This is what the constitution says: Amendment 14 Section 1\nSection 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. \nThis is how it is being used:\nhttp://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/14450160.htm\n\nIt is my opinion until we stop giving illegals an anchor through there children to stay here (lets face it NO one is for splitting up families) there will always be illegals coming over the border, because once they have a citizen child it will be impossible to send them back.  My solution change the Constitution to a one citizen parent rule.
210700
Yes, if their parents are legal, they are technicaly citizens.
575421
Current US population: 297 million\nNumber of Immigrants entering the US this year: 1.1 million\nCensus Bureau's projection of US population by 2050 because of mass immigration: 420 million\n\nI don't think what your planning is right. I think you are taking advantage of USA's loose immigration structure. Here are a couple excerpts from the article written by the "Federation for American Immigration Reform" indicated in my sources:\n\n"Each year, thousands of women enter the United States illegally to give birth, knowing that their child will thus have U.S. citizenship. Their children immediately qualify for a slew of federal, state, and local benefit programs. In addition, when the children turn 21, they can sponsor the immigration of other relatives, becoming "anchor babies" for an entire clan."\n\n"The Urban Institute estimates that the cost of educating illegal alien children in the nation’s seven states with the highest concentration of illegal aliens was $3.1 billion in 1993 (which, with the growth of their population to 1.3 million, would be more like $5 billion in 2000). This estimate does not take into account the additional costs of bilingual education or other special educational needs."\n\nWhat does this mean for American citizens?\n\nHigher Taxes: The federal government has control over immigration law for the United States. By not addressing this abuse, the funds that state and local governments must provide to anchor babies amounts to a virtual tax on U.S. citizens to subsidize illegal aliens.\n\nDisrespect for the rule of law: By not closing this loophole, Congress in effect rewards law-breakers and punishes those who have chosen to follow the rules and immigrate legally.\n\nCongressional action warranted: The 14th Amendment stipulates that Congress has the power to enforce its provisions by enactment of legislation, and the power to enforce a law is necessarily accompanied by the authority to interpret that law. Therefore, an act of Congress stating its interpretation of the 14th Amendment, as not to include the offspring of illegal aliens, would fall within Congress's prerogative.
533481
U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5:\n\n"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."\n\nThose are all the requirements.
663371
You are exactly right! No one has a right to tell anyone else how to live if they are not breaking the law. And people should stay out of other people's families. \n\nIt is so weird how so many people don't know their history enough to realize while the forefathers did use religion to some degree to form our government, at the same time, they were wise enough to realize they needed to be very specific about specifying separation between the two.\n\nThat is exactly why this country is great: because by separating religion and state has allowed us to progress and slowly change errors in the original formation of our government... like when it used to be the law that blacks were not even considered citizens because the forefathers declared them as not human beings but property.\n\nThat other person said something about other kids influencing her kids.. sorry but too bad.. that is life in a free country. If you don't like it then move to a dictatorship or put your child in religious school. BUT don't try to tell another family how to raise their kids because THEIR kids also get influenced by people's kids who teach the opposite of what they believe.\n\nAs long as all families are tax-paying citizens and obey the laws they have every right to live the way they want to and teach their children their beliefs. I have no clue why some people think it is OK for to IMPOSE their beliefs on other people just because they don't agree with them.
557203
The Constitution of the United States of America, states that the people have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.  It is a right added to be a stop gap measure for the people to protect themselves from a corrupt government intrusion.  Due to the fact that at the time the King of England forced the colony folks to house the British soldiers, and were not able to stop them from unreasonable searches or siezures.  Our founding fathers determined that this was a violation of man's basic freedoms.  Not to be usurped by wicked men.  The right to be free from harm or intrusion was based on the unalienable rights granted to mankind by God.  This was codified in the Constitution for our protection and for our benefit.  It is up to us who live by it, to make sure it stays in force!  When we choose to allow it to be usurped we have effctively let the documnent become nothing but words on paper that are useless.
