Anchor babies: Born in the usa--

[LilOlLady]

ANCHOR BABIES: BORN IN THE USA--
The Abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment—PART I
Denver Immigration Reform Examiner
July 14, 2009
Frosty Wooldridge and Stephany Gabbard

Over 350,000 unlawful immigrant women birth their children within the USA annually. They cost taxpayers billions of dollars for their "jackpot" or "anchor" babies--medical, educational, food and correctional. Those mother become immediate welfare loads for U.S. taxpayers. They create a whole new subclass, not American and not legal. Their arrival stems from criminal activities of their mothers and they cannot be considered American citizens. The debate rages.

My commute to work is long fifty miles but it gives me time to reflect. It is 1987 and I am an obstetrical nurse working in the crowded San Fernando Valley. Tonight I drive to my job in “Labor and Delivery,” knowing the scenario before I arrive. Eight labor and delivery nurses will battle through the night in this very busy obstetrical unit. Our patients are 99% pregnant illegal alien women who have broken United States immigration law to have an American citizen child.

This will be their families’ ticket of entry into the United States. For them, no pesky visa applications, no waiting in line for several years like so many thousands that enter this country through the front door. Pregnant Third World women have discovered that the only thing they have to do is cross the U.S./Mexico border. The Fourteenth Amendment is their ticket.
ANCHOR BABIES: BORN IN THE USA--The Abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment—PART I - Denver Immigration Reform | Examiner.com

We will never solve the illegal immigration problem as long as Automatic Birthright Citizenship is applied to children of illegal aliens. .

 

[LilOlLady]

ILLEGALS’ Anchor Babies Prepping the Takeover of America by the 3rd World

Latino Population Growth Fueled by U.S. Births — Not Immigration


With immigration slowing, babies born in the U.S. – rather than newly arrived Mexican immigrants – are now driving most of the fast growth in the Latino population.

"As these young Latinos age, they will enter public schools, participate in the nation's economy as workers and consumers, and enter the growing pool of Hispanic eligible voters," said Mark Hugo López, associate director of the Pew Hispanic Center, who co-authored the study released Thursday.



Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/ne...d-by-us-births-not-immigration/#ixzz1WYU9xald


One Old Vet » ILLEGALS’ Anchor Babies Prepping the Takeover of America by the 3rd World

 

[LilOlLady]

Commentary: 14th Amendment outlines Found Fathers' intentions By Mary Sanchez | The Kansas City Star

Most notable is the 1898 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case of San Francisco-born Wong Kim Ark. This son of Chinese immigrants left the U.S. and was denied re-entry. For much of the nation’s early history, Chinese immigrants like his parents were excluded by law from becoming citizens.

He sued. And the ruling is clear: “To hold that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”Commentary: 14th Amendment outlines Found Fathers' intentions | McClatchy

I cannot agree with this ruling because those immigrants mentioned entered this country legally registering through Ellis Island. I believe the 1898 court ruling was a mistake and it set a precedent and that is a tragedy. If the court knew how the 14th Amendment would be mis-used it would have make a difffernt ruling.

 

[waltky]

Is `cause white people got enough sense to be extra careful not to have another mouth to feed in dis economy an' the white birth rate goin' down...

Anti-baby boom: Why U.S. birth rate keeps falling
August 16, 2011: Right before the recession hit, the U.S. was undergoing a mini baby boom. Now, birth rates are declining fast.

The number of children born in the U.S. peaked with a record 4.3 million births in 2007, but has since fallen, dropping to 4 million births last year, according to estimates by the National Center for Health Statistics. The birth rate -- a measure of births per 1,000 people -- has dropped 10%. Historically, declines in birth rates have gone hand in hand with economic downturns. During the financial slumps of the early 1990's and 1970's, the birth rates fell 15% and 18%, respectively. In the midst of the Great Depression, the birth rate was down by 17%.

Meanwhile, the cost of raising a child has risen steadily since the U.S. Department of Agriculture began tracking the data in 1960. From buying car seats and strollers to paying for childcare and schooling, a middle-income family could spend an average of $226,920 to raise a child born in 2010 to age 18 (and that doesn't include overwhelming cost of college), according to the USDA. The escalating cost, coupled with the most recent economic downturn, has caused many women to postpone or even forgo their plans to have children, said Steven Martin, a senior research associate for the Institute of Human Development and Social Change at New York University. "Certainly economic calamity does cause a significant decline in fertility," he said.

