The 14th Amendment

Republican Presidential hopeful Scott Walker has declined to take a public position on Donald Trumps recent immigration policy recommendations, including his comments about so called "anchor babies" and the 14th Amendment. Not exactly Presidential but perhaps wise for his campaign.

In the interest of truth and intellectual pursuit I decided to revisit the 14th Amendment. There are five sections but it is the first that is applicable.

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.

The 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868 and was largely about protecting former slaves. There are speeches in the U.S. Senate archives which indicates there was some concern about the language and it's possible use or in their judgement misuse.

I stand by my former assertion that the 14th will not be repealed. It's totality is more than Section 1. I also believe that the majority of politicians sitting in the White House would not pursue this. However, it has never been put to the test in the U.S. Supreme Court. It would be easy to defend that an undocumented worker in the U.S., having established roots in a State and then gives birth could claim protection for the child under Section 1.

But what if a pregnant foreign citizen entered the country solely for the purpose of giving birth. With no residence or roots is that person technically subject to the jurisdiction thereof?

The big question, which no facts are provided on, is how often does this really occur? Red meat for a public with the appetite to consume it is not a fact based case.

I'm not a lawyer but I can read. I suspect this situation happens far less than we are lead to believe by certain political factions.

With regards to the term anchor baby and the back and forth about political correctness, I can see how the term could be offensive to some and it is not a term I use except in citing the facts of others statements. Jeb Bush asked the press to give him a better word. The better phrase for the exact circumstances referenced is a person exploiting their child for personal gain. Not one or two words but more accurate though it doesn't zing.