180620
The problem with The Fourteenth Amendment Is That it has been MISINTERPRETED  in recent years to mean simply that anyone born in the U.S, under any circumstances, is an American citizen.\nThis is neither the original intent of the law nor the way it was interpreted by the courts in subsequent decades. \nSome Americans speak of birthright citizenship as if it were an immutable law of nature. \nIt is NOT, and most other nations do not, in fact, recognize it. It is only a BAD HABIT that could be broken with a simple Executive Order. \n\nAccording to estimates, some 200,000 so-called anchor babies are born in the United States every year. \nOnce a mother has birthed a child on American soil, she can then seek to obtain citizenship for herself on the strength of the family-reunification laws. \nEven before this happens, she is very hard to deport, as the mother of an American, and the full panoply of welfare benefits is available to her, as is affirmative action if she is a member of a racial minority. \n\n"The situation we have today is absurd," alleges Craig Nelsen, director of Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement, \na group of attorneys and immigration experts that is trying to do something about the problem. \n"There is a huge and growing industry in Asia that arranges tourist visas for pregnant women so they can fly to the United States and give birth to an American. \nThis was not the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment; it makes a mockery of citizenship."\n\nThe key to undoing the current misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is this odd phrase\n \n"AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF." \n\nThe whole problem is caused by the fact that the meaning of this phrase, which was clear to anyone versed in legal language in 1868, has slipped with changes in usage. Fortunately, there is a large group of court precedents that make clear what the phrase actually means: \n\nThe Fourteenth Amendment EXCLUDES the children of aliens. (The Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873)) \n\nThe Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. (Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874))\n \nThe phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence. \n(Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884)) \n\nThere is NO automatic birthright citizenship in a particular case. (Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) \n\nThe Supreme Court has NEVER confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, temporary workers, and tourists. \n(Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n.10 (1982)) \n\nThere are other cases referring to minor details of the question.\n\nthe so-called 14th amendment was never properly ratified either. \nIn the case of Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266, 270 (1968), \nthe Utah Supreme Court recited numerous historical facts proving, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the so-called 14th amendment was likewise a major fraud upon the American People.\n\nThose facts, in many cases, were Acts of the several State Legislatures voting for or against that proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution. \nThe Supreme Law Library has a collection of references detailing this major fraud.\n\nThe U.S. Constitution requires that constitutional amendments be ratified by three-fourths of the several States.\n As such, their Acts are governed by the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution. See Article IV, Section 1.\n\nJudging by the sheer amount of litigation its various sections have generated, particularly Section 1, the so-called 14th amendment is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written in American history. \nThe phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” is properly understood to mean “subject to the municipal jurisdiction of Congress.” \n\nFor this one reason alone, the Congressional Resolution proposing the so-called 14th amendment
657091
Both parents are US citizens.  No matter where the child was born the child would still be a US citizen.
537959
Don't know, but they shouldn't be- citizens have a right to protect their own country, whether illegal or not!  History will prove them right and their actions will be honored at a future time.  Americans are expected to be sensitive to everyone else yet, to add insult to injury, we're supposed to submit to the ridiculous whims of others.  What justification can an illegal immigrant bring for breaking the laws of other countries.- they have none b/c they have no standing to complain.  Why don't you ask mexico why they rape and pillage their southern border yet expect us to leave our southern border open.  On top of that, they want free healthcare and complain when we suggest that thats inappropriate- the rest of the world is laughing at us.  As long as american kids are deathly afraid of rotting in a mexican jail for littering or peeing in the street, we shouldn't even grant mexico an audience!  Even worse, now they're demanding that we hand deliver Dog the Bounty Hunter to them for capturing a habitual rapist that mexico wasn't even trying to capture!  Whatever- mexico should learn its place!
