I don't like anchor babies. This is how I would fix it.

[tsuke11]

Why? We offer asylum to people who would be killed or tortured in their homeland. Why do you think that is against American values?

There used to be honor in the asylum process. You only used it when you thought you really needed it. This meant the overall applications were low and a decent number were deemed true. Its 4:1 according to AI. Then somewhere along the line, lets be honest most likely coached by some human rights activist, everyone said they were gay or in fear of their life so instead of being economic migrants they became classified as asylum seekers which is harder to deny. This meant that most of them were not true asylum seekers so the acceptance rate lowered to something like 15:1

We can have nice things until it gets abused then we can no longer have it. Even a diabetic has to give up ice cream.

 

[Guno צְבִי]

A lot of undocumented are Visa Overstays: Remaining in the U.S. after a visa expires is generally a civil violation, not a crime

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Note that it doesn't specify which babies? It says ALL.

MAGAts are all enemies of the Constitution. They want to shred it and rewrite it to favor only themselves.

 

[AProudLefty]

People specifically come to the US illegally to drop a kid. That is, they are committing a crime in order to have a child that is granted citizenship. That is the payoff, reward, for their crime and you want to hand it to them.

So ask the Congress to make an amendment, adding exceptions. I.e. the babies born in the US shouldn't be citizens if the parents are criminals.

 

[Guno צְבִי]

The 14th amendment has been a target by the rightwing for many decades

 

[Guno צְבִי]

MAGA Wants the Antebellum Constitution Back

 

[RB 60]

Sounds like what Reagan duped us into. How many times are we fooled before the shame is on us?

Reagan's amnesty was to end illegal immigration. His stipulations were not carried out as intended.

 

[Jake Starkey]

If your visa is temporary then that makes sense as you were never intended to be allowed to stay indefinitely. You or your love child.

Does not matter. The intent of the amendment is clear. Anyone born here except children of foreign diplomats are citizesn.

The vote will be at least 7 to 2 for sanity and the American people, and not a scrap for Trump and his lemmings.

 

[RB 60]

Does not matter. The intent of the amendment is clear. Anyone born here except children of foreign diplomats are citizesn.

The vote will be at least 7 to 2 for sanity and the American people, and not a scrap for Trump and his lemmings.

The intent was to allow slaves and their children to become citizens.

 

[Jake Starkey]

The intent was to allow slaves and their children to become citizens.

15th Amendment clarified that citizenship was for black Africans.

14th Amendment was to guarantee everyone had citizenship born in our borders and subject to US jurisdiction.

The ethnocentric minority of white Americans will lose this by at least 7-2.

 

[QP!]

No, not true. If the parents are not subject to all the laws of the US, then the child isn't either. Children are wards of their parents. I also say that the laws of the US do not favor criminals or reward them for breaking the law. Giving citizenship to a child whose parents are here illegally does just that.

LIES ^^^

The parents of illegal immigrants, migrants and others who set foot on US Soil are absolutely subject to the law and thus can be arrest, detained, and face trial if they break those laws, unlike a Diplomat, who can be pulled over violating a law but as soon as it is established who they are, CANNOT be held or charged and can only be expelled from the country as they are not subject to the 'laws of the US'.

 

[QP!]

Illegal immigration is a fucking crime! Getting a visa under false pretenses is a crime too.

if you are not subject to the laws then you cannot commit that crime, thus by your own argument they did not commit a crime.

 

[QP!]

The intent was to allow slaves and their children to become citizens.

Wrong, and i would saying 'lying' but in your case stupidity (poorly educated) is much more likely.

Founders / Framers of the 14th Amendment (Reconstruction Congress)

• The text itself is universal: “All persons”​

The opening sentence says:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…”

Your only reply to that can be 'ya they wrote that and of course "All" means "ALL" but that is not what they meant. I know what they meant and it was not "All". And that reply would be stupid.

• Senator Jacob Howard explicitly described it as broad​

Jacob Howard, who introduced the citizenship clause in the Senate in 1866 specifically said the below while defining who were the ONLY ONES exempt:

every person born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction

with narrow exceptions such as:

• children of diplomats
• children of foreign ministers
• hostile occupying armies

This below deals with the lie @T. A. Gardner is tyring to spin

• Senator Lyman Trumbull defined jurisdiction as legal obedience​

Lyman Trumbull explained “subject to the jurisdiction” as:

subject to the laws of the United States

This is crucial because it supports the idea that anyone physically present and required to obey U.S. law falls within the clause, except diplomats and similar narrow exceptions.


This interpretation was later echoed by the Court.

Key Supreme Court rulings​

---

•​

This is the landmark case.


The Court ruled that a man born in San Francisco to Chinese parents was a U.S. citizen at birth, even though his parents were subjects of China.

The Court expressly relied on the plain language of the 14th Amendment and English common-law jus soli tradition.


From the case syllabus:

“A child born in the United States… becomes at the time of his birth a citizen”

• The Court recognized only narrow exceptions​

In Wong Kim Ark, the Court made clear the main exceptions are:

• diplomats
• enemy occupiers
• certain tribal sovereignty issues at that time

That implies the default rule is universal territorial citizenship.

 

[ULTRA MAGA]

Reagan's amnesty was to end illegal immigration. His stipulations were not carried out as intended.

Exactly my point.

 

[ULTRA MAGA]

Your only reply to that can be 'ya they wrote that and of course "All" means "ALL" but that is not what they meant. I know what they meant and it was not "All". And that reply would be stupid.

Why do you dishonest people always take this out of context. It goes on to say "and" which is a qualifier for "all persons".

English motherfucker, do you speak it?

 

[QP!]

Why do you dishonest people always take this out of context. It goes on to say "and" which is a qualifier for "all persons".

English motherfucker, do you speak it?

Do you speak it.

"All" by default when speaking about people means "All persons"

I quoted the full thing and then in my statement restating the "ALL" only changes nothing. It does not suggest "all lifeforms on earth" but that "ALL" does mean "ALL PERSONS".

Learn to comprehend what you read dunce.

 

[TOP]

 

[AProudLefty]

And?

 

[Jake Starkey]

No proof, Karen.

View attachment 80454

No proof, Karen.

 

[IBDaMann]

When your baby is born on US soil

Right at that instant, that US citizen is a US citizen with the inalienable right to US citizenship.

Please don't pivot and start talking about other people who aren't US citizens as if any US citizen is somehow NOT a US citizen by mere association.

and neither parent is an American citizen

(sigh) You just had to pivot, didn't you?

Dial it back. The parents are OTHER PEOPLE. The Constitution exists to ensure minority and individual rights are protected. Nobody gets to strip any US citizen of any inalienable right, especially not because of the crimes of other people.

Yours is to explain why a US citizen who has not committed any crime should nonetheless be stripped of citizenship. Until then, your proposal is dismissed.