likely be in favor of something like this. Hell, it would probably even make life easier for most natural born citizens. Ever apply for a job after a long period of a previous one and then you have to go dig up your birth certificate to prove you are legal? It would be a simple process, contain all documentation, and could possibly tie other citizenship or legal resident related rights into the system as well.
How does this work, exactly, without a lot of cooperation from other countries? If we deport a criminal to Mexico, and they don’t take efforts to keep him imprisoned, he can just come right back.
I already touched on this above, but I absolutely DO think it was the intent. Slaves were, generally speaking, not citizens, but by that point, they had all been born here. It might be an unintended consequence, as illegal immigration wasn’t a consideration then. I’d rather see us find a way to prevent “anchor babies” than taking that to the supreme court, with a risk of people who are here legally now but might end up in citizenship limbo if the interpretation of the Fourtheenth were changed.
Why should Americans be put first? I WANT competition and I WANT talent in this country. Sure, all things being equal, an American should get the job, but they likely would anyway because of administrative overhead of hiring a non-citizen, not to mention any associated cultural and social issues. Far too many doctors and engineers and scientists are having difficulty getting work here and end up taking their skills home.
Yes it did, the Wong Kim Ark case, 6-2. This has no chance of being overturned. By the way, they aren’t “illegals”. They’re “citizens”, just as much as someone who can trace his roots on both sides to being in the US as the time of the Revolution.
Those European countries became ethno-states over the course of centuries. Gauls, Romans, Breton, Franks, and Normans ultimately became French. This is all for the good. No reason why it shouldn’t happen in the States as well.
You do understand that that would not work retroactively, right (US Constitution, Article I, Section 9)?
We can dual cites on this all day long based on the wording of the question but it’s clear that people overwhelmingly want the border secured and that includes more agents and fences/walls. This is why politicians, even ones who favor amnesty, have learned that they need to at least promise to secure the border before anyone will consider listening to them on any comprehensive plans.
No, I don’t understand that. Since the intitial premise is unconstitutional, citing the Constitution is not an effective way of rebutting.
I do agree that if the Constitution were to be changed to remove birthright citizenship, more serious thought would have to go into its implication, and that saying "from Jan. 1, 2020, forward. . . " would be more sensible than re-analyzing every existing citizen, but we’re talking Trump-level crazy, not “how could we make this work.”
Trump just says this in the proposal:
So he doesn’t really answer that fully. If you want my opinion, I’d say that once we deport a criminal once if we catch them here again we hit them with a long prison term. They came back once, they’ll keep coming back. The combination of their willingness to ignore immigration law and the criminal history means we can’t trust their government to keep them so we have to.
This would cost money, but would probably save money in the long run once potential illegal immigrants learned it’s not a good idea to come here if they have criminal records.
It would definitely save lives.
I’m inclined to agree with this. However, it’s not what we’re doing now. A doctor from England has a much tougher road to immigrate to the US than a day laborer from Mexico. This can be corrected once we gain control of the border. I’d love to see a system where people with advanced degrees and in demand skills get to the front of the line. However, this will be opposed by Democrats, since those people will tend to be from other first world countries and will tend to be white.
Then if, over the course of centuries, there’s an American ethnicity, we can revisit the issue.
The civilized world has been trying for quite a while to reduce the problem of stateless people. This would exacerbate it.
The “birthright citizenship” for illegal aliens could be taken away by a SCOTUS decision that would repeal its previous decisions. For example, the Slaughter-House case did state that “the phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States”.
If the 14th amendment is changed/repealed, that doesn’t mean that the Article I, Section 9 doesn’t apply. You would have to go through the amendment process of Article I, Section 9 as well.
There is an American ethnicity. Just because it’s not fully formed yet doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Please elaborate.
A massive win/win…for the prison industry and for countries that want to dump their criminals on our soil.
In the short run, perhaps. In the long run, no, because travelers would not have the expectation of taking advantage of our generosity.
Again, you can’t do this in Germany. You definitely can’t do it in Japan. You can’t even do it in Mexico. (Our southern neighbor is quite harsh on illegal immigrants.)
Why should we continue to allow it in the States?
Once again, until the SCOTUS says otherwise, they are full citizens. At no time are they illegal aliens that somehow become your madeup “birthright citizen”-they are full citizens from birth, period.
And it’s $29,000 a year to house a federal prisoner. So much for saving the taxpayers money.
It’s in our Constitution? Not only do we “allow” it-we require it.