Anchor babies??????

[powderman]

'Anchor Baby' Constitutional Amendment to Face Scrutiny in Congress


Published December 26, 2010 | Associated Press
 bodyWASHINGTON -- The end of the year means a turnover of House control from Democratic to Republican and, with it, Congress' approach to immigration.
In a matter of weeks, Congress will go from trying to help young, illegal immigrants become legal to debating whether children born to parents who are in the country illegally should continue to enjoy automatic U.S. citizenship.
Such a hardened approach -- and the rhetoric certain to accompany it -- should resonate with the GOP faithful who helped swing the House in Republicans' favor. But it also could further hurt the GOP in its endeavor to grab a large enough share of the growing Latino vote to win the White House and the Senate majority in 2012.
Legislation to test interpretations of the 14th Amendment as granting citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants will emerge early next session. That is likely to be followed by attempts to force employers to use a still-developing web system, dubbed E-Verify, to check that all of their employees are in the U.S. legally.
There could be proposed curbs on federal spending in cities that don't do enough to identify people who are in the country illegally and attempts to reduce the numbers of legal immigrants.
Democrats ended the year failing for a second time to win passage of the Dream Act, which would have given hundreds of thousands of young illegal immigrants a chance at legal status. House Republicans will try to fill the immigration reform vacuum left by Democrats with legislation designed to send illegal immigrants packing and deter others from trying to come to the U.S.
Democrats, who will still control the Senate, will be playing defense against harsh immigration enforcement measures, mindful of their need to keep on good footing with Hispanic voters. But a slimmer majority and an eye on 2012 may prevent Senate Democrats from bringing to the floor any sweeping immigration bill, or even a limited one that hints at providing legal status to people in the country illegally.
President Barack Obama could be a wild card.
He'll have at his disposal his veto power should a bill denying citizenship to children of illegal immigrants make it to his desk. But Obama also has made cracking down on employers a key part of his administration's immigration enforcement tactics.

Illegals babies are illegals, simple enough. POWDERMAN. 

[billy_56081]

I just can't figure out what part of illegal is so hard to understand.

[crustylicious]

Dear Wizard of Walmart and Minnesota Mensa,
Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states:

"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

 What part of "born in the United States" don't you understand?

[billy_56081]

Dear banned as Crustacious, what part of illegal and seal the border don't you understand?

[bigMikeA]

I'm with Powderman and billy on this.  

  crustafarian's idiotic arrogant holier than thou response REALLY makes me mad  

[Pat/Rick]

Time for "Operation Wetback"  to have a sequel.

[powderman]

crusty. That law had to do with slaves of that era and should have NOTHING to do with these criminals coming here and breeding like rats so they will have an excuse to be here. Round em up, move em out. POWDERMAN. 

[torpedoman]

real easy fix. round them up and deport them ,secure the border, cut off all federal funds to safe harbor cities and states, Including unemployment benefits and Medicare/ Medicaid funds the politicians there would be recalled and out in under 90 days and the citizens who find themselves inconvenienced would run the illegals out of town on a rail. 

[powderman]

real easy fix. round them up and deport them ,secure the border, cut off all federal funds to safe harbor cities and states, Including unemployment benefits and Medicare/ Medicaid funds the politicians there would be recalled and out in under 90 days and the citizens who find themselves inconvenienced would run the illegals out of town on a rail. 

Agreed Sir. POWDERMAN. 

[Conan The Librarian]

I thought the issue was the parents, not the kids. If the kids are born here, the parents get to stay. Similar things happen when, for example, Russian brides come to the US to marry and consequently gain automatic citizenship, then dump the husband but retain the citizenship.

[powderman]

I see no comparison there. I have no exact figures but the #s of illegals babies born in America is staggering. I'm sure someone more computer literate than I can come up with the figures. This is done intentionally by these criminals and invaders, Russian brides can't compare at all. Round em up, ship em out, and send their kids with them. POWDERMAN. 

[Sourdough]

Like said earlier, this law about being "born in the US you are a citizen" was enacted to protect the slaves following the Civil War.  At the time congress had no idea the Mexicans and others (Hatians, and people from all over the world) would start using it 100 years later to create Anchor Babies.  Time to amend the law.

[Sourdough]

Someone brought up the Russian Women who come over here and then divorce their husbands but keep their citizenship.  I have seen that done by Canadian, Korean, Japanese, Thai, And almost every other nationality out there.  Then they sponser their family members, Mother, Father, Brother, Sister, and anyone else they can get on the sponsor roles.  It started when GIs started bring back "War Brides" following WWII.