In fact, nearly half, or 43%, of women said they would wait to start or expand their family until they felt financially stable, according to a recent survey by BabyCenter.com, an online parenting resource. "Anyone who has wanted to have a child is concerned about whether they can afford it but the economy has really exacerbated that," said Linda Murray, BabyCenter's editor in chief.

Cary Garcia, 25 says the economy is the "biggest obstacle" to her hopes of having a child. "I'd like to have just one," she said. But Garcia and her boyfriend, Matthew, live in Las Vegas, where the metropolitan unemployment rate is 13.8% -- the second highest in the country -- and they are constantly concerned about their jobs. "Though we could afford it now, there is no guarantee that we would be employed and financially stable by the time our children are born, not to mention when they turn into teenagers and need tuition money," she said.

MORE

 

[uscitizen]

What about anchor wenches?

 

[JMadison]

The Mexicans will do to the US, what they did to Mexico; think about it.

 

[Salt Jones]

Anchor babies?

The Constitution calls them Americans.

 

[Mr. H.]

How can a woman be 99% pregnant?

 

[Common_Tater]

Commentary: 14th Amendment outlines Found Fathers' intentions By Mary Sanchez | The Kansas City Star

Most notable is the 1898 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the case of San Francisco-born Wong Kim Ark. This son of Chinese immigrants left the U.S. and was denied re-entry. For much of the nation’s early history, Chinese immigrants like his parents were excluded by law from becoming citizens.

He sued. And the ruling is clear: “To hold that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”Commentary: 14th Amendment outlines Found Fathers' intentions | McClatchy

I cannot agree with this ruling because those immigrants mentioned entered this country legally registering through Ellis Island. I believe the 1898 court ruling was a mistake and it set a precedent and that is a tragedy. If the court knew how the 14th Amendment would be mis-used it would have make a difffernt ruling.

There is a MASSIVE difference between many Latios and true immigrants. True immigrants register and fill out the proper paperwork. Most of these European immigrants came over in the early 20th century. A vast majority registered properly, went through quarantine and became contributors to society. Many Latinos come over here illegally and never properly register. They take advantage of our system and are a blight to our communities. Now those who register and become citizens properly are a different story. But all over the US we have a massive illigal Latio problem.

 

[SAJason]

Anchor babies?

The Constitution calls them Americans.

No it does not.

 

[CryingKoala]

Anchor babies?

The Constitution calls them Americans.

No it does not.

Yes it does moron. Its called the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause. Anchor Babies are better known by the term NATIVE BORN US CITIZENS.

Besides the "anchor baby" bullshit is dangerously stupid in a self-destructive, retarded fashion.
[Which is why all of those bills die horribly in Congress]

Once you start attacking citizenship by birth you remove the one part of our immigration system which has been successful for the last century. Plus you open the door to give the government the ability to strip away the rights to any citizen. Any group could suddenly find their rights taken away by government order. Its dangerously stupid power to grant our government to use against its native born population.

Also, you have to create a huge bureacracy to enforce this kind of law. EVERY BIRTH in the nation has to require background checks of the parents. It requires vast amount of resources which our immigration services do not, nor ever will have. Plus it creates the problem Europe has with multigenerational ethnic slums which are politically radicalized. You keep people in non-personhood for generations at a time, they will become an insurgency.

 

[High_Gravity]

Is `cause white people got enough sense to be extra careful not to have another mouth to feed in dis economy an' the white birth rate goin' down...

Anti-baby boom: Why U.S. birth rate keeps falling
August 16, 2011: Right before the recession hit, the U.S. was undergoing a mini baby boom. Now, birth rates are declining fast.

The number of children born in the U.S. peaked with a record 4.3 million births in 2007, but has since fallen, dropping to 4 million births last year, according to estimates by the National Center for Health Statistics. The birth rate -- a measure of births per 1,000 people -- has dropped 10%. Historically, declines in birth rates have gone hand in hand with economic downturns. During the financial slumps of the early 1990's and 1970's, the birth rates fell 15% and 18%, respectively. In the midst of the Great Depression, the birth rate was down by 17%.

Meanwhile, the cost of raising a child has risen steadily since the U.S. Department of Agriculture began tracking the data in 1960. From buying car seats and strollers to paying for childcare and schooling, a middle-income family could spend an average of $226,920 to raise a child born in 2010 to age 18 (and that doesn't include overwhelming cost of college), according to the USDA. The escalating cost, coupled with the most recent economic downturn, has caused many women to postpone or even forgo their plans to have children, said Steven Martin, a senior research associate for the Institute of Human Development and Social Change at New York University. "Certainly economic calamity does cause a significant decline in fertility," he said.

