14th Amendment In The News

[togor]

Jurisdiction seems like a long shot given that we call their parents detainees and in fact detain them.

[RED]

There was once a USAF flyover at the inauguration of a Democrat President (Obama, or was it Clinton?) and somebody complained about it. "Why are the military here?" was the complaint and a Democrat VIP pointed to the complainer and said... "it's our Air Force now!"

It is OUR Supreme Court now!

[togor]

A plain reading of the amendment, which was the unquestioned standard for a very long time, points to citizenship at birth. The movement now to read something new into the qualifying clause is exactly the sort of thing that literalists are supposed to be against. Which perhaps goes to show that there are few true literalists out there, or that where one stands on literalism depends on where one sits on a particular issue.

[S.A. Boggs]

A plain reading of the amendment, which was the unquestioned standard for a very long time, points to citizenship at birth. The movement now to read something new into the qualifying clause is exactly the sort of thing that literalists are supposed to be against. Which perhaps goes to show that there are few true literalists out there, or that where one stands on literalism depends on where one sits on a particular issue.

This will eventually be up to the Supreme Court to say what our Constitution states. With a Conservative Court I fully expect that the current interpretation will stand, regardless of any XO.
Sam

[Bodyman]

Et la, ...

The XIV Amendment was thoroughly explained when it was first proposed. A key phrase is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" -- the children of foreign diplomats do not become citizens because they have diplomatic immunity. Indians did not become citizens because they were not subject to White Man's laws, but only to those of their own nation (On June 2, 1924, Congress granted citizenship to all Native Americans with the Indian Citizenship Act.)

Note the amendment also says "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," echoing a similar prohibition on the Federal Government in the V Amendment. Yet somehow unborn children -- who are just as human as you or I -- may be killed for mere convenience' sake.

The Constitution cannot be set aside by Executive Order (nor by Federal Law, either -- but that doesn't stop Congress.)

It isn't an abortion debate, but as much as some of you may not like it Vern hit the nail on the head, ... again.

The liberal position is so inconsistent as to be completely indefensible (and deluded to the point of psychosis). A purported love of the 'person' so great that they defend the right of the unborn to be born here and enjoy all the rights and benefits hereof, complete with an overly dramatically aghast reaction at the mere suggestion of otherwise. All while at the same time denying the existence of 'the person' making it merely a growth of flesh or something so as to allow for the convenient termination of that very same unborn! Would they still defend the caravan were it full of pregnant mothers wanting only to throw their hips over the border for an abortion? Are those unborn persons or non-persons - were logic to actually apply it might cause a psychotic break! Bear in mind it is well established, borderline 'ancient' and bedrock law of this land, that even a zygote is enough of a 'person' to have a vested and very defensible right to own real property - yup (see; "The Rule Against Perpetuities"). Along with other similar examples, therein the suggestion that abortion (based upon an heretofore non-existent right to privacy that exists exactly nowhere else in the law) is inconsistent with the established law of the land is not without merit.

This current debate, while tertiary to the issues around abortion, merely brings these incongruities of liberal propositions more clearly into focus.

Pass the popcorn.

[Roadkingtrax]

By the same logic the far right should support a women's right to choose even more fervently.

[Art]

The 14th Amendment's "birthright citizenship" clause was prompted by the slavery issue and particularly the "Scott vs. Sanford" decision but was broader in intent. It was intended to prevent any future situation in which a large number of people inhabiting the United States for generations would be denied citizenship. Several countries have issues with this. Japan, for example has a very large group of people, mostly Koreans, who have been in Japan for generations who do not to this day have Japanese citizenship. This has caused a lot of negative social issues in "The Land of the Rising Sun." Japan has tried to mitigate the problem recently by giving some of these people the right to vote while simultaneously denying them citizenship .


There is a firmly established constitutional doctrine called the principle of reasonable restrictions. That's why "the Congress shall make no law" portion of the first amendment has been held by the courts to not protect child pornography or slander and the "shall not be infringed" part of the Second Amendment has similarly been held not to protect the gun rights of convicted felons. I can see a law limiting birthright citizenship to the children of United States Citizens and aliens lawfully in the United States (possibly excluding short term visitors like tourists) might pass the test with the courts as they are constituted today, but it would spend years winding its way through the judicial process. Worth a try though.

[Rock]

A good explanation here...

[m1ashooter]

Good point. Its going to the supreme court.

[Vern Humphrey]

Let us hope the Court stands with a literal interpretation -- it is the height of folly to change the Constitution by interpretation to solve today's problem and thereby create worst problems tomorrow.

[barretcreek]

Around 10:20 he refers to a 9th Circuit case deciding citizenship of the children of Chinese immigrants who were not citizens but legal residents.

[clintonhater]

Let us hope the Court stands with a literal interpretation -- it is the height of folly to change the Constitution by interpretation to solve today's problem and thereby create worst problems tomorrow.

Considering the reality of the situation today--cheap hotels on the Mexican side of the border where preggos hole up in about their 8th month, than dash across the border in a taxi to the nearest US hospital when they're sure the "blessed event" is close--what problem tomorrow could be worse than that?

[Jiminvirginia]

Never understood birthright citizenship in this day and age. It made sense in 1868 as a mechanism to grant citizenship to freed slaves. I dont see the purpose of it now and I think it should be repealed.

[Vern Humphrey]

Considering the reality of the situation today--cheap hotels on the Mexican side of the border where preggos hole up in about their 8th month, than dash across the border in a taxi to the nearest US hospital when they're sure the "blessed event" is close--what problem tomorrow could be worse than that?

How about a country run by decree, rather than the laws and the Constitution?

[clintonhater]

How about a country run by decree, rather than the laws and the Constitution?

We already live in a country run by decrees--the decrees of unelected federal judges immune to the consequences of their actions.