308225
Not knowing what Country A or Country B might be, here's the scoop on my country, The United States of America!\n\nA citizen of the United States is a native-born, foreign-born, or naturalized person who owes allegiance to the United States and who is entitled to its protection. In addition to the naturalization process, the United States recognizes the U.S. citizenship of individuals according to two fundamental principles: jus soli, or right of birthplace, and jus sanguinis, or right of blood.\n\n\nThe 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship at birth to almost all individuals born in the United States or in U.S. jurisdictions, according to the principle of jus soli. Certain individuals born in the United States, such as children of foreign heads of state or children of foreign diplomats, do not obtain U.S. citizenship under jus soli.\n\n\nCertain individuals born outside of the United States are born citizens because of their parents, according to the principle of jus sanguinis (which holds that the country of citizenship of a child is the same as that of his / her parents). The U.S. Congress is responsible for enacting laws that determine how citizenship is conveyed by a U.S. citizen parent or parents according to the principle of jus sanguinis. These laws are contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act.\n\nYou can read more here:\nhttp://www.uscis.gov/graphics/services/natz/citizen.htm
143810
No, Pancha, the problem is more complicated than that. there where quite a few good answers though. we need to enforce the law we already have. they are good laws, and followed correctly, they will work. second, I believe we should get rid of part of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. it states:\n\nSection 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. \n\nThis Amendment was meant to give Black slaves citizenship after the civil war, because many in the South believed they were not citizens. they were born here, thus they were justly given the right of citizenship. This, however, does not apply to today's world. we no longer have slaves thank god, and there is no need for this section. It is the anchor baby amendment. an illegal woman comes across the border and has a baby. that baby is technically an american citizen. they can't deport the mother (who couldn't pay her medical bill anyway, so it'll fall to us taxpayers) because who's gonna care for the child? If given to an orphanage, the child may be adopted, but will cost the state money too. the illegal mother now has a reason to stay and bring her husband if she has one, her other children if she has them, etc. The laws we have now, minus Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, are effective IF ENFORCED. and building a wall is a good idea, too.
329374
The doctrine that you're speaking of actually says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."  The US Supreme Court expanded on that, realizing that the doctrine in the Constitution had no "teeth" without clarification.  In other words, they expanded it from Congress not being able to make a law *establishing* one (ie. a national religion) to include Congress not being able to make laws favoring a particular religion over another (or over a non-religion).  Who the people vote for is an entirely different matter.  First, the doctrine applies to laws and legislation.  Secondly, it would be utterly unconstitutional to disallow anyone not specifically defined in the Constitution from running for office.  The people of the U.S. have the absolute right to cast their vote for whomever they choose, as long as that person has the requisite citizenship and has attained the mandated age.
197989
Nothing is perfect...\n\nThe Constitutional Amendments as they stand are excellent, unfortunately, we do not have these rights like the Constitution says. \n\nWith all the pandering to left-wing activist judges and the 9th "Circus" Court of Appeals, they are slowly taking away our rights and moving toward Socialism. \n\nIf the Constitution was interpreted by the Courts instead of judges legislating from the bench, we would see that our Constitution truly is the greatest living document in the world.\n\nWhy else would we have everyone in the world trying to get into our country?
443667
If there is enough evidence, the jury can already made a decision declaring the accused as guilt.\n\nBarring illegals from  work and school is not violative of the constitution because the state has the right to regulate immigration as a valid exercise of police power.\n\nThe state has the right to abolish abortion if it deems that it is against morals, public policy and the laws.
609571
I agree with you.  If you are born here then you are a "legal American" and that child has no power over what thier parents did, so no they sohuldn't be punished for something that they couldn't control in the first place.  I agree with this question.
611932
Everyone who answered yes should go jump off the closest bridge and learn the friggin law!!! Why are you all so stupid, go to another forum if you have never learned immigration or naturalization law...some people actually have real questions and need real answers....not just a lame A$$ guess!! now go to the video game section and play there and let the adults answer the questions.\n\nThat being said, an child born ABROAD to a US CITIZEN will retain the citizenship of his/her PARENTS...IN OTHER WORDS THEY WOULD BE A U.S. CITIZEN. \n\nAND WHOEVER SAID THAT BY MEXICAN LAW THEY.....YOU ARE FULL OF CRAP!!!
196847
The constitution does not say that only citizens are protected by the 4th-8th Amendments, it merely says, "no person." You would want to be given the same rights of citizens if charged in another country, wouldn't you? In fact, the public tends to get up in arms, even when someone IS given the same rights and is given a harsh punishment.
284353
If you are not a citizen of the US, the constitution does not appy to you. You have no right of free speach. Immagration should have been there deporting all of them.\n\nIt is against the law for them to be here. By allowing them to stay, your friendly local government says that it is ok to break the law. Vote them all out of office!