Birthright Citizenship

On July 9, 1868, the Fourteenth amendment was formally introduced to the Constitution and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” These words have as an ideal purpose that all levels of the federal government must operate within the law and provide fair conditions for all people. As a result, the states had a obligation to the public. Through the Fourteenth amendment, states were forbidden from denying any person “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” or to “deny any person within jurisdiction the equal protection of laws.” By directly mentioning the role of the states, the Fourteenth amendment also expanded civil rights to African American slaves who had been emancipated after the American Civil War.

Those who are more liberal, are voting for modifying or abolishing this law, mainly because it is as Trump said, a “magnet for immigration”. Many republicans believe that expectant mothers are illegally traveling into the United States to deliver their baby in hopes of a better future. One out of every twelve newborns, or about 340,000 babies per year, are children of illegal immigrants (http://www.pewhispanic.org/, August 11, 2010).

Homer A. Plessy v. John H. Ferguson was a US Supreme Court case between Homer Plessy, the plaintiff, and John Ferguson, the defendant. The year this case took was place was 18961.

Citizenship is a status given by a government to some or all of its people. Being a citizen means not only meeting certain responsibilities, but also enjoying certain rights. In the U.S. today, many of our governmental institutions are based on concepts of the Ancient World. Citizenship in the United States resembles the concepts of citizenship in both Ancient Athens and Ancient Rome.

The amendments were put into place to protect the rights and civil liberties of all American citizens from the federal government. However, prior to the fourteenth amendment, there was no certainty with the constitution. The constitution did not state in a clear enough way who was protected under it and exactly what rights you had as an American Citizen. The 14th amendment was in response to the just passed thirteenth amendment, which ended slavery in all of the southern states. This document drastically changed the perception of the citizens, showing that it protected the civil rights of whites and blacks. While the fourteenth amendment was instated to expand citizenship, it has caused controversy

The history of the United States are founded by the ideas defined by two separate documents known as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The ideas for our nation are based off of these two documents and it establish the goals that the country set out to complete. These documents are almost 200 years old but these written rules and ideas have not always been followed through with. There were times when the people became hypocrites of their own documents and did things that contradict what they said they would set out to do. Our history does not reflect the words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution because of the way African Americans, Women, and Native Americans were treated and valued.

The Alien and Sedition Acts that were designed and passed by Congress in 1798 established a range of restrictions on the society. Among those laws, the Naturalization Act made the process of gaining American citizenship longer and the Sedition Act was designed to forbid publishing the materials against the government. While those documents “were in conflict with the Bill of Rights”, the Congress considered them appropriate (Roark 281). The positions of people within the society regarding these laws differed.

The American people of today have had it instilled into their minds that they possess certain unalienable rights. Citizens are educated that they have an ability to express their thoughts regarding the world around them, whether or not these thoughts adhere to the beliefs of others, and they are able to attempt and play a part in repairing and amending any aspect of their nation they may consider problematic. Every person within the United States, whether they are native or foreign, is encouraged to take advantage of their rights and abilities in an attempt to better their society. Yet, in 1798, the Alien and Sedition Acts emerged, and were encouraged largely by the Federalist Party in an attempt to squander the desires of people who opposed

stayed in effect for over sixty years until it was overturned in 1954 by the Supreme

The 14th Amendment is seen as outdated by some Americans. The 14th Amendment was created for free slaves. Will says This is no longer a necessity in the modern world because the USA doesn’t have slaves. This means that the 14th Amendment either needs to be reinterpreted, amended, or completed removed. Also, the creators of the 14th Amendment had no intention of excluding immigrants because at that time there were no laws against immigration. Will states that the creators of this amendment would not have created such a large loophole if they had known immigration laws were in the country’s future. The 14th Amendment was created almost 150 years ago; it is time for a new birthright law. {add quotes and explain}

Many factors come in play when deciding what America should do about, not only the immigration epidemic, but more specifically the birthright citizen. It may be time for America to tighten the reins of its free-for-all citizenship when born here, because with new technologies it’s not only being abused by immigrants but by criminals as well.

will interpret the constitution in its own favor, and I believe this statement to be true.

It 's ironic that she says she changed her position after doing research, because virtually everything she says is uneducated on the second amendment. Two hundred years of Supreme Court jurisprudence affirms that the right to bear arms is a collective right, modified by the militia clause, NOT an individual right. http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1206&context=jcred The notion of an individual right to bear arms only appeared in Supreme Court law in 2010 in the Heller decision, which has been roundly criticized. The attached article is from a conservative legal scholar, who says that the decision violates conservative law by forcing legislation through the court. In other words, the court made up new law rather than respecting the constitution as

“Illegal immigration continues to be a major problem in the United States. We have people wanting to come here legally and we should not be rewarding people who have come here illegally,” said John Barrasso. The United States Government should not allow immigrants into America because they are having negative effects on our country. Some negative effects are citizens competing with illegals for jobs, immigrants expecting favors, and Americans not getting to work hard for their money.

First, it was acknowledged that every individual is protected against losing their citizenship according to the Fourteenth Amendment, in Afroyim v. Rusk. That the Constitution requires, “clear and convincing evidence” that citizenship was voluntary denounced, which Congress does not have the power to constitute the standard of. Secondly, the court recognized that even though in the case of Nishikawa v. Dulles it was ruled that Congress does have the right to supply the standard of evidential proof; the case was not a fair decision based on the Constitution. Proof was left to Terrazas to show that he did not mean to denounce his citizenship. While congress does have the authority to set a standard on the federal level, it does not during civil cases. This resulted in the decision that Terrazas citizenship was protected through the Fourteenth Amendment and a congressional act could not strip him of his right to