To answer the question asked, NO, definitely not. The 14th amendment does not apply to children born of ILLEGAL aliens born in the US. This amendment could be done away with as there are no longer any slaves alive from that period of time.

oops. . if government can grant the permission to vote, then
the government can control voting and perpetuate its corruption
and .......
this brings about the question of the write-in referendum.
where do the voters get a say in voting? . and oops again --
democracies fail when the voters give themselves a
free ride. . somewhere in here there must be a statesman, a
leader, an Ayn Rand. . Representative Democracy with
wise leaders. . OOOoooooohhhhh, I wish!!! -- j
.

I certainly can't blame them. It probably took much time & effort on their part to get here legally, only to see these criminals (yes they are criminals) get all those considerations. How galling it must be.

Yes, it then does follow that voting "rights" are also permissions. They are not natural rights. Government can grant them or take them away. They do depend on where you are born, etc.

Exactly. I have talked to a couple of folks who came here legally and they hate the way we treat those coming here illegally.

then, does it follow that voting "rights" are also permissions?
and then, what is required to gain that permission? . mere citizenship?
or should there be more? . as for my view, I believe that voters
should have taken an oath of loyalty to the u.s.constitution. -- j
.

if jurisdiction occurs as a result of invasion, sure. . otherwise, no.
the "11 or 12 million" illegal residents in the u.s. are invaders,
not immigrants, and the "anchor baby" argument is a bad one. -- j
.

Seems logical to me that Congress has the authority (via Section 5) to define what, " subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means in both the substantive and procedural domains. And, there have been no Constitutional challenges to the Act of Congress in 1924 granting citizenship to Native Americans--an act which upon superficial reading would appear to be in conflict with Section 2. I suspect this is not going to remain a, "settled" issue.

Indeed, Ron. And it would appear that many completely overlook the other 4 Sections of Amendment 14-- in particular Section 5. Many Constitutional scholars tend to agree with the commentary at this link. I encourage you to read it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/birthri...

I would say that that logic demands that a mother in jail and gives birth means that her child is also a criminal. I am not aware of that legal precedent occurring, so it should not apply to illegal immigrants as well. Simply by completing the act of illegally entering the country should establish them in a legal "non-entity" waiting disposition, and so, not incurring legal benefits. If that were the policy set in law, it would simplify this whole equation.

No...period.

That was what I thought, and was the point of my argument. I was checking my own premises. Thanks for the clarification. Citizenship is a permission.

Spot on Belle!

+1

I was addressing the nature of "rights" and the beauty of the fact they are not granted by anyone.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/per...

Citizenship is a permission.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," is pretty
clear and straightforward. The toddler, born in the
USA, of an illegal immigrant couple, still cannot
legally toddle on to the next-door neighbor's lawn, pull down his diaper, and pee on that lawn
without his parents' being liable for it. He is "sub-
ject to the jurisdiction thereof". As I understand
the law, such a toddler born to a visiting diplo-
mat would not thereby get his parents prosecut-
ed, because of diplomatic immunity; if too much
rambunctious stuff goes on, the remedy is to
get the diplomat recalled.
Does this provide a sort of incentive for
people to "jump the fence" and get their offspring
born in the United States to benefit by this tech-
nicality? Well, yes. Is it unfortunate? Yes. Does
it justify tearing up the Constitution and throw-
ing out the 14th Amendment? No, it does not.
Better guarding of the border; less tenderness
in allowing the American-born children's illegal
parents to stay in the U.S; barring immigrants
(at least those who are too new) from getting
payments from the welfare state; these are
proper remedies. (Also, dismantling the wel-
fare state itself). But the Constitution means
what it says, and says what it means.

"...and the state wherein they reside." Oh how those small clauses are overlooked when convenient.

To me, this is the simple act of rewarding people for committing a crime. The intent of the Founders was never to be thought of in the current manner of "anchor babies," that are being used in many cases, to suck at the teat of American largesse.

+1.

Personally I think that citizenship in a given country should be earned, not given by birth. Maybe then the citizens of each country would be better citizens, in that they chose their citizenship. The application process would lead to a more homogeneous population in each area. What is citizenship and its meaning if not for that

Is citizenship really a right at birth? I am asking this question as a serious attempt to learn.

As you correctly state, rights are derived from the nature of man. However, a) the right to citizenship varies upon where someone is born, b) appears to depend on the government in that country, and c) can be taken away in the case of felonies ("right" to vote, "right" to keep and bear arms, etc.). I am not saying that taking away these rights are a proper role for government. What I am asking is "Can those truly be considered rights in the Objectivist sense?" Perhaps they should be in an Objectivist universe, but unfortunately we do not live in such a universe ... yet.

Moreover, term2 wrote that citizenship should be earned. From an Objectivist standpoint, should citizenship be granted to a newborn incapable of a) making its own moral decisions, or b) generating enough self-sustaining actions on its own to sustain its own life?

"already settled".. I swear I've heard that somewhere else in an attempt to shut down discussion on a subject.

Those conditions are already defined. Further, that hypothetical "service" is currently legal and covered:
"""
Child born out of wedlock to a U.S. Citizen father: A child born outside of the United States to an U.S. Citizen father where there is no marriage to the non-American mother is entitled to U.S. Citizenship providing the American citizen father had been physically present in the United States for the period of time as specified in previous paragraphs for children born in wedlock to one U.S. Citizen and one non-U.S. Citizen parent, either before or after November 14, 1986; and

- the alien mother completes an "Affidavit to establish paternity of child" at this office before a consular officer;
- and the father signs a sworn statement agreeing to provide financial support for the child until s/he reaches the age of 18 years;
- and the father provides a written statement acknowledging paternity.
""" -- Taken from the Ireland U.S. Embassy site.

BTW, the "period of time" requirement it references is:
"A child born outside of the United States to one U.S. citizen parent and one non-U.S. citizen parent may be entitled to citizenship providing the U.S. citizen parent had been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for five years, at least two years of which were after s/he reached the age of fourteen. This period of physical presence must have taken place prior to the birth of the child."

So right now, legally and unequivocally,you could indeed sell yourself in this fashion. You (or your client) would have to either:
arrange for the temporary stay of the would-be mother in the U.S. for insemination
or
arrange for artificial insemination of the mother in her own country.

(... and agree to be on the hook for child support.)

And for soliders, they don't even have to do that as time spent abroad in the service of the federal government (or even the U.N.) counts as physical presence in the U.S.

I agree.

The trouble is "as its written" has been twisted into what we have today. Their lack of necessity anymore based on the reason for their existence could easily remove the problem entirely - no interpretation required ever again.

The trouble is "as its written" has been twisted into what we have today. Their lack of necessity anymore based on the reason for their existence could easily remove the problem entirely - no interpretation required ever again.