My boss believes we should change the 14th Amendment

[alarimer]

Specifically the fact that everyone born here is automatically a citizen. He says this was meant to give children of slaves citizenship following the Civil War and was not meant to apply to children of immigrants, legal or otherwise. He says that they (children of illegal immigrants born in the US- so-called "anchor babies"- should not have more rights that he has. He was born in Germany to US citizens. I assume on an Army base. He says that makes him, ineligible to run for President (but wasn't McCain born in Panama?).

In any case I am looking for help on why it is a bad idea to change, aside from the fact it would require a Constitutional Amendment. I just think it is on of the unique things about being American but I can't think of anything concrete to counter his views.

I also think there are better ways of regulating immigration than changing the Constitution, such as punishing employers for hiring the undocumented. Dry up the jobs and they will have to go elsewhere. Also, we should help those countries improve their economies. And we could stop overthrowing popularly elected leaders. Repeal NAFTA which did a lot of damage to us but also to farmers in Mexico, among other places.

[Der Blaue Engel]

1. Wasn't meant to apply to the children of immigrants?

That's ludicruous. Just about everything he's said is ludicrous. I think you should be demanding citations from him to support his ludicrous ideas.

Edited to add missing space

[Iris]

5. that would make me a noncitizen, since my grandparents were born to immigrants.

People like this are just idiots.

[Johonny]

7. I think

everyone is immigrant and thus no one would be an American under his view. So it's unclear based on what is written how this person thinks Americans should be classified.

I could certainly be swayed that children born to people illegally in this country might not be given automatic citizenship. I can certainly see why people that have legally gone through the immigration process might be pissed off at people back dooring their children into America. One has to wonder if McCain could place another Supreme Court Justice on the bench weither a more conservative court might interpret the 14 th amendment more to your friends liking.

[alarimer]

11. no I think what he meant was that children of citizens would automatically be citizens

My parents are citizens, so I would be too, as would any children I had. And I suppose there would be a path to citizenship for others but you wouldn't be a citizen just by being born here.

It would still require an amendment to change it at all. And it creates a problem if children born to people here illegally were not automatically citizens while the children of other, legal immigrants were citizens. I think that would create problems with the equal protection area of the 14th Amendment but I am not a lawyer or constitutional scholar.

[Thothmes]

19. In one respect he is partially correct

The basic tenet of the XIV amendment was not intended for immigrants. The XIV amendment was added to the Constitution to get around the Dred Scott Decision by the Supreme Court. This decision said in effect that there was no way a Black person could become a citizen of the United States. In my opinion, the intent of the XIV amendment has been met. I would be in favor of an amendment to change the wording of the XIV amendment to granted automatic citizenship to persons born of at least one parent that was an American citizen.

[shraby]

2. If he was born in Germany to U.S. citizens he

is a natural born citizen and as such can run for the presidency. Natural born as opposed to naturalized citizen which is an immigrant who is naturalized by going through a citizenship process.
The idea behind natural born citizen is that it removes any allegiance to a native country that the person might otherwise be from. They ostensibly would owe all allegiance to this country.

[ThomWV]

3. Your boss is a pig. nt.

[alarimer]

9. no he isn't. He's just wrong.

He is quite liberal on most things. On this, though, he is completely and utterly wrong.

[Recursion]

4. He is eligible by birth, but for God's sake don't tell him that

McCain was born in Panama, but born a citizen as I assume your boss was. He can run. But for Christ's sake don't tell him.

[Iris]

6. but no one that dumb could be elected President, er......

never mind!

[angrycarpenter]

8. 30 years ago it was a matter of pride to a conservative.

But now that they want to send the mexicans back it is the other way around.

People who say things like this should just come out and say" I hate these people, I blame them for all of our problems, and want them removed with as little dignity as possible. At least that is honest. But to try to rationalize it as a reasoned righteous argument is cold hearted and selfish.

[Redstone]

10. I think you need to find a new job. I can't imagine that working for such an asshole

has much of a future.

Redstone

[alarimer]

12. He is not an asshole.

He is wrong in this instance. And I am sorry I even brought it up now. I just wanted some good arguments to use against this. I know he's wrong, I just can't really articulate why.

[Redstone]

13. OK, sorry. One assholish opinion does not an asshole make, indeed. Maybe you could

say to him something like "That's the sort of thing America is supposed to stand for?"

Because I think it is, and I'm NOT being sarcastic. There are things, concepts, whatever, that are and should be uniquely American even though there's no logical reason or explanation for them.

Redstone

[alarimer]

15. That's my opinion too

It's just how we are. And it has worked okay for the last 150 years. Now, just because we have an issue with immigration we need to change it? I don't think so. Besides if we do change it, then we have two classes of natural-born citizens who were born before the deadline and those who were born after. And I think that is problem with the equal protection clause. I think. At least it seems to me.

[kiva]

14. Some misinterpretation here.

Actually, from what you said your boss is partially correct in his knowledge about the Amendment. Yes, the 14th Amendment was passed to insure citizenship for former slaves. It's one of 3 amendments (also the 13th and 15th) that are referred to as the "Civil War Amendments" because they were passed shortly after the Civil War and were meant to change the references in the Constitution that allowed slavery (such as the infamous 3/5 clause), support civil rights for former slaves, and force the South to abandon the Black Codes many former Confederate states in an attempt to continue to oppress blacks.

Since there seems to be some confusion about what the 14th Amendment says, here it is:

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 vote at any election for the choice of electors 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 rebellion, 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 elector 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 insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote 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 insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; 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.

For many people the most controversial part of the Amendment was its gender specific language that excluded women from the right to vote (section 2).

To those poster that think this amendment would have automatically excluded their ancestors from becoming citizens--no. This did not exclude immigrants from citizenship, it merely affirmed that people born in the U.S., and those who were naturalized citizens (the case with most immigrants) were citizens of the United States.

Your boss is likely correct that the Constitution would need to be amended if the government were to decide to disallow people born in this country automatic citizenship.

BYW, I believe you when you say he isn't a jerk--we do disagree with each other here at DU, doesn't always mean the other guy is bad.

[alarimer]

16. I was the one that pointed out that the Constitution would need to be amended

I think he thought some court challenge could change it. I have issues with the fact that by making the change, you create two classes of people, among those born to non-citizens in this country: those born before (automatic citizens) and those born after (non-citizens unless they go through some kind of immigration process). And that is problematic legally I believe. Not that I am a lawyer or anything.

[kiva]

18. Sorry, got confused and gave away your point.

I'm not a lawyer either, but (to restate with the correct attribution) I think you're right, Congress would need to pass an amendment to alter this amendment.

[LeftyMom]

17. Ask him what tribe he is, since he's a real american and not a descendent of immigrants.

:eyes: