If 14th Amendment Is Repealed, What Makes Any Of Us Citizens?

Posted by politicalpartypooper on August 8, 2010

When considering the recent uproar over the Fourteenth Amendment of our U.S. Constitution, this is the section that is under fire by many Republicans:

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.

Okay, here is where I ask the obvious question. If being born here doesn’t make you a citizen, what does?
Because, without the 14th Amendment, the Constitution does not declare citizenship rights, anywhere. Now, it’s understood that part of the reason for the 14th Amendment was to grant the right of citizenship to slaves freed by the war. But did you also know that the 14th Amendment’s second, equal purpose, was to protect the citizenship rights of those already previously considered citizens prior to the war; namely Confederate soldiers, officers, and elected officials?

I am a US citizen.  I know that because I was born here.  My parents were born here.  Their parents were born here, but their parents were not.  My Great Grandparents immigrated.  What makes me a citizen if birth does not?     Ω



11 Responses to “If 14th Amendment Is Repealed, What Makes Any Of Us Citizens?”

  1. The 14th Amendment does not need to be repealed only modified to ADD that those born of NON-citizens who have broken the law and are here (in the United States) illegally are NOT and DO NOT enjoy citizenship rights.

    • politicalpartypooper said

      It requires two-thirds of the Senate to ratify a change to the Constitution. From what I’ve read, Republicans aren’t talking about modifying it. They are talking about repealing it. And I’ve got to be honest; I don’t like it. It’s based on fear.

      While I do not agree that people ought to be allowed to cross over our border illegally, I don’t think this “solution” solves that problem. I think this “solution” punishes children who have done nothing wrong.

      It’s an over-reaction, a bad response to a bad situation. It’s a Republican solution to a problem they really don’t want to deal with. Both Parties get an “F” for effort and results in dealing with illegal entry into the US. All their solution does is demonize someone so that they can deflect us from the fact that they have failed to uphold the law.

      Did I say failed? More like both parties have PURPOSEFULLY IGNORED the law.

  2. Unfortunately “the children who have done nothing wrong” are connected to their law breaking parents. As soon as you grant the child citizenship you then allow the parents and ALL other extended family members the right to apply and receive benefits from a plethora of programs including citizenship. No one wants to punish the child, however, we (American tax payers) will now have to foot the bill for millions of other extended family members who have broken the law. There are an estimated 600,000 million people in the world who are in similar situations as the impoverished of Mexico and Central America. We can’t take care of them all. Therefore no one culture or country should receive the exclusive blessings of our generosity simply because they have a common border. It should be a level playing field. We have enough problems at home now. There should be a moratorium on immigration (both legal and illegal) until we get our own house in order and can take care of our own citizens. That should include NOT granting the children of illegals citizenship or any other rights. Citizenship along with the promise of work only adds to the list of reasons why people break the law to cross out borders illegally.

    • politicalpartypooper said

      I understand your argument, but it’s an unnecessary one. If Republicans and Democrats would do their jobs, and UPHOLD the law we already have, the 14th Amendment as it is written is not a problem.

      So let me see if I get this right. We already have a law on the books that deals with illegal immigrants and those who aid them or hire them. But instead of delivering, supporting, and upholding that law, Republicans want to go through a whole new process, and rewrite portions of a constitutional amendment, all so that they can “solve” the illegal immigrant problem?

      While it may seem to be an immediately feasible solution based on dollars and cents and pop hysteria over the issue, when you break it down to the basics, it’s just plain silly. We already have a law. Now Republicans want to retroactively punish a group of people who believe they are citizens because Republicans and Democrats were too lazy, corrupt, and fucked in the head to do their jobs right. Makes perfect sense.

      Like I said, this is nothing more than a deflection tactic. Republicans are deflecting attention away from the fact that for decades, they ignored this problem, they outright refused to enforce the law, because it suited them to hire dirt-cheap labor from across the border. It’s pathetic. Not even Hollywood could write a script that ends up being that evil.

      If we’re going to go ahead with that “amendment to the amendment”, may I suggest a further addition top it,so we can make sure to punish the assholes who exploited these people?

      My suggestion is this: Anyone who has ever hired an illegal, or aided them, hid them, or was an elected official at the time illegals were here and did nothing to enforce the law automatically loses their citizenship. Why should just one group suffer when there are so many other groups who have been corrupt in this?

      You cannot single one group out for punishment long after you exploited them for your purposes. Yes, they have broken our laws. But guess what? So have the Republicans and Democrats.. Let’s kick all their asses out of this country.

  3. Previous post should have said 600 Million (NumbersUSA.com).

  4. I can't believe you said that said

    (The 14th Amendment does not need to be repealed only modified to ADD that those born of NON-citizens who have broken the law and are here (in the United States) illegally are NOT and DO NOT enjoy citizenship rights.)

    My thoughts, and those of many, many others. Well done.

  5. Jim Smith said

    Two wrongs do not make a right. I agree that the politicians have and continue to break the law by their inaction, however, that does not change the fact that other laws need to be amended or changed to reverse the direction. Anchor babies is only one of many things that need to be addressed in order to solve this problem once and for all. AND I’m with you! Throw all the bums out who have avoided their responsibilities and violated their oath to the people. If there was ever time for everyone out there to get off their lazy asses and vote it’s now. Otherwise shut up and live with the consequences.

  6. […] Comments Jim Smith on If 14th Amendment Is Repealed,…politicalpartypooper on If 14th Amendment Is Repealed,…I can't believe you … on If […]

  7. […] Comments Jim Smith on If 14th Amendment Is Repealed,…politicalpartypooper on If 14th Amendment Is Repealed,…I can't believe you … on If […]

  8. lacithedog said

    Major problems, as Political Party Pooper points out.

    They can’t repeal it.

    Secondly, any change would create a bizarre limbo for people who were once “Citizens” have become “non-Citizens”–Isn’t there an ex-post facto problem there? You could make it that anyone born after a certain date becomes illegal, but that also creates problems.

    The real problem was that the US expanded into the Southwest without really thinking about the ramifications of that action. Then, the 14th Amendment was added with its language of “All persons born or naturalized in the United States” being citizens.

    Under the two rulings, Elk v. Wilkins[112 U.S. 94 (1884)] and United States v. Wong Kim Ark [169 U.S. 649 (1898)], the following persons born in the United States are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and thus do not qualify for automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment:

    * Children born to foreign diplomats
    * Children born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States
    * Children born to Native Americans who are members of tribes not taxed (These were later given full citizenship by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.)

    All other persons born in the United States are citizens.

    Tampering with the 14th Amendment in anyway will start stirring up the Latino population, as well as anyone else with a brain.

    After all, Scalia has already pronounced that the 14th Amendment does not apply to gender discrimination and sexual orientation.

    On the other hand, the UK has passed a law without the constitutional problems which require that at least one parent be a citizen.

  9. lacithedog said

    A couple more SCOTUS cases for you:

    In Plyler vs. Doe (1982), the majority concluded, and the dissent agreed, that birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment extends to anyone “who is subject to the laws of a state,” including the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens. And in INS vs. Rios-Pineda (1985), a unanimous court agreed that a child born to an undocumented immigrant was in fact a citizen of the United States.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: