Changing the 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution does many things, and one of them is to give citizenship to anyone born within the US. During the last election, amending it to remove this route to citizenship was discussed. It is one of the biggest motivations for illegal entry into the US, whereby someone here illegally can have children who will be full-fledged citizens with no restrictions. But there has been nothing but silence since the election. Is this because 1) it's too hard to amend the Constitution; 2) there was really no interest in doing it; 3) the opposition would be too intense; or something else.

FYI, amending the constitution is done by two steps with two alternative paths. First either a 2/3 majority in the Senate and House come up with the change and send it to the states for ratification or 2/3 of the states start the process of making the amendment and then finish it themselves by ratifying it. Ratification also requires the assent of 2/3 of the states, either by the state legislature or by a specially called convention of citizens of the state.

originally posted by: StanFL
But there has been nothing but silence since the election. Is this because 1) it's too hard to amend the Constitution; 2) there was really no interest in doing it; 3) the opposition would be too intense; or something else.

because the people who have a passionate anti-immigrant boner were mostly more distracted by talk of a big, shiny wall than boring constitutional law procedures?

So how do we separate the wheat from the chafe?
TOO many are sending their trash over the border for us to deal with.
I suggest the death penalty on a federal level for all ..READ THIS NOW...VIOLENT..JUST TO EMPHASIZE AGAIN ..VIOLENT ,illegal immigrants, regardless of race creed or origin.

a reply to: StanFL

The assumption is that those born here of foreign nationals were/are here legally. If you go with that, there's absolutely no reason to change the 14th amendment.

If they're here legally.

If they've crossed into this country north or south, or on the coasts illegally, the 14th doesn't apply, then either.

So...no reason to change the amendment.

originally posted by: seagull
If they've crossed into this country north or south, or on the coasts illegally, the 14th doesn't apply, then either.

I don't recall this ever being brought before the Supreme Court, I know they ruled on legal citizens having children here. I would think one of these groups advocating that position would bring a legal challenge first before dicking around with the Constitution.

originally posted by: fiverx313

originally posted by: StanFL
But there has been nothing but silence since the election. Is this because 1) it's too hard to amend the Constitution; 2) there was really no interest in doing it; 3) the opposition would be too intense; or something else.

because the people who have a passionate anti-immigrant boner were mostly more distracted by talk of a big, shiny wall than boring constitutional law procedures?

Lol yeah right.
I don't remember anyone talking about changing the 14th.
But it is a very good idea, along with building the wall.
There is a LEGAL path to becoming a citizen and it's high time we start enforcing it.
I suppose that you are happy when ILLEGAL immigrants come here and have 6 kids and every one of them gets on welfare?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
So how do we separate the wheat from the chafe?
TOO many are sending their trash over the border for us to deal with.
I suggest the death penalty on a federal level for all ..READ THIS NOW...VIOLENT..JUST TO EMPHASIZE AGAIN ..VIOLENT ,illegal immigrants, regardless of race creed or origin.

If that is your suggestion, you should probably come up with a way to pay for all of the appeals, and the multiple year stays at our finest prisons as well... Just saying.

Death penalty, IMO, should be reserved for high crimes, not for trespassing and getting into a fight.

The Constitution may not need to be amended. This is the applicable section:

Amendment14:

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.

Official ratification was declared on July 28, 1868, about two years from its proposal. This was right after the close of the War of Northern Aggression, and the objective of the amendment was to ensure that all black slaves were citizens with all rights thereof. It has since been misinterpreted to indicate something else entirely: that anyone who happens to be born on this side of a border is automatically a citizen, even if the act of coming here to give birth was in itself illegal and not authorized by the United States.

An amendment to include the phrase "of parents not in violation of US customs laws" would fix the problem... but in this case I believe a simple Supreme Court decision could establish the original meaning and intent. The situation is well inside the jurisdiction of the Court, in that the modern interpretation of the 14th Amendment is at odds with the Constitutional authority of the United States to police its own borders.

TheRedneck

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

For murder its fine.
They aren't citizens so no rights will be extended at all.
PROBLEM solved.

Before we change any amendment, perhaps looking at the various federal laws would be in order, along with how and why these laws came into being.

There are laws on the books that were placed after World War II, as to prevent another genocide from happening again. However, as has been seen, the Federal government is loath to call a genocide a genocide, such as was seen in Rawanda, even when the evidence was overwhelming and present.

The reality, is that the federal government has always been at the heart of many of these problems, by doing one thing, and then not wanting to change or stop said programs it started years ago, when it was not started. Many of the immigrant issues that we see today, were started before many of us were born. We took over and controlled territories, even still today, yet would deny those people the very rights that we ourselves enjoy. The government offers and invites people in when there is a labor shortage, but does not say thank you and we no longer need their services.

It is a nasty cycle and then there is all of the promises that have been made by those who sought to be and were elected that were never once delivered on, or simply died in committee never to be brought up again.

So I would say before we change any amendment, perhaps we should put pressure on the congress to rectify some of the problems that was created by prior congressmen and administrations, and start working within the laws, and phasing out things like guest worker visas and other items like that.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
For murder its fine.
They aren't citizens so no rights will be extended at all.
PROBLEM solved.

Non-citizens present in the United States are afforded some of the same Constitutional protections as citizens.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That loophole can be fixed if they are violent by this effort.
Can I see the laws of authorization ,by the way?

originally posted by: fiverx313

originally posted by: StanFL
But there has been nothing but silence since the election. Is this because 1) it's too hard to amend the Constitution; 2) there was really no interest in doing it; 3) the opposition would be too intense; or something else.

because the people who have a passionate anti-immigrant boner were mostly more distracted by talk of a big, shiny wall than boring constitutional law procedures?

Actually unchecked immigration can bring in all kinds of disease and death.
No bones about it

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
That loophole can be fixed if they are violent by this effort.

Your 'fix' of the 'loophole' is not possible as the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times on the issue of non-citizens having due process.

Can I see the laws of authorization ,by the way?

Start with Yick Wo v. Hopkins in 1886 and work your way forward.

a reply to: TheRedneck

It has since been misinterpreted to indicate something else entirely

Your opinion.

UNITED STATES v. WONG KIM ARK. pretty much confirmed the doctrine of jus soli by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment.

An amendment to include the phrase "of parents not in violation of US customs laws" would fix the problem... but in this case I believe a simple Supreme Court decision could establish the original meaning and intent.

Yup. Either an amendment to clarify what some think is a misinterpretation of the 14th, or a modern SCOTUS decision to also clarify, but US v. WKA is pretty clear.

originally posted by: RazorV66
Lol yeah right.
I don't remember anyone talking about changing the 14th.
But it is a very good idea, along with building the wall.
There is a LEGAL path to becoming a citizen and it's high time we start enforcing it.
I suppose that you are happy when ILLEGAL immigrants come here and have 6 kids and every one of them gets on welfare?

i love it, it's totally amazing.

OP said people were talking about the 14th btw, not me.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
TOO many are sending their trash over the border for us to deal with.

lol, Australia included...

Kind of ironic how for all the hard line rants coming from US politicians about stricter immigration laws, they'll still more than happy to offer the Manus island refugees, which Australia rejected, a nice cushy US citizenship.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Then I guess SHOOTING on sight once witnessed, as we can is a go ,as the only answer.
WE will do this as they are getting away from LEOs, soon,BET on it.
There won't be firefights, we aren't that stupid or messy,I just think it's DAMNED stupid, WE have to take out the trash.
TOO bad,Id rather my government remove the problem,but THEY would still mess it up.
LAWS apply ONLY to those caught ,JUST ask Clinton operators.

a reply to: cavtrooper7


Most of the time I have no idea what you're talking about, this is one of them, it's just a bunch of unrelated thought fragments.

a reply to: [post=22894939]Subaeruginosa[/post
I'd LOVE to move OUT in the middle of NO WHERE with you ,BUT NOT without my gun collection...7 ..I 'm a menace folks.