I am s**k of people who know nothing about the subject nattering (or given their attention spans, gnattering might be more accurate) on and on about "birth citizenship." Especially in regards to the children of i*****l a***ns born on US soil. They have no idea what the Amendment actually says or what the intention of the men who wrote the Amendment and the citizens who ratified it meant.
The 14th Amendment consists of five sections. The Amendment is shown below
Amendment XIV
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.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to v**e at any e******n for the choice of e*****rs for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in r*******n, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or e*****r of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in i**********n or r*******n against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a v**e of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing i**********n or r*******n, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of i**********n or r*******n against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any s***e; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
To understand the Amendment, especially the first section, you must understand it's history, which began in 1866, with the passage of the Civil Right Act of 1866. The text of that is below.
Be it enacted . . . , That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of s***ery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That any person who, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any inhabitant of any State or Territory to the deprivation of any right secured or protected by this act, or to different punishment, pains, or penalties on account of such person having at any time been held in a condition of s***ery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, or by reason of his color or race, than is prescribed for the punishment of white persons, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction, shall be punished by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars, or imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both, in the discretion of the court.
Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the district courts of the United States, within their respective districts, shall have, exclusively of the courts of the several States, cognizance of all crimes and offences committed against the provisions of this act, and also, concurrently with the circuit courts of the United States, of all causes, civil and criminal, affecting persons who are denied or cannot enforce in the courts or judicial tribunals of the State or locality where they may be any of the rights secured to them by the first section of this act…
This legislation was vetoed by then president Andrew Johnson. His veto was promptly overridden on 9 April 1866. To preclude further executive branch monkey business, Congress drafted the 14th Amendment which was passed by Congress on 13 June of that year, and ratified on 9 July 1868.
Regarding the unconstitutional granting of birth citizenship for the children of i*****l a***n criminals, I will reference the exact statements of the men who wrote the Amendment. There is no doubt as to their intent. The Senator who actually wrote the Amendment said that
"The senator from Missouri and myself desire to arrive at the same point precisely, and that is to make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States. We cannot make a citizen of the child of a foreign minister who is temporarily residing here. There is a difficulty in framing the amendment so as to make citizens of all the people born in the United States, and who owe allegiance to it. I thought that might, perhaps, be the best form in which to put the amendment at one time, 'that all persons born in the United States, and owing allegiance thereto, are hereby declared to be citizens;' but, upon investigation, it was found that a sort of allegiance was due to the country from persons temporarily residing in it whom we would have no right to make citizens, and that that form would not answer. Then it was suggested that we should make citizens of all persons born in the United States not subject to any foreign power or tribal authority. The objection to that was, that there were Indians not subject to tribal authority, who yet were wild and untamed in their habits, who had by some means or other become separated from their tribes, and were not under the laws of any civilized community, and of whom the authorities of the United States took no jurisdiction. . . . Then it was proposed to adopt the amendment as it now stands,—that all persons born in the United States, not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, shall be citizens." Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 572 (1866).
Notice the "not subject to any foreign power." In 1866, a child's citizenship was determined by that of it's parents. Senator Trumbull also said "What is meant by subject to the jurisdiction? It means not owing allegiance to anyone else."
In 1870, two years AFTER the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was re-enacted. You remember, the one that stated "not subject to any foreign power?" It is still in effect, having never been rescinded.
In 1884, John Elk, an Indian, brought a case before the SCOTUS that he was a birth citizen of the US since he was born here and so were his parents, (Elk v Wilkins 1884) but, alas, there was that pesky Act of 1866 that excluded Indians even though the 14th said "all citizens born in and subject to the jurisdiction." Therein lies the problem, as stated in the quote above from the author of Section I of the Amendment, Trumbull. Indians were excluded, because they were not "subject to the complete jurisdiction." Being subject to the jurisdiction means a little more than you have to obey the laws of the land. An i*****l a***n cannot v**e, most times, cannot legally work here, be drafted except in very rare cases, and cannot be charged with treason. They are not "subject to the jurisdiction." If they were, there would have been no need for the Indian Citizenship Act of 1926, which finally made citizens of American Indians, some 58 years AFTER the 14th Amendment stated that "all persons born or naturalized in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Then there is the case of US v Wong Kim Ark 1898, a favorite to cherry pick and misquote
In this case the SCOTUS determined that Wong Kim Ark, a child born here to a Chinese couple who were here LEGALLY, was indeed a birth citizen of the US. The court ruled that Wong Kim Ark's parents were domiciled here in this country. In 1898, that was basically the definition of a permanent legal resident. Black's Law Dictionary, used by the SCOTUS to decide more than 600 cases since 1891, states that being domiciled requires maintaining a permanent primary legal residence. How an i*****l a***n trespasser can reside permanently and legally on US soil is an interesting question. In other words, Wong Kim Ark was the child of parents who were in this country legally and permanently. Their primary, permanent LEGAL residence was here.
The fact is that not once has the SCOTUS EVER ruled on the status of the children of i*****l i*******ts. Their birth citizenship is simply a legal fiction, perpetuated first because there weren't enough of them to be a problem, and then by the influence of organizations such as the US Chamber of Commerce, who contributes heavily to the campaigns of incumbents of both parties and who never saw an i*****l a***n they did not want to amnesty. The Constitution does not have to be amended, and the suspension of birth citizenship could probably be accomplished by Executive Order, and certainly by Congress passing a law to that effect, since these children were never intended to be covered by the 14th Amendment's Citizenship clause.
There is much more to this subject, but I am trying to keep it simple for the intellectually challenged progressive reader.