Should Section 1 of the 14th Amendment be changed?

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

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.


Some have suggested it be changed to where one of the parents must be an American citizen.

Thoughts?

[DamianTV]

I think this would be one we would undoubtedly need Ron Paul himself to write it. I know he is for getting rid of birthright citizenship.

[bobbyw24]

Rethinking Birthright Citizenship

by Ron Paul



A recent article in the Houston Chronicle discusses the problem of so-called anchor babies, children born in U.S. hospitals to illegal immigrant parents. These children automatically become citizens, and thus serve as an anchor for their parents to remain in the country. Our immigration authorities understandably are reluctant to break up families by deporting parents of young babies. But birthright citizenship, originating in the 14th amendment, has become a serious cultural and economic dilemma for our nation.

In some Houston hospitals, administrators estimate that 70 or 80% of the babies born have parents who are in the country illegally. As an obstetrician in south Texas for several decades, I can attest to the severity of the problem. It’s the same story in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. And the truth is most illegal immigrants who have babies in U.S. hospitals do not have health insurance and do not pay their hospital bills.

This obviously cannot be sustained, either by the hospitals involved or the taxpayers who end up paying the bills.

No other wealthy, western nations grant automatic citizenship to those who simply happen to be born within their borders to non-citizens. These nations recognize that citizenship involves more than the physical location of one’s birth; it also involves some measure of cultural connection and allegiance. In most cases this means the parents must be citizens of a nation in order for their newborn children to receive automatic citizenship.


I’ve introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, on the heels of the Civil War. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined.

Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that’s precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It’s time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment.

October 3, 2006

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html
Ron Paul Archives

[ChaosControl]

If you were born here to non-citizens where would you then be a citizen of? Where would they send you to?

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Rethinking Birthright Citizenship

by Ron Paul



A recent article in the Houston Chronicle discusses the problem of so-called anchor babies, children born in U.S. hospitals to illegal immigrant parents. These children automatically become citizens, and thus serve as an anchor for their parents to remain in the country. Our immigration authorities understandably are reluctant to break up families by deporting parents of young babies. But birthright citizenship, originating in the 14th amendment, has become a serious cultural and economic dilemma for our nation.

In some Houston hospitals, administrators estimate that 70 or 80% of the babies born have parents who are in the country illegally. As an obstetrician in south Texas for several decades, I can attest to the severity of the problem. It’s the same story in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. And the truth is most illegal immigrants who have babies in U.S. hospitals do not have health insurance and do not pay their hospital bills.

This obviously cannot be sustained, either by the hospitals involved or the taxpayers who end up paying the bills.

No other wealthy, western nations grant automatic citizenship to those who simply happen to be born within their borders to non-citizens. These nations recognize that citizenship involves more than the physical location of one’s birth; it also involves some measure of cultural connection and allegiance. In most cases this means the parents must be citizens of a nation in order for their newborn children to receive automatic citizenship.


I’ve introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, on the heels of the Civil War. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined.

Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that’s precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It’s time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment.

October 3, 2006

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html
Ron Paul Archives

Props on this.

[RonPaulCult]

If you were born here to non-citizens where would you then be a citizen of? Where would they send you to?

Most nations transfer citizenship from parent to child. So the child would be a citizen of his/her parent's home country.

They wouldn't send you anywhere because if the parents have a legal right to live in the United States - so too would the child.

Also, after so many years of living in the US the child would be eligible to become a citizen.

I think :)

[ChaosControl]

Most nations transfer citizenship from parent to child. So the child would be a citizen of his/her parent's home country.

They wouldn't send you anywhere because if the parents have a legal right to live in the United States - so too would the child.

Also, after so many years of living in the US the child would be eligible to become a citizen.

I think :)

I was more thinking if your parents are here illegally. And perhaps the nation they came from only recognized you as a citizen if you were born there, I don't know if that is the case anywhere though.

I don't really have any objections to birthright citizenship though.

[DamianTV]

If you were born here to non-citizens where would you then be a citizen of? Where would they send you to?

Right now? To school. The way it should be? TO the country of origin.

---

Ditto and props on the Ron Paul quote on Illegals.

[RonPaulCult]

I was more thinking if your parents are here illegally. And perhaps the nation they came from only recognized you as a citizen if you were born there, I don't know if that is the case anywhere though.

I don't really have any objections to birthright citizenship though.

Sorry - I was being optimistic that we would secure our borders - haha.

The kids would be here illegally. They would be deported. Put that in your pipe and smoke it cause - most people are not willing to do that to kids.

[MelissaWV]

The citizenship requirement, if it is to be amended, might consider duality of citizenship as well. I don't really think the President should hold a dual citizenship... it really screams conflict of interest, even if s/he is good enough to ignore the bias.

