From the fourth estate we get:



The relevenat test from the 14th Amandement is:



The conclusion for me is that there are two requierments for birth citizenship:
1. Be born physically within the US. subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
2. Be born subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

Commonly the first requiremetn is a fact. The second is rarely checked, and citizenship is grangted to these newbornhs. However, it is illegal citizenship, if the given mother is an illegal alien and therefore, not true, but pseudo citizens. So also are all their issue, etc.

Questions for debate:

1. Is a mother's being legally within the US a condition for citizenship in the US of her child?

2. If so, what do we do about it?

3 If not, why not?

1. Is a mother's being legally within the US a condition for citizenship in the US of her child?

I say yes, under an interpretation (mine anyway) of the 14th Amendment that emphasizes "under the jurisdiction of" to mean "legally present" within the US, and not "illegally present", for the child to be a citizen. This condition has apparently not been followed in the past for granting citizenship to children born within the US by mother's who are not legally present here. It then allows the child's following decendants citizenship as well, and also allows the known several "Anchor babies" pheneomenon.

I personally believe thi 14th Amendment wording means that a birthing mother in the US must be a legal citizen of the US, or presently living in the US and undergoing naturalization processes, for her child to be a citizen. It could also mean that persons on visas, or green cards, could be considered to be satisfying the "under the jurisdiction of" condition. I don't know about these. What do "we the people" really want?

Some of my acquaintances say that just "presence" satisfies this condition, since all persons present are subject to our laws, law enforcement and jury systems. They also assert that these beliefs of theirs have been sufficiently "grandfathered" into fact by the long practice of doing so in the US.

2. If so, what do we do about it?

We make proof of legal presence in the US, by a birthing mother, a condition for granting citizenship to the newborn child. (I understand that the Social Security Administration (SSA) is no longer accepting birth certificates as proof of citizenship for the granting of SSA benefits, and social security cards.) This condition would seem to me to have a positive impact on "Homeland Defense" as a secondary benefit. (In the cold war days, we had evidence of "sleeper agents" being established within the US for decades before their being "activated".)

The hard consequence of this is what to do with all those who have been given citizenship in the past, that did not meet this condition. A strict application of the "rule of law", would retract the citizenship of all such persons. And this will be a difficult and "hotly contested social justice" issue of debate for its resolution.

3 If not, why not?

I don't really have any valid "why not" reasons in my repertoire. I think we must all obey all the laws all the time, and all equally take all the consequences when we don't. I find any other course to be "very divisive and upsetting". It allows "exceptions to the rule of law" that really mess us up, and make a "lie" of any "rule of law" assertions.

However, I would not be surprised that arguments such as G. Ford's past ones, for granting immunity to "going to Canada" Vietnam era draft avoiders, and a pardon for Nixon (as anything else being too upsetting to the US) in order for the US "to heal", will arise.

Court cases, leading to a firm but different intepretation from the above, and/or new legislation may also emerge.

Subject to the jurisdiction, and of the State wherein they reside. "Wherein they reside" is the main key here. If an illegal immigrant lived in America for a couple years and had the baby during that time, it might be forgivable since they were indeed living in America and subject to the jurisdiction of the Government. On the other hand, the women who are bearing anchor babies do not reside in America, their babies should not be considered citizens.

Now what can be done about this despicable practice of illegal immigrants having "anchor babies?" The Government should deport the woman and give her the choice of either taking the baby or having the baby put in an American orphanage. But under no circumstance should people be permitted to use their children for their own selfish gain.

I am afraid I cannot agree with your interpretation of 'under the jurisdiction of', as meaning 'legally present', because to be frank I see no connection whatsoever between the two statements.

If a person, legal or illegal is in the united States, is she 'under the jurisdiction of' the United States? Of course they are. They can be arrested by US and state police, they are subject to the laws of the nation, and so on. The very fact that these people can be grabbed and deported means they are under the jurisdiction of the United States, and subject to its laws on immigration. Put it this way, if the mother in this case, gave birth and then shot the midwife, would the US police have both ability and legal cause to arrest her? If yes, then clearly she is under the jurisdiction of the Unites States.

What a derogatory name for an American citizen, and you choose to devalue these persons' not only identification as an American citizen with this word but also their legitimacy too based solely on their maternal ties. How unAmerican if I may say so myself. We had a debate here in the past about what nation we felt was the "greatest" and why and I chose America based solely on it's conditions of citizenship.

I do believe that one of the greatest ideals that founded America was the removal of the concept and system of maternal wealth and social standing. That any man (or woman) would be seen in the eyes of the American government as his own, not who his father, or mother or familial lineage made him to be. Perhaps as someone who has never been outside the US or been familiar with social structures in other nations who will forever make you carry your ancestral past with you this is a difficult concept to understand, but America is greater for not applying it.

If the clause is taken that literally, then it would also have to mean that no one may renounce his citizenship, at least while he's inside the borders of our country. After all, it says all persons born or naturalized here and subject to our jurisdiction are citizens. So any person who was born here, and is within our territory subject to our laws, would have to be considered a citizen while here, even if he consciously went through all the procedures to renounce his citizenship.

