Should the 14th Amendment be challenged?

[thacher]

Since Andrew Jackson was in office, the validity of "anchor babies" has not been challenged until Arizona started a heat wave with their immigration laws.

Do you think it's time that it is challenged?
The Republican party has tossed it around but nothing concrete.


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.

Citizenship Clause Main article: Citizenship Clause
There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment.[5][6] During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes Native Americans 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."[7] Others also agreed that the children of ambassadors and foreign ministers were to be excluded.[8][9] However, concerning children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), three Senators, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment would confer citizenship on them at birth, and no Senator offered a contrary opinion.


http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_?Amendment_to_the_United...

[hwistlere31]

I don't generally like the idea of amending the constitution but I will admit that it's hard to understand what purpose is served by giving automatic citizenship to a child born to parents who are both illegally in the country.

I have every sympathy for people suffering through severe economic circumstances who want a better life by getting decent pay in the U.S. but this particular right just doesn't make sense to me.

[doran]

We didn't get "anchor babies" from the 14th Amendment. A simple act of CONGRESS did that later. Another simple act of Congress can undo it.
"Concerning children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens" expressly referred to parents with a DECLARED and LAWFUL presence and intent to reside.

[clem84]

Yes. People who cross the border illegally just to have their child born here should be punished and the child sent back to the country of origin.

[bernd]

It would probably be easier and cheaper to just annex Mexico and post our guard on their lower border atop Guatemala and Belize.

I think we could add legislation so as not to disturb the 14th amendment, to the effect that citizenship of "anchor babies" abates until they reach the age of majority. So then, we can deport the entire family and reserve citizenship status for the "anchor baby" to exercise or not upon reaching the age of majority.

[sonny]

You don't challenge an amendment to the constitution, as it is the basic law of the land. If the constitution isn't meeting our present needs, it can be amended again.

As for anchor babies, I think anyone born is the US should be a citizen. But I do not believe that baby should in any way entitle the parents to legally stay in the US. Let them take their US citizen baby home or leave it here to be raised by someone here legally.

[motorola]

yes, it should. It clearly doesn't stand the test of time. too many pregnant illegals knowingly enter USA to give birth there (they know they're breaking the law and still go merrily to continue breaking the law without remorse). This is a loophole that's been exploited too many times. when you see a hole on the roof, you plug it, even when the original designer of the house made the house with that particular hole. At the time, the this particular section was made to protect the african community. but then again, they should've just ship all those black people back to africa with compensation for their works and services when lincoln decided to abolish slavery.

[PamillaAnderson]

I do believe that such law should be challenged as it provide constitutional guarantee of citizenship. This is a loophole that's been exploited too many times. I feel that these laws cannot survive constitutional scrutiny, since award automatic citizenship to a child born to parents who are both illegally in the country.