[RedStripe]

If struggling hospitals and lack of medical care are the "problems" you are so concerned about, dumping poor people off into a third world country only solves the problem for some of the people, and makes it worse for those least able to help themselves.

Fact is, you don't care about overrun hospitals because it's a problem for poor immigrants - you only care about that fact that it's an inconvenience to you because you've got just as much of a government-inspired entitlement complex as any "illegal immigrant" if not more.

“Wahhh I want easier access to government-run hospitals and schools!!!! I want free healthcare!!! Wahhhh”

The ironic part is, most of you would call yourselves Christian, yet there's not a single aspect of the anti-immigration movement which is motivated by principles of Christian charity and compassion for the poor, desperate and vilified illegal immigrant families.

You don't see 'overburdened schools, hospitals, and other public services' as a problem that needs to be solved for the sake all those affected, illegal immigrants included. No, you see it as a problem that needs to be solved with your interests alone in mind without any regard whatsoever for the plight of impoverished illegal immigrant families, because you're too busy looking out for #1.

God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in their shoes.

[mrsat_98]

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 TPTB need to read the dam thing or repeal it. It plainly states born or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Mind pointing out how a wetback is subject to the jurisdiction thereof. As well as "the United States" the would be the cess pool in Washington DC and its other things in Article 1 section 8 and article 4 section 3 clause 2. Otherwise it would be these united States. If you study real carefully this amendment was passed an the point of a bayonet to give freed slaves a political status. The ones that got this status after the civil was are all dead.

[Matt Collins]

I hate to correct Ron, but the 14th was never ratified. Even the National Review neocon magazine recognizes this fact.

[Matt Collins]

Also it creates dual citizenship. Before 14A one was simply a citizen of their state. 14A "created" federal citizens. The idea was to ensure that the freed slaves were now protected by federal law because they were now federal citizens. The problem is that the creator is always held to be more powerful than the created and when we are now all subject to federal power that presents a problem.

[Matt Collins]

Oh and I would like to encourage you to refrain from using the phrase "wetback" .

[Vessol]

Birthright citizenship was granted back when people couldn't get pregnant and come over to America to have the baby within a few days.

I'm all for removing birthright citizenship.

[MelissaWV]

Also it creates dual citizenship. Before 14A one was simply a citizen of their state. 14A "created" federal citizens. The idea was to ensure that the freed slaves were now protected by federal law because they were now federal citizens. The problem is that the creator is always held to be more powerful than the created and when we are now all subject to federal power that presents a problem.

If you're referring to my earlier post, you know I meant dual in the case of nations :p A President who is both Canadian and American is going to have some trouble keeping an appearance of impartiality. My point was that IF the Amendment were going to be revisited, it might be something to address while people are at it.

[Galileo Galilei]

Some have suggested it be changed to where one of the parents must be an American citizen.

Thoughts?

No, it shouldn't. This clause is like the Magna Carta of the US Constitution. James Madison wanted it this way from the beginning.

If both of the parents are slaves, then the child is not a citizen without the 14th amendment.

Any attempt to change this is the first step to enslave the American people. I am talking about real slavery, not just high taxes.

We are already on the road with the drug war. If the 14th amendment gets changed, then criminal codes can be written to strip citizenship for crimes. Then if people convicted of crimes have kids, those kids will be slaves by birth. After a few generations, a small elite could rule over us.

The 14th amendment is written so there are no loopholes. The NWO is whipping up anti-immigration frenzy to scare the people into giving up their rights, and this is a blatant attempt by the NWO to get rid of the 14th amendment.

[axiomata]

I recommend reading this paper (http://www.trolp.org/main_pgs/issues/v14n1/Graglia.pdf).

A few highlights:

1. The anchor baby interpretation is incorrect.


How, then, should the jurisdiction requirement of the Citizenship Clause be interpreted in regard to that question?
Like any writing, or at least any law, it should be interpreted to mean what it was intended or understood to mean by those who
adopted it—the ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment. They could not have considered the question of granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens because, for one thing, there were no illegal aliens in 1868, when the amendment was
ratified, because there were no restrictions on immigration. It is hard to believe, moreover, that if they had considered it, they would have intended to provide that violators of United States immigration law be given the award of American citizenship for their children born in the United States.

2. Past court rulings have back up the original intent.


In 1873 in the Slaughter-House Cases, the first case to come before the Court involving the then newly enacted Fourteenth
Amendment, the Court stated, in dicta, that “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from [birthright citizenship] children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United Sates.”

Much more important, in 1884 in Elk v. Wilkins, the Court adopted the view of Senators Trumbull and Howard that a child born to members of an Indian tribe did not have birthright citizenship. Such a child was born in the United States, but not born “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” because that requires that the child be “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

[slothman]

Without the applicable clause then how would you determine natural-born citizenship?
What laws would you make?