[Pat/Rick]

I thought the babies of criminals did not receive citizenship, and that, that part  is overlooked by the state dept.?

I should add that I do not mind people, from foreign nations serving for at least four years in our military, to gain their citizenship.

[MGMorden]

I just can't figure out what part of illegal is so hard to understand.

Bad argument to make in this case.  The letter of the law - THE CONSTITUTION (supreme law of the land) - says that a baby born here is a US citizen.  Period.  That's not open to debate.  If a couple is vacationing here and has a baby that baby is eligible for citizenship.  It's been ages gone since we stopped the practice of punishing a child for the crimes of his or her parent(s).  If you want to change it, then fine, work to do so, but under CURRENT law as it pertains to the citizenship of the children: What part of NOT illegal is so hard to understand?

[Redhawk1]

Dear Wizard of Walmart and Minnesota Mensa,
Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states:

"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

 What part of "born in the United States" don't you understand?

Seeing how you posted that part of the 14th Amendment, why don't you understand what you posted then?
If there parents are not citizens of the United States, they do not fall under the Jurisdiction of the United States, therefor there children are not citizens of the United States. They are citizens of there parents country.

I find it amusing how people read the Constitution, but don't understand it.

Let me give you an example of the Jurisdiction part of the Constitution.. My father was in the Military, I was born in Germany, but I fall under the Jurisdiction of the United States, because my parents are both citizens of the United States, that makes me a citizen of the United States. 

Just because a person is born in another country, does not make them atomically a citizen of that country..  Foreign Diplomats are not the jurisdiction of the United States, therefor there children born in the United States are not automatically citizens of the United States either.  Now do you understand what the 14th Amendment means with that STATEMENT??

[Redhawk1]

What does it all mean?

In a nutshell, it means this: The constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child's birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child's citizenship--not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child's parents to Jury Duty - then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?

The framers succeeded in their desire to remove all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. They also succeeded in making both their intent and construction clear for future generations of courts and government. Whether our government or courts will start to honor and uphold the supreme law of the land for which they are obligated to by oath, is another very disturbing matter.

[MGMorden]

In a nutshell, it means this: The constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child's birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child's citizenship--not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child's parents to Jury Duty - then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?

You're stating an opinion as fact, when courts have previously wholly disagreed with your assessment.  Children who are born here are legally citizens.  They have always been.  As said earlier, children born here of foreign parents who are just on vacation are eligible for citizenship.  The Constitution is clear in this matter: a baby born here is a citizen.  It's a clear cut and simple statement, and so far all courts of affirmed that simple interpretation.  The desperate attempts at redefining it "in a nutshell" simply are not valid in the real world.

[powderman]

REDHAWK 1. Good post, thanks for clearing that up. Thats another thing that AZ wants to rectify, deny citizenship to illegals babies. Seems like the free birth, paid for by the state, or absorbed by the hospitol,  would be a great time to collect mommy and daddy and ship them ALL back. POWDERMAN. 

[billy_56081]

WOW, it is shocking that the parasitic liberals would be so desperate to support thier agenda they would even side with folks illegally invading our country. Don't they call that treason?

What a sick bunch.

[powderman]

BILLY. All they see is dumcrap votes. POWDERMAN. 

[MGMorden]

WOW, it is shocking that the parasitic liberals would be so desperate to support thier agenda they would even side with folks illegally invading our country. Don't they call that treason?

What a sick bunch.

I'm not a liberal, nor do I vote democrat.

That said, no, we don't call that treason.  A person cannot be considered to have committed treason without aiding a party which we have OFFICIALLY been declared to be at war with - and no, a few folks railing on the "intarwebs" doesn't constitute us being at war - that takes an act of congress.  Treason is one of the few crimes specifically defined in the US constitution (not the amendments - the main text). What they do call it is free speech - ALSO defined in the constitution.   I'm also, by the way, defending a concept laid out by the constitution - that all persons born on US soil have the right to US citizenship.  The document is more than the 2nd amendment, and the nerve to accuse someone of treason for supporting that document is staggering.  A document which by the way, was written at a time when the requirements for entering this country meant showing up - most of our ancestors likely traipsed across the border just as nonchalantly, or at BEST showed up and signed their name as Ellis Island. 

[Redhawk1]

In a nutshell, it means this: The constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child's birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child's citizenship--not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child's parents to Jury Duty - then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?

You're stating an opinion as fact, when courts have previously wholly disagreed with your assessment.  Children who are born here are legally citizens.  They have always been.  As said earlier, children born here of foreign parents who are just on vacation are eligible for citizenship.  The Constitution is clear in this matter: a baby born here is a citizen.  It's a clear cut and simple statement, and so far all courts of affirmed that simple interpretation.  The desperate attempts at redefining it "in a nutshell" simply are not valid in the real world.

