Ok Constitutionalists: What Is The 'Original Intent' Of The 14Th Amendment?

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals. This is a big problem that needs to be addressed. We have a few members on this board who are adamant that Anchor Babies of illegals can be President when they grow up. That is wrong. Anchor babys are not natural born citizens. They are born with allegiances to the country of their parents nationality. On the other hand Obama was born to a non citizen father who was not permanently domiciled in the U.S nor did he intend too. Obama holds allegiances to America because of his citizen mother and the British Crown because of his British National father. He is not a natural born citizen that our founders intended to be president when framing the presidential natural born citizen clause. After all do you think they wanted a president with part allegiance to England for whom we just finished a war with? I think not. They took a extra precaution and added Natural Born Citizen to the clause so that it would be a safeguard to prevent foreign allegiance influence of other countries to prevent a possible usurpation of America. On the other hand, our politicians and voters need to be educated on the original intent of the 14th and citizenship. The father of the 14th Amendment John Bingham said this:

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

Now how can Anchor baby's be Natural Born Citizens? They can't.


In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents.

What's your take? Should the 14th Amendment be held strictly to it's original intent?

 

To assign citizenship and voting rights for freedmen after the civil war.

 

so youre saying we should deport Mitt Romney

 

This would sound great accept you've already stated on another thread that Obama is guilty of being a usurper without benefit of trial. So I really have to question your commitment to the laws of the land.

I'm not expecting a response I know that you don't have the courage of your convictions but I hope you will at the least ponder what I've said.

 

You are getting a dramatically skewed interpretation of US v. Wong Kim Ark... Some key quotes from the decision:

Being "domiciled" here isn't the requirement, the requirement is that the child, when they are born, is subject to the jurisdiction of the US. The opinion goes on, for many pages, about all the reasons that anybody currently inside the US, who is not there under diplomatic immunity, is subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Then they go on to say that somebody who actually lives and works here (is domiciled here) is undeniably subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

 

There would be a trial if the Supreme Court wasn't owned by Barry Soetoro and dismisses each challenge as being "Frivilous". Why did Barry the Indonesian citizen spend $2 million of Our tax dollars fighting lawsuits when all he would have to do to prove his so called citizenship and place of birth would be to release the records with the simple stroke of a pen?
Who paid for his Ivy League education?
When did he renounce Islam, and become a Christian a captital offense under Shiriya law?
Why is there no real Justice Department or Congressional investigation into the execution style deaths of 3 gay members of Reverand Wrights Church to clear him of accusations by... Norma Jean Young that he murdered or had something to do with the murder of her son Donald? Surely they should be able to find the culprit or culprits who did it.
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/113/051/Mom_of_Murdered_Obama_Gay_Lover_Speaks_Up.html.

 

Its kind of pathetic about birthers isn't it?

 

The 14th States:

"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."

Babies born here of foreign parents are US Citizens by birth according to the original language of the 14th amendment. None of the Founding Father's were born in America. You were wrong in your premise both about children born in the US and about the President. Immigration reform is possible, but destroying the 14th amendment is not the solution.

 

Residents in the U.S. and not yet citizens, are not subject to all the juristiction of the United States.

Residents are not subject to the draft, or Selective Service. Residents are not required to pay into Social Security, and are still subject to the tax laws, military draft, etc. of their fatherland, and many crimes committed by residents may result in deportation.

The 14th Amendment was to "start the clock" for the freed slaves, who were not considered U.S. citizens, even if born on U.S. soil to two parents who were also born on U.S. soil. The 14th Amendment "naturalized" the freed slaves by statute, as if they had gone through today's INS and sworn an oath as today's immigrants do to obtain citizenship, or as the Original Citizens did beginning in 1776 to 1783.

From that statute or oath, the children of those naturalized citizens could then become natural born citizens.

 

The primary purpose of this part of the amendment is to reverse the Dred Scott case decision that slaves and their children weren't citizens. However the "All persons born" part doesn't just apply to slaves and their decendants but to anyone born in the USA.

This was just an express statement of what all lawyers at the time knew the law to be. The USA follows the law of the soil (jus soli) not the law of the blood. This law predated independence as it was the English common law rule and the USA never abandoned or changed it. The only exception is for the children of foreign diplomats.

I don't think conservatives would prevail based on the origional intent either. The authors were radical Republicans not conservatives.

 

This is exactly the purpose of the 14th amendment. They also had to pass the enforcement act in 1870 to, well enforce it.

 

Though Congress was fully aware of its implications for immigration; that was debated in the senate, and Congress explicitly agreed that it would be held to grant citizenship to anyone born on US soil--even immigrants.

 

Not true at all. It excluded Native Americans. This amendment was part of the 13th and 15th and specifically addressed the freedmen.

 

I think this would have been much better if Obama had not been brought into it. Look the fact is those parents are not citizens and are here illegally.

 

Born on US soil, not native American tribal lands. And as Congressional debate demonstrated, it was addressing more than just freedmen.

 

The question of this thread though referred to the "original intent." This was clearly in regards to the freedmen after reconstruction. If you would like to join the debate of other meanings then you will have a lot of company.

People have been trying to read in other meanings of this amendment for years and years. If you take it in context though it is hard to say they even felt a need to address immigration or such issues at this time.

The over-riding issue of the day was the recently freed slaves.

 

Exactly. Amendments 13, 14, aznd 15 were enacted after the CW and were meant to give rights to former slaves. It's absurd to say the authors wanted children of illegal invaders to be given citizenship. That's why they included the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." in the 14A.

 

They why doesn't the 14A simply say that? Why does it instead say those born in america and SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens. Clearly they wanted to exclude those born here to non-american parents. THINK

 

The intent of the 14th Amendment was to make the Bill of Rights enforceable on the states, or, as Bingham, its author wrote "arm the Congress ... with the power to enforce this bill of rights as it stands in the Constitution today."

 

Why would they address an issue that wasn't a problem at the time. This amendment was to make sure that States could not keep in practice the Dred Scott ruling, or ever implement it again. It really has no meaning other than that.

You will notice that the Enforcement Act which was passed right afterwards deals only with enforcing discriminatory practices against blacks. There is no mention of any other enforcement regarding other people.

The enforcement act was specifically written to enforce the 14th amendment.

 

Illegal immigration has always been a problem. It's just a much bigger problem now. The authors were also concerned with indians claiming they were american citizens.

 

It wasn't considered a problem until the early 1920's eventually leading to the Immigration Act of 1924.

 

14A covered quite a bit more than that; but as for the provision you're thinking of, it was intended to nullify Barron v Baltimore, a ruling which was questionable to begin with.

 

Romney is a natural born U.S. citizen.

 

http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html