I come from an Immigrant Family, (We came from Poland, Germany, Czechoslovakia), any where from 2 to 3 generations back.
We came here legally and with purpose of being awarded American Citizenship and all the Rights and Priviledges that come with it.
We did not sneak in, We did not break any Immigration laws Nor did we or are we using the System against itself, (The Misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment; where those of Illegal entry have their new born children on American soil granted Citizenship).
The Framers of the 14th Amendment never intended to award Citizenship to anyone that broke laws getting into this Country, and was written at a time prior to Immigration laws.
Their is nothing wrong with people immigrating to the U.S., there is however a serious issue with rewarding Citizenship to those that either broke the law and or broke the law to give their kids Citizenship.
It is the same as lieing, cheating and stealing, and should not be tolerated.
No other Country in the World allows Citizenship to illegal Immigrants or their children, such a thing devalues the hard-working efforts of all those who immigrated here/there legally.
What is needed is to correct the misinterpretation of that amendment's first sentence: "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."
These words have shewn the practice of conferring citizenship on children born here to illegal immigrants.
"It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry ." Writes professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school.
The intention and understanding of the authors and ratifiers in 1866 could not have intended for citizenship for any illegal immigration, since no such thing existed in the U.S. up until that point becasue no law had ever restricted immigration.
As we see pointed out quite clearly in the dialogue over HR 127 1886 by Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI):
"Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
Further analysis of this shows:
"In 1873 in the Slaughter-House Cases, the first case to come
before the Court involving the then newly enacted Fourteenth
Amendment, the Court stated, in dicta, that “[t]he phrase,
‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from
[birthright citizenship] children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”
Much more important, in 1884 in Elk v. Wilkins, the Court
adopted the view of Senators Trumbull and Howard that a child
born to members of an Indian tribe did not have birthright
citizenship. Such a child was born in the United States, but not
born “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” because that requires
that the child be “not merely subject in some respect or degree
to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to
their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and
immediate allegiance. ”
So despite modern Judicial interpretations of the 14th Amendment; the framers of the 14th Amendment state very clearly that it's wording expresses that 'children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States, are excluded from gaining citizenship'.
Their is no argument that can deny this truth, and also shows that our Judicial system has been unconstitutionally allowing the opposite to happen.
R. William Holzkopf Jr.
1) Pg. 4 Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Aliens: An Irrational Public Policy; Vol 14 Texas Review of Law & Politics (2009)
3) Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890
4) Pg. 8-9 Birthright Citizenship for Children of Illegal Aliens: An Irrational Public Policy; Vol 14 Texas Review of Law & Politics (2009)