14th Amendment

[Independent Voter]

There seams to be a dust up about the 14th amendment in the works. Seams Trump wants to be able to deny citizenship to children of illegals.

SORRY; The first sentence is rather plain.

Amendment XIV
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.

If we are going to support the 2nd on the right to keep and bear arms. Then we have to support the first sentence of the 14th.

I will say. If the parents are deported, any child under 18 should be sent with them. When the child reaches maturity at 18, then allow them into the U.S. as full citizens.

[Independent Voter]

HOWEVER, is seams that the Supreme Court disagrees with me.
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution indicates that "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." The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the United States, [ provided that their parents are foreign citizens, have permanent domicile status in the United States, and are engaging in business in the United States except performing in a diplomatic or official capacity of a foreign power.]

As of 2015, there has been no Supreme Court decision that explicitly holds that persons born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are automatically afforded U.S. citizenship.[23][24][25][26][27][28] Edward Erler, writing for the Claremont Institute, said that since the Wong Kim Ark case dealt with someone whose parents were in the United States legally, it provides no valid basis under the 14th Amendment for the practice of granting citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. He goes on to argue that if governmental permission for parental entry is a necessary requirement for bestowal of birthright citizenship, then children of illegal aliens must surely be excluded.[29]

Statistics show that a significant, and rising, number of illegal aliens are having children in the United States, but there is mixed evidence that acquiring citizenship for the parents is their goal.[24] According to PolitFact of the St. Petersburg Times, the immigration benefits of having a child born in the United States are limited. Citizen children cannot sponsor parents for entry into the country until they are 21 years of age, and if the parent had ever been in the country illegally, they would have to show they had left and not returned for at least ten years; however, pregnant and nursing mothers could receive food vouchers through the federal WIC (Women, Infants and Children) program and enroll the children in Medicaid.[24]

Parents of citizen children who have been in the country for ten years or more can also apply for relief from deportation, though only 4,000 persons a year can receive relief status; as such, according to PolitFact, having a child in order to gain citizenship for the parents is "an extremely long-term, and uncertain, process."[24] Approximately 88,000 legal-resident parents of US citizen children were deported in the 2000s, most for minor criminal convictions.[30]

[Mike]

Good info, thanks! It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[TxMusky]

Good info IV. From what I understand the 14th was basically aimed at the slaves who were freed or to be freed and they were not considered citizens. The 14th guaranteed that they would become full American citizens, and I think it was extremely ignorant for whoever tried to say that a black person was only considered a certain percentage of a person.



The part that lawyers have been talking the most about is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", is what I understand. If you are not here legally then the laws concerning immigrant status do not apply to them. Now before I get burned to a crisp, that does not mean ANY laws do not apply to them, you still can not beat or murder a person because they are here illegally, but because they did not go through the correct process and get "an invitation" to enter, whether by work visa, green card or any other legal means.

[wacojoe]

In my view the citizens of this country do not have the spizrinctum to deny citizenship to children dropped here.

[TxMusky]

Found what I was looking for.. and Dred Scott was the ignorant suit that was trying to say that freed black slaves were not to be considered as citizens.

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Arguably one of the most consequential amendments to this day, the amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War.[1][2] The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, including those acting on behalf of such an official.
The amendment's first section includes several clauses: the Citizenship Clause, Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship, nullifying the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States. Since the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the Privileges or Immunities Clause has been interpreted to do very little.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourte...s_Constitution

[TriGuy]

open this in an incognito window in your browser to skip the paywall

it's an interesting read

https://www.washingtonpost.com/histo...=.c183131ede52

[TxMusky]

It was proved that WOng was born in the US his parents had resided there for a number of years and had a business. They chose to go back to China instead of fighting to stay here. Wong stayed for a time and then he himself went back to China. Yes he went through a bunch of crap, although I believe the author of the piece was trying to make the focus on prejudice and racism IMHO. Would I have a problem with a Wong staying and working in the us as a citizen, hell no.



Now for the flip side of the coin, those who are coming here now from Mexico are not in that same boat. Most are heading here for the benefits they know they will receive, putting more burden on the taxpayers who bust their humps every single day to eek out a living. Different times different story and different laws pertaining to who and how many per yer may legally enter and apply for citizenship. There has to be laws that regulate how many people may come here otherwise we will be overrun with people wanting to get into a system and take advantage of the freebies being tossed out. After a while the USA will be nothing but another third world Country, bankrupt and drowning in debt. Not to mention the problems with disease, as many people are not vaccinated against the diseases which we have established a protocol to defend against.


The Wong case is unique in that he was established here and a proven citizen for many years. The same goes for the DACA law that Trump and the Repubs were trying to get passed to allow people just like Wong to remain. Lawfully, legally and with not prejudice, yet the politics of stupidity kept it from happening.

[FredK]

Good thing his name wasn't Foo Ling Yu or Tx would have a field day.

[wacojoe]

open this in an incognito window in your browser to skip the paywall

it's an interesting read

https://www.washingtonpost.com/histo...=.c183131ede52

Trying figure out what “an incognito window in my browser” is?

[Truckman]

Trying figure out what “an incognito window in my browser” is?

Rightclick the link and select "Open link in incognito window"......Ben

[wacojoe]

An IPad does not have a right click.

[TriGuy]

An IPad does not have a right click.

on ipad tap: Equivalent to left mouse click. Tap-and-hold (long press): Equivalent to right mouse click.
One-finger drag: On the iPad, the one-finger tap-and-drag gesture can be used to select text, or to drag the scroll bar.Sep 24, 2018

[Truckman]

An IPad does not have a right click.

Ah, I had forgotten that anyone was still using the inferior products from Apple when he could be enjoying the superior technology from the mind of God's gift to communication, Bill Gates...Yer on yer own, Joe......Ben

[wacojoe]

on ipad tap: Equivalent to left mouse click. Tap-and-hold (long press): Equivalent to right mouse click.
One-finger drag: On the iPad, the one-finger tap-and-drag gesture can be used to select text, or to drag the scroll bar.Sep 24, 2018

Got me zip, but maybe it does not work on my Safari browser.