The wording of the 14th Amendment is key. “All persons,” it reads, “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.”
That includes children whose parents are here illegally. Trump and others argue that goes too far and encourages people to give birth here as a way of allowing entire families to stay. In some circles, those children have come to be called Anchor babies….
And this first sentence ( of the constitutional amendment), the primary purpose of that sentence was to reverse the 1857 case of Dred Scott, which had held that blacks could not be citizens. So this made everybody who was born here, black or white, a citizen of the United States.
And it was assumed, actually from much earlier than that, from the first founding in the 1780s, it was assumed that citizenship went with birth. That was what common law was at the time. And nobody even challenged it until 1850, when a New York State court found that someone who was born here was a citizen….
“Professor Sherry, is this a uniquely American, that, if you’re born here, you’re a citizen here?”
“It’s almost uniquely American. The only other developed country that has birthright citizenship is Canada.”
SOURCE: Should citizenship be a birthright? Why some GOP candidates say no.
I’m going to put on my conservative hat and agree with Donald Trump. Well, sort of…
With the limited understanding I have of the issue it appears that “anchor babies” are a big business in immigration issues. The logic goes that if I can just get into the USA and have a baby I can also become a citizen as there are those won’t allow “the breakup of a family” by telling me I can’t stay here when my child is a citizen. There is a thriving business teaching how to game the system it this regard.
But aside from all that to me it is a matter of allowing the constitution to change according to the times. I certainly understand given the Dred Scott Decision the reason for the amendment. Without it the southern States would likely have tried everything possible to prevent their previous slaves from citizen status. But the amendment has become something it was not intended. It is time for it to change.
Now it is time to switch hats and say the same thing applies to the second amendment. We need to understand that the first part of that amendment is the justification for the last part.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Since we no longer depend on a militia to secure our freedom this amendment is well beyond it usefulness and is doing much more harm to our general welfare than the birthright amendment.
I will support the conservative change to the 14th amendment if the 2nd one is changed at the same time.