14th amendment/automatic citizenship?

[Seton75]

The Amendment was needed after the Civil War to make sure ex slaves and their children were acknowledged as US citizens (at least on paper...).

This grew into granting citizenship to children born here, even those of illegal aliens.

Should this practice continue as is, or do circumstances today warrant a change in policy?

Does this debate show the country being reactionary, or was the amendment used to do things it was never intended to do?

 

[Merge]

or was the amendment used to do things it was never intended to do?

I don't think the amendment was created to help birth tourism but children born to illegal immigrant parents was a part of the debate by congress. When fears of a Chinese takeover in California were discussed Senator John Conness of California noted:

"The children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens"

Should we want to change this law, we would likely need a constitutional amendment which I don't really think is realistic.
An amendment revoking birthright citizenship was the compromise to complete amnesty for all people in the US then maybe... but even then it is hard to see enough support for an amendment.

 

[knowknow456]

I believe birthright should remain as it is. If you are born in this country, you are a citizen. It's simple, elegant and eminently verifiable. it is also a part of who we are as Americans. Perhaps it isnt as important a right as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness but maybe it falls somewhere in the second tier.

I don't believe the country is being reactionary. In broad and undefined terms, the country wants immigration reform. There are many paths and this is one of them so there is merit in it being discussed.

 

[Muggsy Blue]

It really is quite simple, if you are born in the United States, you are a citizen.

 

[Seton75]

It really is quite simple, if you are born in the United States, you are a citizen.

Yeah, I get it. I have always thought that too. But why? Who says that is good for our country, or smart for our country? Is the 14th Amendment the genesis of this thinking? Was the 14th Amendment written for a completely different purpose? Is a child born here while the parent on is a legal visitor's visa also a citizen? (I do not know these answers, can anyone help?)

The following is rules for citizenship for children of one one US citizen born overseas, we do set rules and conditions, yet we have none for non citizens who have a child here...."If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is not, the child is a citizen if

• the U.S. citizen parent has been "physically present" in the U.S. before the child's birth for a total period of at least five years, and
• at least two of those five years were after the U.S. citizen parent's fourteenth birthday."

Does there come a time when we admit we cannot accept fiscal responsibility for any child born here of illegal aliens?

This is obviously the zeitgeist Trump is tapping into. Debtors nation, getting taken advantage of by everyone while we borrow more money to pay for being a patsy.

 

[Merge]

Does there come a time when we admit we cannot accept fiscal responsibility for any child born here of illegal aliens?

As liberal as I am, I agree with you.
The amendment was written to make sure we take care of the people who are here, not future generations that would come into America just to take advantage of the law.

That is pretty toxic politically so I would not expect it to come under serious discussion. Maybe in 2017.

 

[SPK145]

The plain text of the14 Amendment of the Constitution (what I'm always about) clearly says that if you are born here, you are a U.S. citizen.

Should that be changed? Maybe, probably, but it would have to be via an amendment to the Constitution, good luck trying to get that.

Now if you are about a living Constitution, then anything goes.

 

[Seton75]

There were no federal immigration restrictions when the 14th amendment was written, illegal immigration to the US was not possible. I see this as a perfect example of why the context is always important.

 

[HALL85]

I'm still puzzled by Trump, but you have to give him credit for raising the immigration issue while most politicians on both sides don't have the balls to hit it head on.

 

[knowknow456]

There were no federal immigration restrictions when the 14th amendment was written, illegal immigration to the US was not possible. I see this as a perfect example of why the context is always important.

I think immigration and birthright, while intertwined, are two separate things. Immigration law has been amended many times since the 1860's without disturbing birthright. The national discourse has turned towards birthright but that is a sideshow and not really the issue. There are fiscal costs associated with birthright and there are fiscal costs associated with throwing them out of the country. But either way, the nation could revoke birthright tomorrow but that does nothing to stop people from illegally entering the country.

The answer lies not directly in fiscal reform but rather in immigration reform. Trump has put forth his plan. The nation and the candidates will have to vet it.