NO ONE is saying we should repeal the 14th Amendment! what's at issue is its original intent.
For instance, what's the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the first sentence ("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.")? [Emphasis added]
In 1866, when the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Framers wanted to insure that former slaves and legal immigrants were not denied the right of citizenship by virtue of their former status.
Do you think the Framers were contemplating the same rights for people who illegally enter this country (i.e. people who refuse to subject themselves to our jurisdiction) for the purpose of giving birth to a child who would serve as an "anchor baby" (i.e. rewarding illegal behavior)?
Isn't that at least worth addressing?
Here's a link to the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
"And that original intent was to grant citizenship to anyone born in the United States."
Ted, I know you're older than me, but you say this with such authority. Were you already around in 1866? :)
"The 'anchor Baby' concept is a modern one being floated by Republicans to try and scare white Americans and play off their racial and ethnic fears."
Apparently not by all Republicans. I read this afternoon that my old pal Mike Huckabee agrees with you on this one. That's not too much of a surprise, given his past positions on immigration issues. But I also read that Tom Tancredo believes that everyone born in the U.S. should be afforded citizenship regardless of their parents' immigration status.
ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED. And neither will racist,homophobic, or misogynistic comments. I do not mind if you disagree, but make your case in a decent manner.
Political Cartoon is by Mike Keefe in USA Today.
NO ONE is saying we should repeal the 14th Amendment! what's at issue is its original intent.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, what's the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the first sentence ("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.")? [Emphasis added]
In 1866, when the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Framers wanted to insure that former slaves and legal immigrants were not denied the right of citizenship by virtue of their former status.
Do you think the Framers were contemplating the same rights for people who illegally enter this country (i.e. people who refuse to subject themselves to our jurisdiction) for the purpose of giving birth to a child who would serve as an "anchor baby" (i.e. rewarding illegal behavior)?
Isn't that at least worth addressing?
Here's a link to the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
No, it's not worth addressing. The 14th Amendment should be left just like it is.
ReplyDeleteI agree. And it should be interpreted according to the original intent.
ReplyDeleteAnd that original intent was to grant citizenship to anyone born in the United States.
ReplyDeleteThe "anchor Baby" concept is a modern one being floated by Republicans to try and scare white Americans and play off their racial and ethnic fears.
"And that original intent was to grant citizenship to anyone born in the United States."
ReplyDeleteTed, I know you're older than me, but you say this with such authority. Were you already around in 1866? :)
"The 'anchor Baby' concept is a modern one being floated by Republicans to try and scare white Americans and play off their racial and ethnic fears."
Apparently not by all Republicans. I read this afternoon that my old pal Mike Huckabee agrees with you on this one. That's not too much of a surprise, given his past positions on immigration issues. But I also read that Tom Tancredo believes that everyone born in the U.S. should be afforded citizenship regardless of their parents' immigration status.