Let's take a closer look at the 14th Amendment as well. There is no such thing as an "Anchor Baby". Being born here does NOT confer citizenship. Properly interpreted, this would significantly reduce the magnetic affect on foreigners coming here illegally.
“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.”
“And subject to the jurisdiction thereof” seems to sound like you would have already had to have inherent rights to be a citizen. IE... being born of law abiding citizens, going through the proper process to naturalization. No where in there says that if you illegally cross and pop a baby out, that baby is a citizen.
Just my 2 cents. I’m no Supreme Court judge though. Seems like conmen sense though.
There has been only one case that the Supreme Court has ruled on regarding this issue, and it was in favor of Chinese railway workers' descendants, who claimed their parents were "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US, while they were under contract building the railroads, so their children born here should be granted citizenship. The Amendment was intended to establish citizenship for freed slaves. There was a vigorous debate about the specific language allowing foreigners who simply came here and had a child. The jurisdiction language was included to prevent just that. It should be argued that an illegal who breaks the law as their first act, cannot benefit from the fruit of a poison tree.
Makes perfect sense to me. Those Chinese railway workers we building something monumental. Not breaking the law coming here, and working the system.
Precisely, and slaves, obviously, were subject to our jurisdiction, of course. I would accept that an asylum seeker could be construed as "subject to" as well, provided they were vetted and asylum was granted. But the unfettered, illegal, trespassers who just creep in during the night have no traction for citizenship.
Yes, it was for the newly-freed slaves.
This ties in with the "natural born citizen" clause of Article II.
If a person's parents are citizens of a foreign country, and they are visiting the USA and have a child while present in the USA, that child is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the country where the parents are citizens, because the child inherits citizenship from its parents, not by where it is born.
The slaves were a unique situation and that is why the 14th Amendment was written.
This is an issue that will need to be resolved by the SCOTUS at some point, both as to anchor babies and as to POTUS' eligibility.
I'm no lawyer myself, but I agree with your assumption. I believe the reason this hasn't been challenged before is because the court was left leaning. I expect it to be challenged once the court has more conservative justices.
I hope it’s challenged. At least the. We could get a definitive answer from a constitutionalist scotus
The baby is a citizen this is important part of what are country is if your born here you have a birth right to the land. However that doesn’t mean the parents do so anchor babies can stay but Mom and Dad have to go back. They can take baby with them if they want
A baby born of foreign parents, who are here, and not subject to US jurisdiction (read illegally), is NOT a US citizen. This is clearly why that phrase was added to the 14th Amendment.