What does the 14th amendment really say

Mark Davis from WBAP News/Talk 820 and 96.7 presented some good observations the other day on my drive to DFW to catch a flight. Thought it would be good to share his thoughts on birthright citizenship and the U.S. Constitution.

The 13th Amendment abolished slavery, and then some states took it upon themselves to enact laws providing lesser status for the newly freed individuals. Thus, the 14th Amendment was enacted to protect the newly freed individuals from the states who in turn tried to restrict their freedoms with new codifications after the passage of the 13th Amendment.

The language chosen for the 14th Amendment did not say "all persons born in the United States shall be Citizens of the United States." Mr. Davis stated that there was a qualifier of six words - "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" - and this certainly applied to the newly freed slaves. However, in his opinion this does not necessarily apply to a baby born to a woman who sets foot on American soil at the time she wishes to give birth to a child.

Mr. Davis brought forth some court cases that have explored the 14th Amendment, but they have never really addressed the specifics of the amendment with regards to citizenship. U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark (1898) asserted citizenship rights for a man born in the U.S. to parents who were not citizens at the time but were legal residents. Chief Justice Melville Fuller in his dissent opinion warned against granting such precious rights to "children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country."

In 1982 Plyler vs. Doe case negated Texas' right to deny funding to children of illegal immigrants. Nothing about the case involved birthright citizenship as some would have you believe today. "Plyer stands up for education dollars for the children of illegals, not their automatic right to full citizenship."

Do we need a constitutional amendment to rescind birthright citizenship? Everyone seems to be calling for an amendment to end birthright citizenship. I and Mr. Davis agree in that we don't think an amendment is needed. Our interpretation is that the U.S. Constitution does not and never did grant birthright citizenship to illegal immigrants regardless of how anyone wants to read the 14th Amendment.

We do need sensible immigration laws involving securing our borders and removing the incentives for coming to America illegally. The promise of instant citizenship without one legal resident parent is as strong a magnet as American jobs and welfare. Our belief is that the courts need to interpret the U.S. Constitution as it was written and intended and quit thinking about what the 14th Amendment should mean.