# Will ending "birthright citizenship" help to control America's borders? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 4, 2005, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-ending-birthright-citizenship-help-to-control-americas-borders/329564 "2005-11-04T22:08:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-ending-birthright-citizenship-help-to-control-americas-borders/329564/21 "2005-11-05T03:18:16Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Since this has been answered by others I ask you: what is your point? Do you deny that I stated the law correctly? Do you you think “and” means something other than “in additon to”? Do you not think that the law should be adhered to? > > WHAT is your point? Really, I’d like to understand where you’re coming from. And please answer the three questions in the above paragraph. Yes, you did not state a law, you stated a piece of the constitution. The word “and” in this case means in addition to. Yes, this part of the constitution should be adhered to. My point was: A U.S. citizen living in Luxembourg is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and therefore, under your interpretation, would not be a U.S. citizen. Due to the “and”. I was graciously corrected by two posters and realized my point was incorrect. Anything else? ---
**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 5, 2005, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-ending-birthright-citizenship-help-to-control-americas-borders/329564/22 "2005-11-05T03:41:36Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I think they’re right. The “and” in the middle says that there are two qualifications for citizenship, not one. Can we apply this same logic to the second amendment as well, and require all gun owners to serve in a well regulated militia? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-ending-birthright-citizenship-help-to-control-americas-borders/329564/23 "2005-11-05T03:58:33Z")
Well since the only “and” in the second amendment is between “keep” and “bear” you are going to have a tough time using that logic to show anything besides the people having both the right to keep arms and the right to bear them. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-ending-birthright-citizenship-help-to-control-americas-borders/329564/24 "2005-11-05T04:00:59Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > Can we apply this same logic to the second amendment as well, and require all gun owners to serve in a well regulated militia? If your average gun-owner operated in a well regulated militia, we’d see a lot less reckless adventurism in Iraq, and less of a sheep culture because our men would be men, and not willing to give up their rights the first time some A-rabs get uppity and manage to actually accomplish a goal. I can’t wait til the borders soften myself, I think getting tougher on immigration is the opposite direction we should be moving in. Erek ---
**Author:** ![MilTan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/71e660/32.png) [@MilTan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MilTan)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-ending-birthright-citizenship-help-to-control-americas-borders/329564/25 "2005-11-05T04:17:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Maybe the exceptions can be found in an emanation or a penumbra. Wow, **Bricker** , that’s just extra-snarky, isn’t it. I thought that liberals used emanations and penumbras to find _new_ rights, or extend existing ones, and it’s the upstanding originalists who make sure that the rights apply as narrowly as possible. > [@magellan01](#): > > Some lawyers and scholars believe that the passage has to be taken in its entirety: > > “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” > > I think they’re right. The “and” in the middle says that there are two qualifications for citizenship, not one. Under what circumstances would someone be either born or naturalized in the US and _not_ be subject to its jurisdiction? Would you argue that illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction? If they are, then under what tortured legal reasoning can you claim that their children, born in the US, would not be (and hence satisfy both clauses of the statement)? Is the plan to pass a statute that says: “If a child is born to illegal immigrants, he/she is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. But, you know, his/her parents still are.” That sounds about as legally useful as the constant attempts to strip SCOTUS of its jurisdiction over various hot-button cases (and is trying to make the same end-run around the Constitution, IMO). ---
**Author:** ![SnakesCatLady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/4af34b/32.png) [@SnakesCatLady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SnakesCatLady)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-ending-birthright-citizenship-help-to-control-americas-borders/329564/26 "2005-11-05T05:02:32Z")
> [@MilTan](#): > > Wow, **Bricker** , that’s just extra-snarky, isn’t it. I thought that liberals used emanations and penumbras to find _new_ rights, or extend existing ones, and it’s the upstanding originalists who make sure that the rights apply as narrowly as possible. > > Under what circumstances would someone be either born or naturalized in the US and _not_ be subject to its jurisdiction? Would you argue that illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction? If they are, then under what tortured legal reasoning can you claim that their children, born in the US, would not be (and hence satisfy both clauses of the statement)? > > Is the plan to pass a statute that says: > > “If a child is born to illegal immigrants, he/she is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. But, you know, his/her parents still are.” > > That sounds about as legally useful as the constant attempts to strip SCOTUS of its jurisdiction over various hot-button cases (and is trying to make the same end-run around the Constitution, IMO). No, the idea is to pass a statute that states “a person born in the United States who is not the child of a person having a legal right to be in the United States is not automatically a citizen of the United States.” ---
