In amendment 14, section 1 of the constitution, does it include children of illegal immigrant parents?
338692
It does not. unless they were born in the US (making them citizens). if they were born abroad, then it does not include them.
470777
Yes the child is a US citizen but the parents are not, and can still be deported.  I know this because my friend is trying to become a legal citizen and they are trying to kick her out of the US even though she has 2 children with a US citizen.
432863
It has been estimated that about 165,000 anchor babies are born (and automatically granted citizenship) each year. It might actually be higher. The exact figure is uncertain because all hospitals and physicians receiving federal funds are forbidden from inquiring as their patients' legal status. In other words, the U.S. taxpayer is financing medical care for illegal aliens, and those providing such care can't even ask if patients are legal or not! The state of California has a particularly liberal program to reward illegal aliens which includes free pre-natal care and delivery, and it's no surprise that 60% of babies born in LA community hospitals are born to illegals. In 1994, a majority of California who went to the polls voted to end such nonsense. But the will of the people was placed under a judge's restraining order until a later state government, at the behest of the president of Mexico struck it down. So the gravy train rolls on!\n\nOf course the birth of an anchor baby is only the beginning. As the child grows he or she is entitled to a multitude of other taxpayer-funded programs. Since most anchor babies are classified as "minorities", they can expect to enjoy legal preference over "non-Hispanic white males" under today's "civil rights" regime. Upon reaching adulthood, the citizen anchor baby is eligible to import relatives from the home country through America's nepotistic chain migration system , in which the principal qualification for a prespective legal immigrant is having relatives already in the U.S. When you look at the vast cornucopia of benefits, you have to conclude that the U.S.A. offers powerful incentives for illegal immigration. For those who disobey U.S. law and their children, America is certainly the land of opportunity!\n\nWhy does the U.S. have such an insane policy? Most countries of the world do not! The United Kingdom and Australia formerly had similar policies, but changed them when they were subject to the same abuses which the U.S.A. still endures.\n\nPresent U.S. anchor baby "policy" is an abuse of the 14th Amendment. This amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the civil rights of native-born black Americans, who had recently been freed from slavery and whose rights were being denied. The amendment states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...." The clear, original intent of the 14th Amendment was spelled out in 1866 by Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of its citizenship clause, who wrote \n"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." Clearly the original intent of the 14th Amendment was not to encourage foreigners to defy U.S. law at taxpayer expense. Sadly the amendment is now being employed to do just that.\n\nhttp://www.americanpatrol.com/ANCHORBABIES/AnchorBabiesAllanWall.html
810994
The problem with this "anchor baby" issue that keeps coming up is that it is a chimera:  it does not exist.\n\nThere is NO provision under the immigration law or any other law that allows non-American adults, legal or illegal, to remain in the US just because they have borne an American citizen child.  There are no asylum or other rules that allow such parents to remain in the US.  In fact, there are many thousands of US citizen children living overseas, who were born in the US but their parents had no right to stay there and left when their business, whatever it was, was over.\n\nThe child cannot even petition for the parents until he or she turns 21, and then will have to be domiciled in the US, not just the holder of a US passport.
668223
Well, any child born in this country is automatically a citizen (of the LEGAL) variety regardless of whether the parents are or not; and it is much more dfficult to deport the illegal-alien parents of a child who is a legal citizen, since the child cannot be deported.  If and illegal alien marries a citizen of this country, that green card is automatic...I personally feel that the teen pregnancy rate is not concentrated in any one ethnic group, however; after all, what do they see on TV and in the movies and print media 24/7?  Listen to the lyrics of the majority of songs these days, what is the message?  How many parents actually pay attention to where their children are, with whom they are spending their time, and what the kids are doing?  As far as that goes, how many kids were born when THEIR parents were 16/17/18?  Put two and two together, and what do you have?  The world going to hell in a handbasket.
814532
You need to provide more info first.  As both a paralegal and adopted child, I would offer my opinion, however, you neglected to inform us what amendment is offered in the bill, how it will diversely effect the citizens and why you are against it.  Without these important facts, any answer given would be disingenuous.
733590
They have misinterpreted the Constitution. Birth right citizenship is a myth.\n\nhttp://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-pOypG0szd7Pv_X1rQxw_4qCWpA--?cq=1&p=50
232088
Not in the constitution. However, Article 20 of the US Code covers the topic of requiring an education to children through grade 12.\n\nRegarding non citizens, you cannot forbit them from attending. US Code, Title 20, CHAPTER 39, SUBCHAPTER I, Part 2,  § 1703\nlink: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode20/usc_sec_20_00001703----000-.html\n\n(Whether that pertains to undocumented aliens is up for debate)
396020
I feel as though immigrants, either illegal or legal play a big role in the United States and its history. I am a United States citizen. I was born a raised here for my entire life however, my parents and grandeparents are immigrants. The United states is a country that was build by immigrants, whether they be asian, irish, italian, etc. If this bill is passed it will affect everyone, citzens and immigrants. Families will be broken up because if my mother is an illegal immigrant and i help her i can go to jail along with any other family members that know. If passed,  illegal immigrants can be detained indefinately by the united states government. What about those people who come countries that will not take back people who are being deported? Then people who are looking to enter the US from those countries will not be allowed to. Why penelize a whole country? Why should a priest have to go against his morals of helping some one just so he dose not face jail time and seizure of the property used? How is that immigrants with greencards can fight a war in Iraq for the US but they are not citzens? I think that some people just see illegal immigrants as those that just cross the border from mexico are some other third world country. If someone comes here from russia on a student visa but decides after studying they would like to stay here they are an illegal immigrant, that too will face serious penalties. In my opinion this is just crazy. The United States is always claiming to want and help those countries in need.What about people who flee those same countries to come here for a better life? Why not helps those that are here now by not passing proposition HR 4437.
