OK, now that I've gotten a broad view of what people think of the 14th Amendment from thoughts of original intent to what should be done to control illegal immigration, I think I'm ready to get my point across:
HKuser started the nail with a tack hammer, mvpel finished driving it with a maul: The nail is the phrase "
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
My initial opinion was the child being born on US soil doesn't necessarily mean you become a citizen.
To put it into lamens' terms: If I want to buy a car, I would be approved for the dollar amount to get a loan
subject to credit approval. What I was trying to find out is what the true interpretation of that phrase. It just doesn't seem right to ignore it and automatically give a baby citizenship because its mother jumped the fence for "technicality" purposes.
lemme guess where this thread is headed...
Guess away, by all means. It would be best to post your thoughts rather than instigating a circumstance that hasn't been hashed to pieces at the moment...
it going to be another one faulting the liberals for believing the Constitution grants citizenship to the illegal kinds born in the country.
No, I'm asking a question about the Constitution in earnest to get some facts straight before I make a formed opinion. Liberals aren't the only "group" of people that are to blame. If blame is to be pointed, it's the citizens that vote for the very elected officials that continue to allow illegal immigration to pour through our borders. Worse yet, citizens that RE-ELECT those public officials. And, to be honest, the guilty ones are to be blamed from the left to the right...
Anchor babies are the fault of administration, not the law.
I can see your point, but I think the fault lies in the person actually breaking the law primarily.
Let's not forget that between 20 and 40% of the illegal aliens in this country come from Canada, not Mexico. So does our bigotry extend to our neighbors to the north as well our neighbors to the south?
First it isn't bigotry to not want illegal immigration happening on America's soil. Second, bad behavior does NOT justify other bad behavior. So, YES it does extend to ILLEGAL aliens from Canada, Russia, Germany, Laos......
The babies aren't illegal immigrants...the mothers are. The babies meet the same requirement that I met to become a citizen; they were dragged kicking and screaming into the world above US soil.
And here's a valid point that argues against my case. And, here's a secondary argument to the subject is if the mother is illegal and the baby is legal, does the baby have the right to remain in the US under the care of its mother?
What if the baby is immediately taken back to Mexico and lived there under dual citizenship until 35 years old? Then he/she moves to America and stumps for president in a few years. The case is very highly unlikely, but my point is that it could be a very messy ordeal in some peoples eyes if this did happen.
My thoughts after considering what I think the COTUS is interpreted and what the Framers' intent was still holds in line what Musketeer states. Mvpel has quite the case in point as well.
For the record: I welcome ANYBODY that wants to come to our country and become a citizen here. The caveat is that that person HAS to go through the LEGAL means necessary that our country put in place.