**Author:** ![MilTan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/71e660/32.png) [@MilTan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MilTan)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-ending-birthright-citizenship-help-to-control-americas-borders/329564/27 "2005-11-05T05:42:40Z")
> [@Snakescatlady](#): > > No, the idea is to pass a statute that states “a person born in the United States who is not the child of a person having a legal right to be in the United States is not automatically a citizen of the United States.” And that statute is blatantly unconstitutional. It does not change the fact that the child is a) born in the United States, and b) subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Thus, the child meets both criteria for citizenship as set forth by the 14th amendment. **magellan** ’s argument, as far as I can tell (correct me if I’m wrong), is that the way to get around this is to claim that the child meets the first criterion (i.e. place of birth), but not the second (i.e. doesn’t meet the jurisdictional requirement), and thus does not have to be considered a citizen of the US. To accomplish this by statute, it seems that one would have to strip the United States of jurisdiction over the children of illegal immigrants (which my proposed statute - with some wording changes, of course - would do). Your statute does not change the status of the child from the perspective of the 14th amendment, and hence is unconstitutional. ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-ending-birthright-citizenship-help-to-control-americas-borders/329564/28 "2005-11-05T12:55:41Z")
_“There is a general agreement about the fact that citizenship in this country should not be bestowed on people who are the children of folks who come into this country illegally,” said Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, who is participating in the “unity dinners,” the group of Republicans trying to find consensus on immigration._ It should be pointed out that Tom Tancredo is an immigration restrictionist nutcase who routinely proposes restrictions on even _legal_ immigration which just make no logical sense. Here’s his latest bit of idiocy, the REAL GUEST Act, which ignores the realities of modern American business hiring practices: [http://tancredo.house.gov/press/pressers/071905ComprehensiveSectionbySectionfinal.htm](http://tancredo.house.gov/press/pressers/071905ComprehensiveSectionbySectionfinal.htm) It would violate both the U.S. Constitution and the recently promulgated Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreements, not to mention imposing ridiculous burdens on businesses and prospective foreign national employees. (Like not allowing their spouses and children to accompany them to the U.S., potentially for extended periods - though this bill would also limit the ability of an H-1B worker to be in the U.S. in that status to one year out of any 2-year period. Nevermind that H-1B workers are, by definition, highly qualified professionals who aren’t interchangeable at a moment’s notice.) And provides that foreign nationals in H-1B status are precluded from changing or adjusting their status to any other immigrant or nonimmigrant status. Presumably, that means that if an H-1B worker were granted political asylum or married a U.S. citizen, he/she would still have to leave the U.S. at the end of that 1 year. Sec. 209 provides that illegal presence in the U.S. would subject a person not only to deportation, but to a 1-year jail term, and freaking **asset forfeiture.** In my thoroughly considered professional opinion, Tom Tancredo is an idiot, and if it weren’t for the fact that he is a Congresman and therefore other people sometimes pay attention to what he has to say, I would refuse to pay him any heed. Just run a search on his name here: [www.house.gov](http://www.house.gov) and here: [www.aila.org](http://www.aila.org) Eva Luna, Immigration Paralegal ---
**Author:** ![Eva\_Luna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e495f1/32.png) [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-ending-birthright-citizenship-help-to-control-americas-borders/329564/29 "2005-11-05T12:58:16Z")
> [@Snakescatlady](#): > > No, the idea is to pass a statute that states “a person born in the United States who is not the child of a person having a legal right to be in the United States is not automatically a citizen of the United States.” Read further into the piece of embarrassment that is the REAL GUEST Act: it would also strip _jus soli_ citizenship from children born to legally present workers. See Section 104 in my link above. ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-ending-birthright-citizenship-help-to-control-americas-borders/329564/30 "2005-11-05T13:55:02Z")
So what does “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-ending-birthright-citizenship-help-to-control-americas-borders/329564/31 "2005-11-05T16:48:46Z")
> [@What the .... ?!?!](#): > > So what does “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean? Good question. First, I think we can all agree that it means _something_. That the intention is to list two criteria, not one, otherwise there would have been no need for “and” anything. For reference, here is the clause from the 14th Amendment that we are discussing. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” I found what seems to be a thorough examination of the subject. Basically, it seems that the intent of the amendment was to guarantee that individual states would not be able to undo the effects of the Civil War and free Blacks from the binding law of the Dred Scott decision. An excerpt: > [@](#): > > The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment > The first sentence of the 14th Amendment says: > > 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. [emphasis added] > > To hold that the Citizenship Clause confers birthright citizenship on anyone born in the United States is to ignore the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”: a selective misreading of plain English. No argument rooted in the Constitution can support automatic birthright citizenship. The only question is how broadly to read the jurisdiction phrase in the Citizenship Clause. Logic, assisted by the Senate