302834
First of all, let me say that by definition, illegal immigrants have broken American law - so there is no need to put illegal in quotes. As a nation of laws, residency status cannot be allowed to hinge upon an illegal act just to enter the country. We cannot pick and choose which laws we enforce and which ones we do not - ALL must be enforced. If someone doesn't like it, they should elect someone to try to change the law ... you know - the LEGAL way.\n\nSecond, for those of you who say illegal immigrants have no rights, you are dead wrong. Don't get me wrong - I am 100% dead against illegal immigration and think every last one of them should be deported. However, facts are facts.\n\nSection 1 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution contains what is known as the Equal Protection Clause. It means that states are prohibited from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The actual text reads:\n\n"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." [Caps added]\n\nThis answer may not be popular, but it is the legal answer.\n\nEDIT: JD - I understand the frustration with the 14th Amendment. No one wants the illegals gone more than I do. However, I am not arguing that the 14th Amendment give illegal aliens all the rights of a citizen. It does, however, grant them certain rights.\n\nI don't believe that the authors of the 14th Amendment *intended* what has become of the 14th Amendment any more than I believe the authors of the Bill of Rights *intended* the so-called separation of church and state. However, sloppy wording has put us into this situtaion.\n\nPersonally, I believe they should have no rights under the Constitution, but I also realize that the 14th Amendment does grant them certain rights. They have every right that does not require you to be a citizen to have - and those are many. Rights that do not require you to be a citizen are far less.\n\nNone of those rights preclude them being detained, heard before a court and deported.\n\nBTW, I have recently been told of a blog in which you participate regarding immigration. I fully intend to become more knowledgeable in this area because I believe passionately that illegal immigrants should be deported, our borders should be shored up, have illegal immigration laws toughened and have them ENFORCED.
978106
In other words, should be amend the Constitution to eliminate the "natural born" requirement?\n\nLet's break it down. First, I think that anyone born of two US citizens should be allowed to run for president, even if they were born overseas. So, those whose citizen-parents were on vacation, or serving or traveling overseas, should not be precluded.\n\nAs to those who are born of non-citizens, if they are born in the US (regardless of where they are raised), then they are eligble, under the 14th Amendment. But if they are born overseas, regardless of where they are raised, they are not.  Personally, I think that where someone is raised is more important than the first few minutes of their life. And the risk (if any) arises from their beliefs and personality, not the geography they happened to be in before they were able to speak or walk.\n\nThen again, history has shown that simply being born in the US certainly doesn't make someone competent to be President, even if they happen to be legally qualified to run.
867407
It isn't an issue of interpretation. The constitution states explicitly "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." That means that a person must be born in the United States to be president and also must reside in the United States for fourteen years. This completely excludes those of other countries of origin. To get this to change, there would have to be an amendment to the consitution.
980104
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.\n\nSection 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.\n\nSection 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.\n\nSection 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.\n\nSection 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.\n\n\nOk, nutshell explanation, anyone born on US soil is a natural-born citizen, as per Article I. Article II over-rides the previous statute of slaves being 3/5 of a person, now any male over 21 could vote, and representation in the House was adjusted to incorporate the possible influx of members due to the recalibration. Article III basically states that any member of a rebellion against the United States *cough Confederate States of America cough* can't hold any office, military of civilian, unless Congress overrules the disability with a 2/3 majority vote, on a case-by-case basis. Article IV states that the US won't pay reparations for lost slaves, or the CSA's debts. Article V is just there to say Congress will make states do this.\n\nIt's significance is this: Have you heard the term anchor-babies? An anchor baby is a child, born in America, to illegal alien parents, and the parents use the child to get welfare, get it an education, which the parents normally don't care about anyways, and whenever someone comes sniffing, say "They're an American citizen, don't split up our family!" As of the last Congress, there were proposals to alter Article I, to require that one parent must be a US citizen to make you a natural citizen, and if neither were, you weren't a citizen, and could be deported, with the parents, to the parent's home cou
1008952
the refusal to assimilate; why should we bend over backwards to accommodate foreigners? no other country does that---and the whole illegal entry factor; it's not hard to get into this country, all we ask is that you pay your money and go through the established procedures; sure that could take a while but SO WHAT! lots of people have done that for a long time and effectively earned the right to live and work here. unfortunately i have had experiences like this and it really toasts my waffle! why should citizens of this great nation have to be subjected to such frustration! i don't remember reading that amendment in the Constitution...