The fact is, liberals want to interrupt the Constitution as it fits there agenda. That is why it is being fought in the court system. And no children of parents who are on vacation in the United States are not eligible for citizenship! Show me where that is in the Constitution.

Just as the Liberals are trying to read into the 2nd Amendment as they have been.

[Redhawk1]

WOW, it is shocking that the parasitic liberals would be so desperate to support thier agenda they would even side with folks illegally invading our country. Don't they call that treason?

What a sick bunch.

I'm not a liberal, nor do I vote democrat.

That said, no, we don't call that treason.  A person cannot be considered to have committed treason without aiding a party which we have OFFICIALLY been declared to be at war with - and no, a few folks railing on the "intarwebs" doesn't constitute us being at war - that takes an act of congress.  Treason is one of the few crimes specifically defined in the US constitution (not the amendments - the main text). What they do call it is free speech - ALSO defined in the constitution.   I'm also, by the way, defending a concept laid out by the constitution - that all persons born on US soil have the right to US citizenship.  The document is more than the 2nd amendment, and the nerve to accuse someone of treason for supporting that document is staggering.  A document which by the way, was written at a time when the requirements for entering this country meant showing up - most of our ancestors likely traipsed across the border just as nonchalantly, or at BEST showed up and signed their name as Ellis Island. 

 

The leading case is United States  v. Wong Kim Ark.  That case involved parents who were in the U.S. legally when they had a child (i.e. they had “permanent domicile and residence” in the U.S.), so it’s not directly on point regarding birthright citizenship for illegal aliens.  However, the Court in Wong Kim Ark gave some big hints.  The Court in Wong Kim Ark stated that:

“The words ‘in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the first sentence of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the congress which proposed the amendment, and by the legislatures which adopted it, in the same sense in which the like words had been used by Chief Justice Marshall….”

The prior opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall was The Exchange v. McFaddon. Here’s an excerpt from John Marshall’s opinion in that case (emphasis added):

When private individuals of one nation spread themselves through another as business or caprice may direct, mingling indiscriminately with the inhabitants of that other, or when merchant vessels enter for the purposes of trade, it would be obviously inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction and the government to degradation, if such individuals or merchants did not owe temporary and local allegiance and were not amenable to the jurisdiction of the country. Nor can the foreign sovereign have any motive for wishing such exemption. His subjects thus passing into foreign countries are not employed by him, nor are they engaged in national pursuits. Consequently there are powerful motives for not exempting persons of this description from the jurisdiction of the country in which they are found, and no one motive for requiring it. The implied license, therefore, under which they enter can never be construed to grant such exemption.


So, it’s not 100% clear from this how Marshall (or the Court in Wong Kim Ark) would have approached the issue of birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.  But, we have two important criteria that Marshall mentioned: (1) continual infractions of the law, and (2) license to enter.  Obviously, illegal immigrants have no license to enter, and granting automatic birthright citizenship is obviously an incentive for continual infraction of the laws.

The Supreme Court precedents specifically say that children of foreign diplomats, and also children of occupying forces, are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and do not automatically get U.S. citizenship upon birth.  I don’t think that it would be a huge problem for Congress to treat illegal immigrants like foreign diplomats who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; for example, the individual states would still have full jurisdiction, even though the federal government would not.  In any event, even if Congress does not want to treat illegal immigrants more like foreign diplomats, still the factors described by Chief Justice Marshall suggest that they fall within the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional exception.

[Redhawk1]

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation 'children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.' In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be 'not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.'

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.

[powderman]

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.




Criminals is right. WE spent over $334 BILLION on these invaders just last year. Well over $300,000,000,000 every year for a long time and it is getting worse every year. The dems want to reward them with money, welfare, free medical care, and educate them all at OUR expense to get their votes. Heck, we even pay the dr and hospitol bills to birth em. Sickening. POWDERMAN.  

[Redhawk1]

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.




Criminals is right. WE spent over $334 BILLION on these invaders just last year. Well over $300,000,000,000 every year for a long time and it is getting worse every year. The dems want to reward them with money, welfare, free medical care, and educate them all at OUR expense to get their votes. Heck, we even pay the dr and hospitol bills to birth em. Sickening. POWDERMAN.  

Yes it is sickening Powderman. The Progressive movement is destroying the United States, and the people are to stupid to see it.. They look at us as if we are making this stuff up, it is them that live in a delusional world. It is all about power and money!