14th Amendment Doesn't Make Illegal Aliens' Children Citizens

Reader Comments
Back to article

Liberty of WI:
Those immigrants came here legally and passed through Ellis Island and at a time when we needed a larger labor force. That time has passed so we cannot accept as many immigrants as we once had. The problem is illegal immigration, not immigration itself. If they came here legally, paid taxes, and didn't benefit from our taxes it would be fine. We also did not have programs that these immigrants benefited from that cost the taxpayers money. An estimated $100 billion dollars is how much illegal immigrants are costing taxpayers every year, this is a substantial sum seeing our deficit is high as is.
If they want to come here legally, then congratulations to them. If they want to bypass the law and come here illegally then they should have no rights and no benefits.

Devon of MI 4:15PM March 26, 2011

When your parents, grandparents and great grandparents were escaping like rats from Europe in boats and they were immigrants a lot of then indigents and criminals by the way, no one was opposed to the citizenship of their children because they were white an European but now those that do not even know all the issues that cause illegal inmigration are trying to be patriots LOL you guys are pathetic....
because of people like you this country is going to hell...

Liberty of WI 3:23PM March 03, 2011

S. Smith,
Allow me to address your comments more specifically now that I've had a chance to read them again.
When I say "legal" immigrants, what I mean is immigrants in this country on some sort of visa, a 'green card' or whatever. Simply being in this country legally does not make them subject to full U.S. jurisdiction. Therefore, their children born in the United States do not qualify for automatic birthright citizenship per the fourteenth amendment. Nor should they.
I make a distinction between immigrants and naturalized U.S. citizens who were once subject to a foreign jurisdiction but are now subject to full U.S. jurisdiction. Perhaps I misread you, but you seem not to make that distinction.
On the question you asked of me whether I would want my family to have to live like our unfortunate immigrants were forced to live in their own countries, you answer it correctly -- no I would not want that for my family. And that's precisely the reason that I wish to preserve (or, re-establish, as it were) the principles of the constitution as written, which is to say in this regard, to exempt the children of immigrants subject to a foreign jurisdiction from eligibility to automatic birthright citizenship.

Terry Morris of OK 5:10PM September 13, 2010

S. Smith,
I appreciate your humanitarianism, but what I'm talking about is what the constitution says in actuality, not the way the federal government has been applying it for umteen years.
I point out again that automatic birthright citizenship does not, according to the constitution, apply to immigrants (legal or illegal) who are subject to a foreign jurisdiction (14th amendment, section 1). The federal government does have authority (Article I, section 8) to establish "an uniform rule of naturalization." No one is questioning that authority; at least I'm not. But immigration is not naturalization.
And on that subject, if immigrants successfully become naturalized according to the procedures Congress has established governing naturalization, then, yes, their children, born in the United States, are automatic birthright citizens. I haven't said otherwise, nor would I. But birth parents (legal or illegal) subject to a foreign jurisdiction must first be naturalized in order for this to be conferred upon their children. That's not what I say. That's what the constitution says; that's what the Senate debates of the 39th Congress reveal.
In any event, I tend to agree with Noah Webster on this important subject, who said:
"I consider it a matter of infinite consequence, the cautious admission of foreigners to the rights of citizenship. Some of them come here with violent prejudices against arbitrary government, and they seem to make no great distinction between arbitrary government and a government of laws founded on free elections."
Webster knew why they come (or came) here too. But I don't necessarily accept the idea that cultural diversity is an unqualified good. Any well functioning society has to have an element of societal cohesion in order to remain well functioning. We may bring in a certain specified number of immigrants and assimilate them. What we cannot do is bring in (or simply allow them to come here unmolested) millions of immigrants from all parts of the world with all manner of societal differences, who have never experienced freedom in the sense that we understand it here, and expect them to "fit in."
The constitution says in the preamble that its main function was/is to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." Our Posterity.

Terry Morris of OK 4:13PM September 13, 2010

I have a comment about what you said now illegal is one thing but if they go as far as to make themselves legal in our country than yes their children born here should be us citizens. I'ts the illegal one that we need to worry about and help them get legal so that everybody can live peacefully. everyone wants a better life not only for themselves but also for thier children. You don't have to live in their conditions not even knowing if your child will live because of the poor conditions of were they live. Would you want your family to live like that no you wouldn't your behind be trying to get over here to. Just do it legaly so your children will be born here legally and will not have a problem if it states born in U.S on their birth certificate who to say that they have to leave that is just dead wrong period.

s.smith of OK 2:05PM September 13, 2010

Peggy,
The problem with your argument is this: neither working and paying taxes, nor becoming citizens, solves the fundamental problem with the issue at hand, which is this:
Congress and the national government has no constitutional authority to control or regulate immigration to this country, nor to the various States. That is a "reserved power," per Article VI and the Tenth Amendment. Thus, controlling or regulating immigration via a backdoor approach such as with the federal "enrollment at birth" program, is as illegitimate a process as there ever was. States had better wake up to this fact, or, everything is already lost and they don't even know it.
We all know why immigrants come here, and we understand it. Knowing what the constitution says, and why, is a whole 'nother issue.

Terry Morris of OK 2:54PM September 07, 2010

I get that they want a better life, then work, pay taxes,and become citizens likethe rest of us

peggy of AZ 12:29AM September 06, 2010

The fundamental problem with the article is in its title. Not only does the fourteenth amendment not make children of illegal aliens citizens, but it doesn't make children of legal immigrants citizens either. The fourteenth amendment establishes two requirements to attaining U.S. citizenship -- born or naturalized, and subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Persons born on U.S. soil to alien parents (legal or illegal) subject to a foreign jurisdiction are not to be admitted to U.S. citizenship and the priveleges and immunities thereof by the very words of the article. If that's not enough for people, then I suggest that they read the debates of the 39th Congress on this very topic.

Terry Morris of OK 1:02PM September 03, 2010

That the politicos allowed this illegal alien mess to go this far is a travesty. That we have a president now that is actually suing Arizona and Sheriff Joe for standing strong and enforcing the laws of this land shows that the president has no more integrity than one might find in a floating crap game.

hooey of ID 8:12PM September 02, 2010

If the intent of the law was to somehow allow illegal aliens to sneak in an anchor baby in order to pull the rest of their whole damn town into the US, then it would read something to that effect. It does not.

TomW of WA 11:37AM September 02, 2010