The original intent of the 14th amendment had to do with emancipated slaves

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

Correct.

Every section of this amendment matters and every section is independent of the others. No one section has more weight than any of the others. What part of "All persons born or naturalized in the United States confuses people. Like it or not, there is nothing in the constitution that says only children of citizens are citizens.

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article

I disagree.

I don't think there is anything wrong with the Constitution. I don't think an Executive Order to recognize the true meaning of the Constitution as a change to it either. This isn't really directed at you Scott, since I know you know the historical background, but many may not.

The 14th Amendment was put in place after the Civil War to undo the Dred Scott decision...gave citizenship rights to freed slaves who were born here, lived here and were under the jurisdiction of the US and the states in which they resided. Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, author of the citizenship clause. expressly said: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” That is how the 14th Amendment was written, the intent and the way it was for a long while.

Various SCOTUS rulings came out that tweaked a few things, but the everything stayed the same for close to 100 years. US v Wong Kim Ark in 1898 ruled that LEGAL immigrants who had children when in the US legally would then be added to those eligible for birthright citizenship, as they were under the jurisdiction of the US through their legal status. Makes sense.

Fast forward from 1898 to 1982. Justice Brennan made a sweeping transformation change with a mere footnote in his opinion. Plyer v. Doe was a 5-4 decision. Brennan wrote " “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” This is the sole source for "anchor babies" in the US Constitution as legal and birthright for those here illegally or unlawfully. And the theory is that Justice Brennan gained this insight from some book writer named Clement Bouve. Not authoritative, just liberal musings from some author who was not a judge or an elected official....but apparently this "spoke" to Brennan and he surged forth with judicial activism and added in a footnote that is now INTERPRETED as the law of the land.

What WAS wrong was this 1982 SCOTUS rulings on the 14th Amendment that opened the door for illegals to give birth here within the border and have that child be a US citizen. That was never intended by the Constitution. Had been upheld previously...erased by a footnote in the majority opinion.

An Executive Order going back to the way it was isn't unconstitutional in my thinking either. It was the law for a long time. And executive Order that upholds the intent of the Constitution...that's a fight worth having.
Why? Because it will be a huge roadblock...more important than even a physical wall to throttling down the wave of illegal immigration. Now, an EO to under what is considered to be the law...that may be very hard to do. Personally, I'd love to see the 14th Amendment rewritten to be very specific so as not to have to deal with activists courts trying to change things that don't need changing.

You are correct Mr. Straycat.

Exactly.

This needs to be shut down immediately. We cannot condone these sorts of over-reach when it is "our guy" and then act upset when the other side does the same.

And doekiller is correct, every section of this amendment (and all others) is important. We can't highlight one portion while glossing over another for the sake of our desired interpretation and application.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The "and" ties those two together, no? So you can't just look at the first part of that statement w/out taking into account the last. The whole argument they are trying to make is on the interpretation "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

agreed. an executive order would be meaningless. no amendment as been stretched and misapplied more than the 14th A.. a S. Court case interpreting the application of the Section 1 clause to non-citizens giving birth on U.S. soil would be VERY interesting and may negate the need for a new constitutional amendment.

Trump!!!!!

This. An idea that sounds good at first from a certain viewpoint but there are many downsides to the EO path. Fight for a constitutional amendment and do it the right way.

It is NOT a constitutional right.
The Framers NEVER intended it to be that way - and neither did the authors of the 14th Amendment.

And the precise legal issue has never been ruled on by SCOTUS, which is now a clear conservative majority.


https://www.axios.com/trump-birthri...cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html

This is the exact argument for taking away the 2nd amendment. If Obama wrote an executive order for that people in here would be ready to go to war. Hypocrisy in here is unreal. No executive order should be able to alter an amendment as it will set a slippery slope.

I'm no constitutional scholar, nut I think the ' and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' applies to children of citizens born outside the US to it's citizens.

"But IMO it's a slippery slope with a president using an executive order to change an amendment."

He is not changing the 14th Amendment.
He is changing the POLICY of the federal government that began with the liberal takeover in the 1960s as to how the 14th is *construed*.

He is doing it that way in order to EXPEDITE a ruling on the matter.
Of course the SCOTUS could side step the issue for that very reason also.

We shall see in the next couple of years what happens.

I'm no constitutional scholar, nut I think the ' and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' applies to children of citizens born outside the US to it's citizens.

We will NEVER be able to ratify or modify a constitutional amendment ever again by normal process I don't believe, just too much division.

Yes - it is referring to people who are already legal citizens of the U.S., >>as the slaves were, and also to U.S. citizens who have a child while abroad.

The 14 amendment was put in for the children born from slaves to be United States citizens.

I'll add this:

The argument here is on the language of the 14th.
"Section 1. 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." This sentence has to be taken wholly and together, because that is how language an legal language works. "All persons born or naturalized in the United State"....has a very specific modifier and qualifier attached to it that MUST go with it....",and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." That comma and the word "and" are pivotal elements because they put direct qualifiers on the first phrase.

It's not "all persons born or naturalized in the United States"
IT IS, however this:(All who are) subject to the jurisdiction thereof (who have been) born or naturalized in the United States---in contextual meaning that is not implied, but expressly stated by the " , and" that links the first phrase to the second phrase of that first sentence.

The real discussion here needs to be on the correct definition of "subject to the jurisdiction". What does that mean? I'll go with the Occam's Razor analysis...the simplest path with the least assumptions is the right answer until evidence proves it is not. There is a vary interesting history of the Civil Acts Right of 1866 and later Wilkins decision regarding Native Americans that come into play....Also there is the Expatriation Act of 1868 that has implications too. We all know that as citizens we are subject to the jurisdiction. This implies there is a pathway or a course that is to be followed. LEgal immigrants, likewise, go through a process to be vetted and to be approved to be here lawfully....therefor subject to the jurisdiction. But what of the foreign alien, the illegal border crosser off the grid and working in the shadows to stay off the rolls and hidden, the visitor on vacation, the pregnant wife of a visiting diplomat here for a couple weeks----do we now grant express consent for any children born here during their visit to be a US citizen---are these people not citizens elsewhere with their allegiances and jurisdictions there? I say absolutely--those people are from their own HOME countries and that is where they are under jurisdiction. Not the US...until they are legal residents seeking citizenship. Do they have laws to follow here---sure, but that is globally universal. That is my reasoning and my thinking. The definition of "subject to the jurisdiction" is the vital element. It is hight time that gets better defined so all this nonsense can end.

Equal protection of the laws goes hand in hand with Consent. A sovereign nation should be able to grant consent to those who seek to be here legally and to gain citizenship. Our constitution gives consent to US Citizens who have children. If liberal interpretations of "birthright" for those here unlawfully or illegally or in the shadows...it is akin to the old British system where if you were born in the King's territory at that time and place, you were therefor subject to the King and could not renounce it. That isn't America...we are a nation of laws and consent, not old feudalism.

Any person on US soil, who is not here on diplomatic purposes, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Illegals are subject to our laws just like citizens.