(Lake Martin Specific)
111,170 messages
Updated 5/28/2024 5:46:58 PM
Lakes Online Forum
83,644 messages
Updated 5/28/2024 9:14:08 AM
Lakes Online Forum
5,193 messages
Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM
(Lake Martin Specific)
4,170 messages
Updated 5/28/2024 5:21:13 AM
Lakes Online Forum
4,169 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,261 messages
Updated 5/28/2024 6:31:10 AM
Lakes Online Forum
2,976 messages
Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM
(Lake Martin Specific)
169 messages
Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
|
Name:
|
Yankee06
|
|
Subject:
|
Citizenship for Babies Born to Illegals
|
|
Date:
|
6/15/2010 7:21:54 PM
|
|
I'll bet I've had this discussion a hundred times on what was teh intent of the original authors of teh 14th amendment, i.e., NOT TO COVER FOREIGNRES BORN ON U.S. SOIL. It appears teh courts reinterpreted the 14th Amendment to cover those born in the U.S.
Here's what Wikipedia says about intent:
There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment.[5] During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.[6] Howard further stated the term jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now"[6] and that the United States possessed a "full and complete jurisdiction" over the person described in the amendment.[7][8][6] Other senators, including Senator John Conness,[9] supported the amendment, believing citizenship should cover all children born in the United States.
In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
, the clause's meaning was tested regarding whether it meant that anyone born in the United States would be a citizen regardless of the parents' nationality. In that case, the Supreme Court held that the children of Native Americans were not citizens, despite the fact that they were born in the United States.
The meaning was tested again in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
regarding children of non-citizen Chinese immigrants born in United States. The court ruled that the children were U.S. citizens.[10]
The difference between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[11] Wong Kim Ark and subsequent cases did not explicitly decide whether such children are entitled to birthright citizenship via the amendment,[12] but such birthright is generally assumed to be the case.[13] In some cases, the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
|
|
Reply
Back
Search
Off-Topic Forum
»
Alabama Lakes
»
Lake Martin
Login
|
Home
