Is it time to repeal the 14th Amendment?

Question

The 14th Amendment grants automatic citizenship to babies born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant mothers. These "anchor babies" enable their mothers to stay here.

France does not offer citizenship to an immigrant child until the child reaches the age of 18.

Is it time for the U.S. to close this loophole and repeal the 14th Amendment?

Answer 1

the baby is not guilty of what was done before she/he was born ... if a pregnant woman can cross the border with out documents that its something which those who were not able to stop her should be ashamed of ... plus just so u know the only thing than makes u an American is the fact than u were born in America , u personally did nothing at all to be an American but to be born , so technically there is not difference between u and those babies whom disrespectfully u call anchor babies , get over yourself , u are not from a race superior to them to assume only u deserve to be in America when they did the exact thing than u did ' to be born and thats it . plus look at every criminal in jail and tell me they are more deserving than those who were brought by their parents and did nothing but to be born , do u question the citizenship of them !? NO u question the citizenship of babies with out guilt instead , what a shame for u and all like u .

Answer 2

The U.S. Supreme Court has NEVER RULED that illegals who birth their children on U.S. soil are or get automatic citizenship. Yet there is this misnomer that has been going on for years that they had.

You and others want this challenged, and clarified clearly.. then file a petition, and lawsuit to have it heard in the courts. That way it can be taken all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to be clarified when the other courts rule on it, and it gets appealed if the lower courts disagree with the lawsuit.

As it is...  Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.”

Sen. Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States.”

Sen. Trumbull felt the words, “That all persons born in the United States and owing allegiance thereto are hereby declared to be citizens” would be more than sufficient to fulfill this goal. However, after investigation it was found the United States had no authority to make citizens of those temporarily residing in the United States who owed only a “temporary allegiance.”

Many make the silly mistake of confusing temporary allegiance to a countries laws under the law of nations with that of allegiance to a nation. In school we pledge allegiance to the flag and the “Republic for which it stands,” not pledge our allegiance to local traffic laws. No one during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries confused owing allegiance to the laws with that of owing allegiance to a nation.

This is why it was later demanded that a complete and immediate allegiance - that is, “not owing allegiance to anyone else” - be established under a constitutional amendment and not merely a temporary allegiance.

Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

In other words, there is no such thing as an American who holds dual allegiance between two nations. Why make citizens of those who owe no allegiance to the nation, who might join the forces of another country against you, align themselves with foreign interests, or those who carry none of the burdens of citizenship (such as taxes, military service, juries, etc.)?

*************

To understand how an alien might not owe allegiance to some other sovereignty upon arrival to this country, one need to look no further then the naturalization laws of the United States. Under United States law, an alien was required to make a declaration of his intention to become a citizen, and renounce all allegiance to his former government two years before he could make a final application.

Therefore, it does not require a leap of faith to understand what persons, other than citizens themselves, under the Fourteenth Amendment are citizens of the United States by birth: Those aliens who have come with the intent to become U.S. citizens, who had first compiled with the laws of naturalization in declaring their intent and renounce all prior allegiances.

Sen. Trumbull further restates the the goal of the language: “It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens…” He could only be referring to the laws of naturalization and consent to expatriation by the immigrant in order for him to come completely within the jurisdiction of the United States and its laws, i.e., he cannot be a subject of another nation.

On July 18, 1868 Sen. Howard explained expatriation to mean “the emigration of the foreigner from his native land to some other land non animo revertendi; that is, with the intention of changing his domicile and making his permanent home in the country to which he emigrates.” Sen. Howard explained that expatriation could only be complete through law alone, and not through any act of the immigrant acting on his own outside of the law.

John Bingham said in April of 1872 that no one could be considered a citizen of the United States until they first surrender their allegiance to the country of their origin:

************

What changed after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment? Not much really. States adopted laws that excluded either “transient aliens” or those not resident of the State. New York had already a 1857 code that read, “All persons born in this state, and resident within it, except the children of transie

edit: And there is a clear distinction, and difference between the babies of foreigner nationals, and Americans being birthed on U.S. soil...  The Americans (parent/s) are citizens themselves.  Therefore making their children citizens of this country.  While foreigner nationals are not citizens at all.