In fact, nearly half, or 43%, of women said they would wait to start or expand their family until they felt financially stable, according to a recent survey by BabyCenter.com, an online parenting resource. "Anyone who has wanted to have a child is concerned about whether they can afford it but the economy has really exacerbated that," said Linda Murray, BabyCenter's editor in chief.

Cary Garcia, 25 says the economy is the "biggest obstacle" to her hopes of having a child. "I'd like to have just one," she said. But Garcia and her boyfriend, Matthew, live in Las Vegas, where the metropolitan unemployment rate is 13.8% -- the second highest in the country -- and they are constantly concerned about their jobs. "Though we could afford it now, there is no guarantee that we would be employed and financially stable by the time our children are born, not to mention when they turn into teenagers and need tuition money," she said.
MORE

That last couple sounds like they have their shit together, I like it. Family planning is the best way, we don't want to be like in Africa and the Muslim world where we have 7-8 children in the home and no one has a job.

 

[High_Gravity]

Anchor babies?

The Constitution calls them Americans.

No it does not.

Yes it does moron. Its called the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause. Anchor Babies are better known by the term NATIVE BORN US CITIZENS.

Besides the "anchor baby" bullshit is dangerously stupid in a self-destructive, retarded fashion.
[Which is why all of those bills die horribly in Congress]

Once you start attacking citizenship by birth you remove the one part of our immigration system which has been successful for the last century. Plus you open the door to give the government the ability to strip away the rights to any citizen. Any group could suddenly find their rights taken away by government order. Its dangerously stupid power to grant our government to use against its native born population.

Also, you have to create a huge bureacracy to enforce this kind of law. EVERY BIRTH in the nation has to require background checks of the parents. It requires vast amount of resources which our immigration services do not, nor ever will have. Plus it creates the problem Europe has with multigenerational ethnic slums which are politically radicalized. You keep people in non-personhood for generations at a time, they will become an insurgency.

Spot on, I smell racism here. I have a feeling if these illegal aliens were Englishmen or Swedes, these guys who are crying for mass deportations and executions would be ok with letting them stay.

 

[Patrick2]

The alleged right of anchor babies to citizenship is NOT in the constitution. The basis for automatically granting citizenship to the children born in this country of illegal alien invaders stems from a wrongly decided USSC case in 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, the USSC decided that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment merely meant anyone born inside the country (other than a few exceptions such as children born of diplomats), whereas the dissenters pointed out that the Civil Rights Act of 1866, a precursor to the 14th amendment which was passed only two months before the 14th amendment was proposed, used the phrase "not subject to any foreign power". The 14th amendment was intended to put into the constitution that which was temporarily effected by the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

The thrust of the 14th amendment was to grant citizenship to freed slaves. The adopters of that would have been appalled if they saw that a hundred years later it would be used as a means of spearheading an invasion of millions of illegals flooding the country.

Someone with standing needs to take a case to the USSC and get that decision overturned.

 

[Missourian]

Anchor babies?

The Constitution calls them Americans.

No it does not.

Yes it does moron. Its called the 14th Amendment Citizenship Clause. Anchor Babies are better known by the term NATIVE BORN US CITIZENS.

Besides the "anchor baby" bullshit is dangerously stupid in a self-destructive, retarded fashion.
[Which is why all of those bills die horribly in Congress]

Once you start attacking citizenship by birth you remove the one part of our immigration system which has been successful for the last century. Plus you open the door to give the government the ability to strip away the rights to any citizen. Any group could suddenly find their rights taken away by government order. Its dangerously stupid power to grant our government to use against its native born population.

Also, you have to create a huge bureacracy to enforce this kind of law. EVERY BIRTH in the nation has to require background checks of the parents. It requires vast amount of resources which our immigration services do not, nor ever will have. Plus it creates the problem Europe has with multigenerational ethnic slums which are politically radicalized. You keep people in non-personhood for generations at a time, they will become an insurgency.

The 14th Amendment says "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."

The wording stems from the 1866 Civil Rights Act clause "not subject to any foreign power.".

As to the "huge bureaucracy"...that is also a fallacy.

All that's required is a copy of the parents birth certificate or naturalization documentation be presented before a new birth certificate is issued.

No bureaucracy required.

 

[CryingKoala]

The 14th Amendment says "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."

The wording stems from the 1866 Civil Rights Act clause "not subject to any foreign power.".

As to the "huge bureaucracy"...that is also a fallacy.

