Birthright citizenship

[Zippyjuan]

It is an open and shut case that anchor babies aren't citizens. Children of ambassadors aren't citizens even if born in the U.S. The 14th Amendment makes no distinction between illegals and ambassadors, therefore children of illegals aren't citizens either.

What about the child of a citizen and an illegal immigrant? Would they be citizens or illegals?

Who does the 14th Amendment say it applies to? Are specific classes of people included or excluded? Here is what the 14th Amendment says:

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.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

This is the catch- the only restriction. They are citizens if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Ambassadors are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States by international treaty. Native Americans were also similarly exempted from US jurisdiction- considered their own nations within the boundaries of the US until Congress changed it. Are immigrants (legal or not) subject to the jurisdiction of the United States? Do our laws apply to them while they are in the country? If they break a law, can they be arrested or charged with a crime?

 

[TommyJeff]

Judge Napolitano says it is part of the Constitution: http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/08/...ration-deportations-judge-napolitano-explains

the judge has many great things to at about the constitution so it confuses me how he can get this point so wrong.

Can we get rid of birthright citizenship? Is it a matter of an original intent vs. textual interpretation?

You ask two important questions.
No we can't get rid of it. It's not even a debate between intent or text. There is strong reasoning behind why the president needs to be a person, familiar with our culture, and having zero allegiance to another land. When a parent has allegiance to another land, there is a chance the president (as a child) would be taught a similar allegiance to that foreign land. That's part of the reason natural born is the phrase used and not naturalized. That's also why it's not only about a person being born inside the US, but that the parents are citizens too. The president's job includes a lot of foreign relations and that's why allegiance to only the United States is so important.

 

[Aratus]

Here is a video from 2015

 

[Stratovarious]

Sorry but the Judge is flat out wrong on this. The 14th amendment was about newly freed slaves after the War. They were American citizens. It has nothing to do with some woman running across the border and dropping a kid.

I agree, I love the Judge, he nails 9 out of 10 , but not 100%,
he sometimes misses the mark by a mile.

 

[Stratovarious]

Here is a video from 2015

-

@ 00:11
Stossel: ''You want to get rid of the law that says ...child of illegal...is a citizen...''
Ron Paul: ''I think...14th ... is misinterpreted...''
-
Stossel is a sharp guy, my guess is that he knew better but
phrased this question as if he were speaking 'as'/'for' the
majority of Americans, those that have no idea what is presented
in the 14th amendment, and are only familiar'
with what CNN et al has told them.