Answer 3

Racism runs rampant here.

Answer 4

The 14th amendment does NOT grant citizenship to the babies of criminal invaders! It states that if they have no other citizenship then they can get US citizenship. The Wong case brought this into question and the supreme court ruled that because Mr Wong's parents were allowed into the US as immigrants and then discriminated against by not allowing the Chines to get permanent residence or citizenship that Mr. Wong was a citizen. The court made it very plain that the issue was whether or not mr. Wongs parents came here legally as immigrants and not because of where he was born. The writers of the 14th amendment stated that they did not want to grant citizenship to anyone but citizens and legal immigrants (the slaves were considered legal immigrantsat that time).

If we have to rewrite it to make it clear then so be it!  

Answer 5

YES. I think it's one of the stupidest of the Amendments, right up there with the one that outlawed alcohol -- and THAT one WAS repealed.

Answer 6

NO! but how about the people that want to, move to France to be happy.

Answer 7

It's also time to have all the politicians take a refresher course on the constitution (maybe the Supreme Court too).

Answer 8

Its time, the 14th amendment as been abused by those Mexicans coming illegally to have their babies in the US from tax payers expense.

Answer 9

Yes

Answer 10

"Rethinking Birthright Citizenship

Houston Chronicle

October 2,  2006    

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.

Make no mistake, Americans are happy to welcome immigrants who follow our immigration laws and seek a better life here.  America is far more welcoming and tolerant of newcomers than virtually any nation on earth.  But our modern welfare state creates perverse incentives for immigrants, incentives that cloud the issue of why people choose to come here.  The real problem is not immigration, but rather the welfare state magnet.

Hospitals bear the costs when illegal immigrants enter the country for the express purpose of giving birth.  But illegal immigrants also use emergency rooms, public roads, and public schools.  In many cases they are able to obtain Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, and even unemployment benefits.  Some have fraudulently collected Social Security benefits.

Of course many American citizens also use or abuse the welfare system.  But we cannot afford to open our pocketbooks to the rest of the world.  We must end the perverse incentives that encourage immigrants to come here illegally, including the anchor baby incentive.

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. "

www.house.gov/paul

I think this article pretty much sums it up.

Answer 11

Yes,20 million illegals ago !!!

Answer 12

Absolutely.  And, in particular, I say this as a legal naturalized immigrant. When illegal immigration gets an edge over legal immigration we have to believe that something is wrong with the system.

I would probably generalize the answer to a more generalized principle that when we have a law that rewards an undesired and illegal behavior then the law has to be changed. The current situation creates an incentive for illegal immigration and for illegal immigrants to have children while in the US. That is bizzare.

I do think that in the circumstances the amendment was originally written it probably made sense but that was a different social context and a different world. The constitution needs to be made relevant to the world of today. That is why an amendment process was created.

And to another posters comments - I certainly don't believe such babies are guilty of any crime or less of human beings in any way. But I don't think they should get citizenship. In the same way that I don't think the people who the illegal immigrants left behind in their home countries are lesser human beings or undeserving in any way. But I don't think that fact entitles them to citizenship.  I don't mean my statements in any way to be disrespectful or hateful towards illegal immigrants. But I just don't think that a society of laws can be run in a manner that not just tolerates but encourages illegal behaviour.

Answer 13

I think so

Answer 14

Why not.  It's been abused.  Maybe put restrictions on it instead, like they have the second amendment.

Answer 15

yes. It should have been taken care of a LONG time ago. I don't know that it would do any good now. Illegals have already cost this country so much money, we will never recover and even if you put a strict immigration policy in place, there is no way you would ever be able to rid the US of all of them. The damage to our US families and students have already been done in the loss of health coverage, jobs, homes,  education. but this would be a start. it still won't prevent them from coming here to have their babies. As long as we are giving them jobs and welfare (which they still get with stolen ID's with or w/o anchor babies), they won't stop coming. but as I said, it's a start.