All that's required is a copy of the parents birth certificate or naturalization documentation be presented before a new birth certificate is issued.

No bureaucracy required.

The only fallacy here is that an illegal alien is not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States". That part of the citizenship clause in the plain meaning of the words and in the intention of its drafters was meant to cover people who would be living on lands considered foreign soil such as diplomatic/consular staff and at the time American Indian reservations (considered to be foreign nations for legal purposes).

There is no interpretation which can allow anchor babies to be excluded here. Not in the plain meaning of the text itself nor the drafter's intention. There goes any legal basis for the interpretation your way. You can't say that because it wasn't an issue at the time, you can suddenly claim it should be. Its not in the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment at all so you have nothing to go on. You have to write a new clause in the 14th Amendment to do that.

An illegal alien is always subject to the jurisidiction of the US because they are bound by US laws (unlike someone with diplomatic immunity or on soil not considered part of the US for political reasons)

All that's required is a copy of the parents birth certificate or naturalization documentation be presented before a new birth certificate is issued.

Which would have to be produced at EVERY BIRTH and checked in due time. Is a kid supposed to stay in the womb until everything is run? CIS background checks on US citizens for stuff like green card applications of spouses and international adoption takes weeks if not months. Those make up a tiny % of our population. Now you want to do it every time someone is born in this country? You are crazy.

You really don't know jack about how our immigration system works.

 

[CryingKoala]

The alleged right of anchor babies to citizenship is NOT in the constitution. The basis for automatically granting citizenship to the children born in this country of illegal alien invaders stems from a wrongly decided USSC case in 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, the USSC decided that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment merely meant anyone born inside the country (other than a few exceptions such as children born of diplomats), whereas the dissenters pointed out that the Civil Rights Act of 1866, a precursor to the 14th amendment which was passed only two months before the 14th amendment was proposed, used the phrase "not subject to any foreign power". The 14th amendment was intended to put into the constitution that which was temporarily effected by the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

The thrust of the 14th amendment was to grant citizenship to freed slaves. The adopters of that would have been appalled if they saw that a hundred years later it would be used as a means of spearheading an invasion of millions of illegals flooding the country.

Someone with standing needs to take a case to the USSC and get that decision overturned.

You are wrong on all counts. The legislative history of it shows that part of the clause was considered in terms of American Indians and diplomats. It was meant to define citizenship because we had a huge population which went from being considered chattel property to human beings, we had to have more concrete definitions of citizens than what was used before.

I don't have to give a shit whether you think Wong Kim Ark was decided well or not. It is the law of the land and has been affirmed over and over again by SCOTUS on the subject for almost a century.

The other problem is you have no compelling interests of the government in stripping the citizenship and liberties of its native born people. Illegal aliens are considered the problem here, not citizens. All you have is vague bigoted bullshit to justify the measure.

 

[Patrick2]

The alleged right of anchor babies to citizenship is NOT in the constitution. The basis for automatically granting citizenship to the children born in this country of illegal alien invaders stems from a wrongly decided USSC case in 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. In that case, the USSC decided that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment merely meant anyone born inside the country (other than a few exceptions such as children born of diplomats), whereas the dissenters pointed out that the Civil Rights Act of 1866, a precursor to the 14th amendment which was passed only two months before the 14th amendment was proposed, used the phrase "not subject to any foreign power". The 14th amendment was intended to put into the constitution that which was temporarily effected by the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

The thrust of the 14th amendment was to grant citizenship to freed slaves. The adopters of that would have been appalled if they saw that a hundred years later it would be used as a means of spearheading an invasion of millions of illegals flooding the country.

Someone with standing needs to take a case to the USSC and get that decision overturned.

You are wrong on all counts. The legislative history of it shows that part of the clause was considered in terms of American Indians and diplomats.

You're just ignoring the evidence of congress' intent as per the 1866 act - don't blame you.

It was meant to define citizenship because we had a huge population which went from being considered chattel property to human beings, we had to have more concrete definitions of citizens than what was used before.

The difference between someone who was the child of someone brought here as a slave, ie, not illegally at the time, and someone who is ILLEGALLY here and subject to the jurisdiction of a >>foreign<< power, is clear.

I don't have to give a shit whether you think Wong Kim Ark was decided well or not. It is the law of the land and has been affirmed over and over again by SCOTUS on the subject for almost a century.

Wrong again, sparky. Wong Kim Ark was merely used as a precedent, not itself directly challenged.