352691
The answer is yes they are giving auto citizenship until otherwise they disown or renos it.\nSorry wrong one, 14th amendment\n\nThe several bills and resolutions now before Congress that would deny citizenship to children born in the United States to certain classes of alien parents raise various issues of law and policy. My testimony today will address two points of constitutional law. First, because the rule of citizenship acquired by birth within the United States is the law of the Constitution, it cannot be changed through legislation, but only by amending the Constitution. A bill such as H.R. 1363, 104th Cong. (1995), the "Citizenship Reform Act of 1995," that purports to deny citizenship by birth to persons born within the jurisdiction of this country is unconstitutional on its face. Second, the proposed constitutional amendments on this topic conflict with basic constitutional principles. To adopt such an amendment would not be technically unlawful, but it would flatly contradict our constitutional history and our constitutional traditions. Affirming the citizenship of African-Americans that Dred Scott had denied, in 1862 President Lincoln's Attorney General wrote an opinion for the Secretary of the Treasury asserting "[a]s far as I know . . . you and I have no better title to the citizenship which we enjoy than the 'accident of birth' -- the fact that we happened to be born in the United States." (5) Today, in 1995, we cannot and should not try to solve the difficult problems illegal immigration poses by denying citizenship to persons whose claim to be recognized as Americans rests on the same constitutional footing as that of any natural-born citizen. Members of both of your Subcommittees have worked vigorously, with the Department of Justice on an evenhanded bipartisan basis, on legislation and oversight to address these problems.\n\nI.\n\n\n       H.R. 1363, the "Citizenship Reform Act of 1995," exemplifies the various legislative proposals before the committees. The stated purpose of the bill is "to deny automatic citizenship at birth to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens." Section 3(a) of the bill amends section 301(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which grants U.S. citizenship "at birth" to all persons "born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Specifically, section 3(a) proposes to define the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to include only children born to U.S. citizens or permanent resident aliens.\n\nthe Supreme Court held that a child born in San Francisco of Chinese parents (who, under the Chinese Exclusion laws then in effect, could never themselves become U.S. citizens) became at the time of his birth in the United States a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.\n\n       The Court, in a detailed review of the Anglo-American common law of citizenship and the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, established several propositions. First, because the Constitution does not define United States citizenship, it must be interpreted in light of the common law. Under the common law of England, which was adopted by the United States, every child born within the territory of alien parents was a natural-born subject, with the exception of children born of foreign ambassadors, of alien enemies during hostile occupation, and of aliens on a foreign vessel.
598058
That is a troubling question anymore. With the patriot act in full force and the cops being allowed to lie and commit human rights violations it is hard to say what rights we actually have anymore. Now if your an ILLEGAL Immigrant you have the right to food stamps, public education, free hospital care, and you don't have to tell anyone you're not supposed to be in this country. It violates their rights to privacy if you ask them.\nSomething is just so wrong here!
656463
I will try it be short - no guarentees.. History can be long and complex.\n\nEver since the subject of Congress taking up Birthright Citizenship have we seen the power of ignorance at work through the main stream media. It is difficult to find any editorial or wire story that correctly gives the reader an honest and accurate historical account of the Fourteenth Amendment in regards to children born to foreign parents within the United States. Most often the media presents a fabled and inaccurate account of just what the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment means. \n\nDuring the reconstruction period following the civil war the view on citizenship was that only children born to American parents owing allegiance to no other foreign power could be declared an American Citizen upon birth on U.S. soil. This is exactly the language of the civil rights bill of 1866: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." \n\nThe author of the Fourteenth Amendment, Rep. John A Bingham (OH), responded to the above declaration as follows: "I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that 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." \n\nAlready before we get to the Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause we have the entire Congress declaring only children born to parents who owe no foreign allegiance shall be citizens. We also have the author of the Fourteenth Amendment declaring this is law of the land. It just gets worst for advocates who want to either believe or, revise history, to support their fable that the Fourteenth Amendment somehow magically makes anyone born in the United States regardless of the allegiance of their parents a natural born citizen. \n\nSen. Jacob Howard, who wrote the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause to the US Senate as follows: \n\n[T]his amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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 accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. \n\nSo than, what exactly did subject to the jurisdiction mean? Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, framer of the Thirteenth Amendment told us in clear language what the phrase means under the Fourteenth: \n\n[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. \n\nSen. Jacob M. Howard, responded to Trumbull's construction by saying: \n\n[I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. \n\nMyths can be difficult to dispose of, and birthright citizenship to aliens is no exception.\nCivil Rights bill of 1870 declared those children born to parents subject to a foreign power cannot be declared United States citizens. \n\nUS Su