I have a feeling this would be news to most U.S. courts.

I don't see why that would be the case. This sets the parameters for what qualifies as citizen. If a person voluntarily chooses to give up that right, then so be it. Frankly I don't see the contradiction at all.

Not to mention, this is a pretty miniscule minority isue to deal with, I hardly see how, even if your supposition were true, it would affect the debate at hand.

Besides, wheither or not that is WISE or SMART is entirely beside the point. The issue is that this is the text of the constitution, period. Given what it says, I am at a loss as to how else one would interpret it without abrogating the original intent.


As an aside, I find it odd (and this is not directed at anyone, just a random thought) when some Americans choose to take literally as the Gods truth some clauses of the constitution, and take others as fuzzy and open to easy interpretation...

Even if the anchor baby is a legally a US citizen, the illegal immigrant parents should not be permitted to use that baby to get citizenship for themselves. In the business world, employers don't just give out jobs because the employee has kids to support. Likewise, we shouldn't automatically give citizenship to an illegal immigrant just because Junior Fernando was born in America. Having children for the sole sake of moving up the ladder for yourself is selfish. It is plain wrong that Mexico and Latin America use the United States as a dumping ground for their poor people instead of fixing their own economies.

[quote name='Lek' date='Oct 3 2006, 06:51 PM' post='197707']

[quote]1. Is a mother's being legally within the US a condition for citizenship in the US of her child? [/quote]

Yes, the ground on which you walk on has been a traditional standard of citizenship.

[quote]2. If so, what do we do about it?[/quote]

Perhaps a misdemeanor fee for the mother if she is an illegal. Issue the new one his birth certificate, social security card, and a plush American doll and enroll mom in civics courses to become a citizen.

1. Is a mother's being legally within the US a condition for citizenship in the US of her child?
How is the mother legally within the US? She is not legal.


I think the typical interpretation of the 14th Amendment is a loophole that causes us great problems. So, could this mean that the typical interpretation is wrong, or that the amendment was poorly conceived? I don't like the idea of clauses in the Constitution being imperfect given their long adoption process. Laws are one thing, but amendments should have clear interpretations without error.


2. If so, what do we do about it?

I think the Congress should pass a law that states that babies of illegals aliens are not citizens, and see what happens. I think the amendment should be challenged.

3 If not, why not? Enforce the law and throw them out.

You're reading words that aren't there. It doesn't say, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are qualified to be citizens". It says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ARE citizens". There's no way around that. All persons so described are citizens, period. If someone of that description were to legally renounce his citizenship, that would violate that clause, if your interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is correct.


It affects the debate by showing the unavoidable consequences of your interpretation. It would mean that the Constitution was being flagrantly violated all this time whenever people gave up their citizenship.


Many words and phrases can have more than one meaning, but there are limits. When the law says that all persons of a certain description are citizens - not that they're qualified to be citizens, or that they have the right to be citizens, but actually are citizens, there's no room for interpretation. There is, however, a bit more room with the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction". When one speaks of "British subjects", for example, one does not refer to everyone in the Kingdom who can be held accountable to its laws, but really only to British citizens. And "subject" in that sense is just the noun form of the adjective. If you look at the history of the noun, it really just refers to people who are "subject" (adjective) to the rule of the King.

This is fully consistent with the purpose of the 14th Amendment, which was to ensure that the freed slaves would be treated as citizens. The purpose was not to overhaul U.S. citizenship requirements with respect to the outside world.

By the way, to answer the second debate question:

2. If so, what do we do about it?

It would be extremely inadvisable to create a permanent class of people in this country who could not attain citizenship. Therefore, anyone born here, even if to parents who are here illegally, should, at the least, be able upon reaching the age of majority to take a simple oath of citizenship, renouncing all allegiance and loyalty to any foreign state, prince, or potentate whatsoever. But in no case should the citizenship status of a child born here affect the consequences of the parents' illegal entry. They should be deported like any other illegal alien, with the option of taking their child with them if they so choose.

Funny personal note to this debate- my grandfather and mother had this debate more than 30 years ago, when I was about 10. My grandmother had multiple from birth citizenships- I can't keep it quite straight myself- but she was born on board a ship in the Suez Canal- her mother lied about how far along she was, thinking they could get to china before she had my grandmother and her twin brother. The Charter was a Greek ship, charted under the American Flag and military- making it the equivilent of US soil. My great grandmother was both british and american citizen as well. The Suez canal had a couple of countries holding it and recognized her as a citizen as well. Paperwork nightmare, even for 1900 LOL

So my grandmother was the ultimate "anchor baby"- though, to what benefit, no one knows LOL- other than she could vote in alot of countries that voted!

Really- anchor babies don't bother me, immigration doesn't bother me- I just wish that we would see more harsh penalties and enforcement on employers that hire illegals, and that would stem 99% of the problems.

I just know too many poeple that came here illegally, became legal at some point, and contributed too much to the society they lived in to condemn them at this point.