The other problem is you have no compelling interests of the government in stripping the citizenship and liberties of its native born people. Illegal aliens are considered the problem here, not citizens.

Did I say they should strip citizenship? I don't REMEMBER saying that. We're stuck with the people who have pulled off the scam thus far - but we need to slam the door on future scammers.

All you have is vague bigoted bullshit to justify the measure.

Ahhh yes, the inevitable race card toss from the bitch-slapped leftwinger.

 

[Missourian]

The 14th Amendment says "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."

The wording stems from the 1866 Civil Rights Act clause "not subject to any foreign power.".

As to the "huge bureaucracy"...that is also a fallacy.

All that's required is a copy of the parents birth certificate or naturalization documentation be presented before a new birth certificate is issued.

No bureaucracy required.

The only fallacy here is that an illegal alien is not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States". That part of the citizenship clause in the plain meaning of the words and in the intention of its drafters was meant to cover people who would be living on lands considered foreign soil such as diplomatic/consular staff and at the time American Indian reservations (considered to be foreign nations for legal purposes).

There is no interpretation which can allow anchor babies to be excluded here. Not in the plain meaning of the text itself nor the drafter's intention. There goes any legal basis for the interpretation your way. You can't say that because it wasn't an issue at the time, you can suddenly claim it should be. Its not in the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment at all so you have nothing to go on. You have to write a new clause in the 14th Amendment to do that.

An illegal alien is always subject to the jurisidiction of the US because they are bound by US laws (unlike someone with diplomatic immunity or on soil not considered part of the US for political reasons)

All that's required is a copy of the parents birth certificate or naturalization documentation be presented before a new birth certificate is issued.

Which would have to be produced at EVERY BIRTH and checked in due time. Is a kid supposed to stay in the womb until everything is run? CIS background checks on US citizens for stuff like green card applications of spouses and international adoption takes weeks if not months. Those make up a tiny % of our population. Now you want to do it every time someone is born in this country? You are crazy.

You really don't know jack about how our immigration system works.

Don't be intentionally obtuse.

I use a birth certificate to get a license, obtain a passport and to vote. No government bureaucracy was created to verify those uses.

An original birth certificate or naturalization documentation would be all that is required...if there are doubts as to authenticity of the documents, a provisional birth certificate could be issued.

Easy as pie.

P.S. - Wong Ark wasn't here illegally. There were no illegal immigration at the time Wong Ark was decided.

 

[CryingKoala]

Wrong again, sparky. Wong Kim Ark was merely used as a precedent, not itself directly challenged.


Except that's bullshit. SCOTUS has had numerous opportunities to discuss citizenship in this context. Plus its still the law of the land anyway. I don't have to give a shit whether you agreed with it or not. Its the law and has been considered an effective and valid interpretation for almost a century. You have to rewrite the 14th Amendment to change it.


The difference between someone who was the child of someone brought here as a slave, ie, not illegally at the time, and someone who is ILLEGALLY here and subject to the jurisdiction of a >>foreign<< power, is clear.

The drafters of the Amendment left copious notes in debate as to how they wanted it to read. They debated how it would apply to Indians and reservations and diplomats. You are pulling a canned response out of your ass.

"Subject to the juridiction" means subject to laws of the country. Meaning can be brought before a criminal or civil court in the US. At no point is an illegal alien immune to US laws so they are always subject to the jurisdiction of the United states in a legal sense.

Your argument is based on a retarded misinterpretation of the laws.

You are deliberately confusing being "the subject of another country" with being "subject to our jurisdiction". Same word, but one is a noun the other is an adjective. A foreigner in this country who is not a diplomat is subject to the juridiction of the US even though they are a subject of a foreign power.

Do you get it now or do I have to use less complicated words?


Did I say they should strip citizenship? I don't REMEMBER saying that. We're stuck with the people who have pulled off the scam thus far - but we need to slam the door on future scammers.

That is precisely what you are doing. You are taking away the assumed citizenship rights of everyone born in this country and subjecting it to conditions. Those "scammers" are exercising the same rights as every other native born US citizen. You just don't like where they came from. You are a bigot.


Ahhh yes, the inevitable race card toss from the bitch-slapped leftwinger.

Bitchslapped nothing. You are a bigot and a dolt who doesn't understand how the same word can have two different meanings.

There has been nothing but bigoted nonsense being thrown around here on the subject.

Only a moron could be so blinded by bigotry to saw away at the plank of citizenship rights they are standing on. This whole thing is dangerous stupidity which attacks the rights of all citizens of this country.