Read the 14th Amendment: Section 1 says, "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." It makes no reference to being born of a U.S. citizen. It means if you are born in the U.S., you are a citizen.
You are a United States citizen if you were born anywhere in the United States or its territories, including Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. You may be a citizen if you were born abroad and at least one of your biological parents was both a U.S. born citizen at the time of your birth and lived in the U.S. at any time prior to your birth. If either or both your parents obtained naturalized U.S. citizenship before you turned age 18, you may also have derived citizenship.
Getting rid of the 14th amendment by due process? Not easy!! The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. That means that at least 290 representatives AND 67 senators must vote to approve the proposed amendment, or 34 State legislatures must agree on the wording and approve the Amendment by constitutional convention. (None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention.) Because the House and Senate are nearly evenly split (220-215 & 53-47) the chances of getting a Bill of Amendment through the legislative process is virtually zero. And getting 34 of 50 states to agree on the wording and approve the Amendment? Not bloody likely.
We shouldn't worry about this issue unless the SCOTUS rules the 14th amendment is invalid, and I don't think even the current court has the balls to do something that blatantly wrong.
(edited for spelling)
[This message has been edited by Mike in Sydney (edited 02-02-2025).]
Read the 14th Amendment: Section 1 says, "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." It makes no reference to being born of a U.S. citizen. It means if you are born in the U.S., you are a citizen.
You are a United States citizen if you were born anywhere in the United States or its territories, including Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. You may be a citizen if you were born abroad and at least one of your biological parents was both a U.S. born citizen at the time of your birth and lived in the U.S. at any time prior to your birth. If either or both your parents obtained naturalized U.S. citizenship before you turned age 18, you may also have derived citizenship.
Getting rid of the 14th amendment by due process? Not easy!! The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. That means that at least 290 representatives AND 67 senators must vote to approve the proposed amendment, or 34 State legislatures must agree on the wording and approve the Amendment by constitutional convention. (None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention.) Because the House and Senate are nearly evenly split (220-215 & 53-47) the chances of getting a Bill of Amendment through the legislative process is virtually zero. And getting 34 of 50 states to agree on the wording and approve the Amendment? Not bloody likely.
We shouldn't worry about this issue unless the SCOTUS rules the 14th amendment is invalid, and I don't think even the current court has the balls to do something that blatantly wrong.
(edited for spelling)
The 14th has been interpreted by the SCOTUS at the end of the 1800's as giving birthright citizenship, although the amendment doesn't actually spell it out. The Court could reinterpret the amendment without going through the amendment process.
If you haven't already, go back and read some of the links posted earlier in this thread.
The 14th has been interpreted by the SCOTUS at the end of the 1800's as giving birthright citizenship, although the amendment doesn't actually spell it out. The Court could reinterpret the amendment without going through the amendment process.
If you haven't already, go back and read some of the links posted earlier in this thread.
It's an interesting set of arguments.
To be specific, SCOTUS interpreted the 14th amendment as giving birthright citizenship to children of Legal permanent residents. They havent previously answered the question of what the exact definition of " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". ive seen persuasive arguments for different definitions.
Originally posted by gtjoe: To be specific, SCOTUS interpreted the 14th amendment as giving birthright citizenship to children of Legal permanent residents. They havent previously answered the question of what the exact definition of " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". ive seen persuasive arguments for different definitions.
The biggest issue that Trump is trying to resolve... is where people sneak across the border, have a child, and then by proxy the entire extended family gets to come to America because someone crossed the border pregnant.
Originally posted by Mike in Sydney: We shouldn't worry about this issue unless the SCOTUS rules the 14th amendment is invalid, and I don't think even the current court has the balls to do something that blatantly wrong.
Blatantly wrong ? I disagree.
Some think we should not have a border wall. Just let anyone in. Yet they have locks on the doors of their home. And fences around their property.
quote
Originally posted by Mike in Sydney: Getting rid of the 14th amendment by due process? Not easy!! The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. That means that at least 290 representatives AND 67 senators must vote to approve the proposed amendment, or 34 State legislatures must agree on the wording and approve the Amendment by constitutional convention. (None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention.) Because the House and Senate are nearly evenly split (220-215 & 53-47) the chances of getting a Bill of Amendment through the legislative process is virtually zero. And getting 34 of 50 states to agree on the wording and approve the Amendment? Not bloody likely.
Yeah, an amendment to our Constitution is not easy. Yet our Constitution was amended in 1920 for prohibition of alcohol (the 18 th Amenmdent) and amended again 1n 1933 ( the 21st Amendment.
I do not think the two houses of Congress can amend the Constitution.