floor debate, answers this. The U.S. Supreme Court has since clouded the picture with its relatively few rulings on the Citizenship Clause, but despite what we are often encouraged to believe by some justices and law professors, the Constitution does not mean only what the Supreme Court says it does. Even so, the Court has never held that the Citizenship Clause automatically confers U.S. citizenship on all children born within the territory of the United States. > > The Ratification Debate > The 14th Amendment, ratified on July 9, 1868, is the second of the three Reconstruction amendments to the Constitution ratified in the years immediately following Union victory in the War Between the States. A primary concern of the amendment’s proponents was the extension of civil rights to recently freed slaves. Senators feared that state legislatures would assert that, not having been born U.S. citizens, emancipation did not make freedmen citizens of their states (hence of the United States; state citizenship was a prerequisite to U.S. citizenship). To forestall any denial of citizenship to freed blacks and to overturn the Dred Scott decision[iii] explicitly, the 14th Amendment’s proponents introduced the Citizenship Clause. > > Nevertheless, they were well aware that a blanket grant of birthright citizenship was not consistent with American tradition and could lead to a demographic transformation in the event of high immigration. To prevent it, the senators included the jurisdiction phrase. The floor debate[iv] reveals their concerns and their views of how far birthright citizenship should extend. > > Introducing the proposed amendment, Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan stated that he believed the Citizenship Clause was “simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural and national law, a citizen of the United States.” He went on to say specifically whom he considered that natural and national law excluded: > > 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. > > The only, tenuous, way to read Senator Howard’s statement to support birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens or, indeed, most legally resident aliens is to assume that the only foreigners or aliens he meant are those belonging to the families of diplomats. The simpler reading is to construe the sentence as what it is: a list of excluded categories. > > Senator James Doolittle of Wisconsin was troubled by Howard’s language, not because he wanted to find a way to include any foreigners or aliens, but because he wanted to ensure that American Indians remained excluded. Howard (and, ultimately, the Senate) thought Doolittle’s proposed clarification unnecessary. As Howard pointed out: > > Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are regarded, and always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi-foreign nations. > > It is, or should be, clear that language denying citizenship to people born within the United States on the theory that they were subject to ‘quasi-foreign nations’ must exclude the children of people who have broken this country’s laws in entering it, and whose whole allegiance is to entirely foreign nations. > > Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania spoke at length about the limits of citizenship and the rights of states (and, by extension, the federal government: senators in 1866 still acknowledged that the powers of the federal government were those expressly delegated to it by the states in the Constitution) to control who may enter from abroad: > > [A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word. You can read the the full article [here.](http://www.vdare.com/sutherland/weigh_anchor.htm) Bricker, thoughts? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-ending-birthright-citizenship-help-to-control-americas-borders/329564/32 "2005-11-05T16:58:52Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > Yes, you did not state a law, you stated a piece of the constitution. > The word “and” in this case means in addition to. > Yes, this part of the constitution should be adhered to. > > My point was: A U.S. citizen living in Luxembourg is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and therefore, under your interpretation, would not be a U.S. citizen. Due to the “and”. I was graciously corrected by two posters and realized my point was incorrect. > > Anything else? Actually, yes. Could you explain the difference between a passage from the Constitution, as I cited, and law? Isn’t it common and correct practice to refer to passages from the Constitution, like the one I cited, as laws? Is there a nuance I’m missing. I’m obvioulsy not a lawyer, so I’d appreciate the education. ---
**Author:** ![MilTan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/71e660/32.png) [@MilTan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MilTan)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-ending-birthright-citizenship-help-to-control-americas-borders/329564/33 "2005-11-05T17:01:35Z")
**magellan** : To me, this is the most telling quotation from what you posted: > [@](#): > > Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are regarded, and always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi-foreign nations. This seems to indicate that the reason Indians might not be covered by the citizenship clause (although I’m pretty sure that Native Americans _are_ considered citizens) is specifically because they “are not… born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” This seems to jibe with my theory that the only way to attempt excluding children of illegal aliens in a statutory manner is to explicitly place them outside of US jurisdiction, since I’m not aware of any claim that they do not currently fall under US jurisdiction. Do you think that something along those lines would be necessary? Or would **Snakescatlady** ’s statute be sufficient? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-ending-birthright-citizenship-help-to-control-americas-borders/329564/34 "2005-11-05T18:05:31Z")
> [@MilTan](#): > > Would you argue that illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction? Yes, since US citizen cannot be deported but illegal aliens can. I’m sure that there are technical reasons why a foreign national would be subject to US laws e.g. if I am a victim of a crime in the US, I file my case in a US or state court regardless of the nationality of the perp. Remember a key point that Taney wrote about in the Dred Scott case - that a person could be made a citizen of a state but that did not make them a US citizen. The example I gave in another thread was if California decided to make all illegal immigrants citizens of the Soverign State of California, would they automatically become citizens of the United States? Of course not. IMO, the “jurisdiction” aspect is to prevent the possible abuse by the feds of not allowing former slaves or their children of becoming US citizens. But even the writers of the XIVth amd. recognized a difference between being born in the US and being a natural-born citizen of the US - otherwise why would they have included the whole jurisdiction angle? ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-ending-birthright-citizenship-help-to-control-americas-borders/329564/35 "2005-11-05T18:09:53Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Is there a nuance I’m missing. I’m obvioulsy not a lawyer, so I’d appreciate the education. I’m not either, but yes, there is a nuance. Calling it a law implies that it can be changed or superceded by a law, in other words a legislative act. The constitution can only be changed by amendment. Interpretation is a different kettle of fish. Any law passed would almost definitely go to the Supreme Court for interpretation of its constitutionality. ---
**Author:** ![MilTan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/71e660/32.png) [@MilTan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MilTan)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-ending-birthright-citizenship-help-to-control-americas-borders/329564/36 "2005-11-05T18:53:22Z")
> [@SaintCad](#): > > Yes, since US citizen cannot be deported but illegal aliens can. I’m sure that there are technical reasons why a foreign national would be subject to US laws e.g. if I am a victim of a crime in the US, I file my case in a US or state court regardless of the nationality of the perp. Just because citizens and non-citizens are subject to different laws doesn’t mean they’re not both under the jurisdiction of the US. And regardless that doesn’t mean that the children of foreign nationals can’t be citizens, just that their parents aren’t - which no one is disputing. Your distinction between citizens and non-citizens turns this into a circular argument: I am only subject to the jurisdiction of the US if I am a US citizen. But without being subject to jurisdiction, the 14th amendment says that I am not a citizen. So, by the 14th amendment, how does _anyone_ become a naturalized citizen? Am I missing something here? > [@](#): > > Remember a key point that Taney wrote about in the Dred Scott case - that a person could be made a citizen of a state but that did not make them a US citizen. The example I gave in another thread was if California decided to make all illegal immigrants citizens of the Soverign State of California, would they automatically become citizens of the United States? Of course not. IMO, the “jurisdiction” aspect is to prevent the possible abuse by the feds of not allowing former slaves or their children of becoming US citizens. Your Dred Scott reference seems to be a bit of a red herring. My understanding was that the one of the points of the 14th amendment was to overrule the Dred Scott decision. I don’t get your last point about how the “jurisdiction” aspect prevents abuse… ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-ending-birthright-citizenship-help-to-control-americas-borders/329564/37 "2005-11-05T18:55:37Z")
Currently [it would seem](http://www.cis.org/articles/1993/back793.html) that the “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause is applied mainly to children of diplomats. The Ruritanian ambassador and her family are [not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States](http://www.state.gov/m/ds/immunities/c9127.htm), so if the Ruritanian ambassador happens to give birth while posted here, her newborn son is not a U.S. citizen. Of course illegal immigrants, unlike diplomats, can be prosecuted for crimes they commit while on U.S. soil. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-ending-birthright-citizenship-help-to-control-americas-borders/329564/38 "2005-11-05T18:58:52Z")
> [@MilTan](#): > > And regardless that doesn’t mean that the children of foreign nationals can’t be citizens, just that their parents aren’t - which no one is disputing. Wrong, that’s the whole point. From the article in the OP : > [@](#): > > “There is a general agreement about the fact that citizenship in this country should not be bestowed on people who are the children of folks who come into this country illegally,” said Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, who is participating in the “unity dinners,” the group of Republicans trying to find consensus on immigration. No one has anwered my question; what country would these kids be citizens of ? Any ? ---
**Author:** ![MilTan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/71e660/32.png) [@MilTan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MilTan)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-ending-birthright-citizenship-help-to-control-americas-borders/329564/39 "2005-11-05T19:05:46Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Wrong, that’s the whole point. From the article in the OP : That was poorly worded on my part. I meant that no one disputes that the childrens’ _parents_ aren’t citizens of the US. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2005, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-ending-birthright-citizenship-help-to-control-americas-borders/329564/40 "2005-11-05T19:06:58Z")
> [@MilTan](#): > > That was poorly worded on my part. I meant that no one disputes that the childrens’ _parents_ aren’t citizens of the US. Ah, my mistake. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-ending-birthright-citizenship-help-to-control-americas-borders/329564.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-ending-birthright-citizenship-help-to-control-americas-borders/329564.md?page=3)