Do you disagree with that part of the Constitution that makes persons born in the US citizens?

Super G

ultimately it makes sense and i agree with it. there are technicalities to debate, but if you are born here, we want you here. especially the children of migrant workers, who grow up with good family values and healthy respect for hard work. seems we're a little short of those values in the U.S. these days.

i also like the second amendment, it's a keeper despite all the negative hoo-ha from the anti-firearm crowd. guns in the home promote peace in the community. seems some people didn't get that memo.

king Ebanks of USA

yea, i agree in needs to end
Call your Congressman/woman
start a grass root campaign

alberto g

We have to amend Article 14th of the Constitution because today is not clear of the meaning and is being abuse by foreigners coming to the USA illegally just to receive government benefits that otherwise they are not entitle to..

JessicaRabbit

The 14th amendment was about slaves that were born here. The drafters of this amendment NEVER meant it to include babies of illegal aliens.

I don't think it needs to be amended. It just needs to be interpreted CORRECTLY. NO ANCHOR BABIES!

obelix

Yeah, 14th Amendment. It's kind of pointless to say that those who adopted it didn't know what they were letting us in for; they didn't, but the wording is not in dispute.

Nonetheless, I am really tired of those sob stories: "Baby torn from mother's breast" or some such. In no case does deportation of an illegal parent separate families. The child always has the nationality of his parents and may return there with them.

MMM

If you are born in the US to parents who are illegals, your citizenship should be the same as your parents. You make a great point.

bergab_hase

It makes no sense. Someone from Brazil could fly to the US on a tourist visa, have the child, and fly back within two weeks. Only to secure the US citizenship for their child, which will give them better prospects in life.

This rule was obviously drawn up before cheap air travel existed. It's anachronistic.

R G

No, I do not if the 14th amendment was interpreted the way the authors intended.

If you are speaking of the birthright citizenship granted to the offspring of illegal alien invaders then I totally disagree and the author of the citizenship clause would too.

The words "and subject to the jurisdiction of" were included because Senator Jacob Howard wanted to make it perfectly clear that the mere accident of birth in the US was NOT SUFFICIENT to grant birthright citizenship. Those that ratified the amendment agreed with Senator Howard because the words are there. The 14th amendment denies citizenship to the offspring of foreign ambassadors but does not specifically state illegal aliens because they did not exist at the time.

There is no part of the Constitution that I would get rid of. It was written by some very smart, common sense kind of guys.
The only thing we need to get rid of is those ultra liberal judges who twist and bend and pervert it to the point that the authors themselves would not recognize it.

Gary J

If you read the whole 14th very cafefully, they are not citizens.

DAR

I think it was never intended that way, but since it is being interpreted that way, yes I do disagree with it. It has become too greatly abused by illegal immigrants to leverage themselves and their families into this country while violating our laws. All EU countries and Canada have abolished automatic birthright citizenship for that reason, already.

Other parts? I'm not up for a wholesale change. I think this was not intended as interpreted, and think it needs to be changed. I would say clarified, but I'm not really after the citizenship of those already born. I just want it to stop.

serenely, soMEone

I agree with the clearly stated intentions of the entire senate that debated and ratified it based on their discussions and debates as clearly recorded in the "Congressional Globe" of the 39th congress.

Jacob Howard, Andrew Johnson and all others who spoke on the senate floor insisted and demanded that the wording not be misinterpreted as to grant citizenship to a child born to aliens.

Did you know that many children born on U.S. soil are NOT granted citizenship? They are the children born to ambassadors and diplomats. Even if both their parents have lived in the country for over a decade, the children must start the process over, just as if they'd never been to the U.S. or like a student whose visa has expired.

The Court really showed anti-American hatred when they decided that the 14th amendment, despite clear and repeated intentions by the author and entire senate, should be interpreted in whatever way 9 justices feel is groovy.

What should we do about the misinterpretation? We should exercise the right to revolt as recommended by John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and Abe Lincoln, among others.

The constitution never set any number of supreme court justices nor any requirements on them. I say we demand to have 100 justices per congressional district and for a term of one year.

qwerty

Crazybird

I know what it was intended for and "anchor" babies wasn't the intent. It needs to have that misinterpreted loophole closed up.

Next I would put term limits because there are too many making a career for their personal gain instead of temporarily SERVING the people.

A ban on PORK in bills to buy people off.

I'm not sure if it's changing the Constitution or fixing the abuses of what's happening now. The writers I'm sure expected people to use a bit of common sense......but it seems something in the air or greed has fried that part of their brain.

I'm involved in groups that are trying to get these things cleared up.

Toe the line

There are very few countries that make a person a citizen just by virtue of being born within their borders.

Considering the massive abuse of such within this country - it is past time to make changes so that such abuse is stopped.

Gypsy Gal

That was written when the parents of the child was a citizen

Kittieashy

Only when it's illegal immigrants coming here to have their children so they can stay. That's should NOT be allowed. Maybe if that was changed we wouldn't have to pay for all those children and the parents might be discouraged from coming for that reason.

Zuper Z

It is an archaic law that needs to be changed......

Times are a changing people......We need to get with the program and stop this.

O Kongeriket

I agree to disagree.

tomthebomb1981

No. Why not make people born here citizens. The only exception I would make to that part of the Constitution would revoke citizenship from people born to illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants are criminals and should be sent back to their country of origin and get in line with everyone else.

Frankie Yankee

we learned about that in school.

regerugged

I do not disagree with it. The Constitution as a whole is an excellent document. You might see things differently if you know why the founders included that provision.
I like the Constitution the way it is. I just wish the government officials follow it.
We have done all right with it so far. Only one error: Prohibition was added then appealed.

MOJADO

NO. It was written in the constitution because the United States was meant to be an example to rest of the world, to show the world what freedom was. Stop with your nativism.

cabriojazz

What's the problem? I think the law should stand as it is. Otherwise, if you have a child, what would be the basis to determine citizenship? Would you apply the same rules as to a child born overseas to a us citizen? Why add all the expense and burracrecy to track this? If you are trying to stop illegals, then fix that problem. This is not a solution.

tonalc1

No, why would someone disagree with that?

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: