Anchor babies: Born in the usa--

[CryingKoala]

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. - .

I am being realistic.

Going to the DMV is not the same as being in a hospital coming out of a womb. You can go to the DMV as you please and you don't have to have a drivers license as a basis for your civil liberties.

You seem to forget that the background checks have to be done FOR EVERY BIRTH IN THIS COUNTRY. That's a lot of people who require checking.


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

Which means you have to either amend or rewrite the 14th Amendment to get your way since you have no basis within the text or meaning of the Citizenship Clause itself.

 

[Missourian]

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. - .

I am being realistic.

Going to the DMV is not the same as being in a hospital coming out of a womb. You can go to the DMV as you please and you don't have to have a drivers license as a basis for your civil liberties.

You seem to forget that the background checks have to be done FOR EVERY BIRTH IN THIS COUNTRY. That's a lot of people who require checking.


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

Which means you have to either amend or rewrite the 14th Amendment to get your way since you have no basis within the text or meaning of the Citizenship Clause itself.

Then you'll need to explain why Indian tribes were exempt?

 

[CryingKoala]

Then you'll need to explain why Indian tribes were exempt?

Sure. Fair enough.

It was because reservation lands were considered by our laws to be foreign countries. [The legacy of that thinking is seen in the Indian casinos and untaxed cigarettes] This is why state laws do not apply on reservation grounds and why agreements between the government and Indian tribes were done as treaties and not contracts. Treaties are agreements between nations. Not much different than the reason why an embassy in the US is considered foreign soil.

Those born on reservations were not considered citizens in the 19th Century. It took a statute in the 1920's to change that. Back in the day, Indians had to apply for citizenship if they wanted to live off the reservation.

 

[Missourian]

Then you'll need to explain why Indian tribes were exempt?

Sure. Fair enough.

It was because reservation lands were considered by our laws to be foreign countries. [The legacy of that thinking is seen in the Indian casinos and untaxed cigarettes] This is why state laws do not apply on reservation grounds and why agreements between the government and Indian tribes were done as treaties and not contracts. Treaties are agreements between nations. Not much different than the reason why an embassy in the US is considered foreign soil.

Those born on reservations were not considered citizens in the 19th Century. It took a statute in the 1920's to change that. Back in the day, Indians had to apply for citizenship if they wanted to live off the reservation.

But, Indians were not citizens regardless of whether they were born on the reservation or off...by treaty with the Indian Nations...a foreign government.

 

[CryingKoala]

But, Indians were not citizens regardless of whether they were born on the reservation or off...by treaty with the Indian Nations...a foreign government.

You are incorrect.

They were considered citizens if born off the reservation. Birthright citizenship never was given exceptions within the Citizenship clause. Even to Indians. They were also made citizens if they were placed as wards of state or removed from their parents as children (as many of them were until the early 20th Century).

They weren't considered citizens by birth on a reservation until the passage of a law in the 1920's.

 

[Missourian]

But, Indians were not citizens regardless of whether they were born on the reservation or off...by treaty with the Indian Nations...a foreign government.

You are incorrect.

They were considered citizens if born off the reservation. They were also made citizens if they were placed as wards of state or removed from their parents as children (as many of them were until the early 20th Century).

They weren't considered citizens by birth on a reservation until the passage of a law in the 1920's.

You'll need to point me to link for verification...because my understanding is that Indians born to members of the Indian Nations were not citizens, even if they were born off Indian lands.

 

[Patrick2]

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.

Did it even register what I said? It sounds like you're 'answering' each legal point with a canned response plus insult. Once again: SUBSEQUENT JURISPRUDENCE DIDN'T CHALLENGE THE DECISION ITSELF.

Plus its still the law of the land anyway.

It's the "law of the land" in the same way "plessy v. ferguson" was the law of the land, until it was overturned - which this should be.

I don't have to give a shit whether you agreed with it or not.

I don't give a shit whether you are too dimwitted to grasp slightly subtle legal points. I bitchslap you for recreation, but conservatives shouldn't waste time trying to tutor obamabot morons, but rather find a good test case and get the bad decision overturned.

Its the law and has been considered an effective and valid interpretation for almost a century.

Whoopee doooooo. Plessy v. Ferguson was considered an effective and valid interpretation for about 60 years. Only an imbecile would consider the longevity of a mistake a reason for not correcting the mistake.

You have to rewrite the 14th Amendment to change it.

Hogwash.

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.

Their wording for the 1866 act, and that the 14th amendment was intended to constitutionalize the 1866 act's citizenship provisions is not contested by any legitimate scholar, your koolaid sucking amateur fantasies notwithstanding.

"Subject to the juridiction" means subject to laws of the country.

You're just idiotically parroting the wrong decision's rationale - the intellect level of a ten year old reading a cereal box.

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

Bitchslapped nothing. You are a bigot and a dolt

You're raising the white flag like gutless, low IQ koolaid kretins always do - they get their ass kicked from one end of a thread to another, and then lay there screaming "racism" like a stuck pig.

PS - Have a seven year old explain to you how to use the quote function.

 

[Missourian]

But, Indians were not citizens regardless of whether they were born on the reservation or off...by treaty with the Indian Nations...a foreign government.

You are incorrect.

They were considered citizens if born off the reservation. They were also made citizens if they were placed as wards of state or removed from their parents as children (as many of them were until the early 20th Century).

They weren't considered citizens by birth on a reservation until the passage of a law in the 1920's.

You'll need to point me to link for verification...because my understanding is that Indians born to members of the Indian Nations were not citizens, even if they were born off Indian lands.

This is the source of my position:

Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio was the author of the citizenship clause. During Senate debate, he defended his handiwork against the charge that it would make Native Americans citizens of the U.S. “Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations,” he assured the Senate, “are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

Edward J. Erler, professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino

Read more here: Citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment &#8211; Dialogue and debate forum​

Not Indians born within the limits of tribal reservations, or within the limits of Indian Nations or territories...but all Indians born within the limits of the United States.

​

 

[Full-Auto]

Anchor babies: Born in the usa--


Doesnt bother me in the slightest. It is one of the things I admire about this country.

Now, how we handle the families after the occurrence is the concern.

 

[Patrick2]

Anchor babies: Born in the usa--


Doesnt bother me in the slightest. It is one of the things I admire about this country.

Now, how we handle the families after the occurrence is the concern.

Young women get pregnant, then step over the border when they're due in two weeks, get prenatal screening in the ER for FREE while americans are waiting for emergency services, then come to the ER to have their baby for FREE and are transfered to the birth section of the hospital. Then they can stay as the guardian of a "US citizen", and are eligible for an extremely long list of taxpayer funded social services.

Why don't you and people like you foot the bill for all this? Why do you think allowing this rip-off is something to admire?

 

[Full-Auto]

Anchor babies: Born in the usa--


Doesnt bother me in the slightest. It is one of the things I admire about this country.

Now, how we handle the families after the occurrence is the concern.

Young women get pregnant, then step over the border when they're due in two weeks, get prenatal screening in the ER for FREE while americans are waiting for emergency services, then come to the ER to have their baby for FREE and are transfered to the birth section of the hospital. Then they can stay as the guardian of a "US citizen", and are eligible for an extremely long list of taxpayer funded social services.

Why don't you and people like you foot the bill for all this? Why do you think allowing this rip-off is something to admire?

They may do those things. But that is a separate issue from wanting your child to be an American.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

You forgot to cite case law in support of the 14th Amendment being ‘misused.’

In fact, the Fourteenth Amendment is used exactly as its Framers intended, to extend equal protection to all persons in the United States:

Appellants argue at the outset that undocumented aliens, because of their immigration status, are not "persons within the jurisdiction" of the State of Texas, and that they therefore have no right to the equal protection of Texas law. We reject this argument. Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as "persons" guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.

Plyler v. Doe

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.

First you or they would need to find case law in support of the above.

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

That would be un-Constitutional, see Plyler cited above.

 

[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.

First you or they would need to find case law in support of the above.

That doesn't make any sense. If a landmark decision was wrongly decided, the only argument that need be made is that it was unconstitutionally decided.

 

[CryingKoala]

But, Indians were not citizens regardless of whether they were born on the reservation or off...by treaty with the Indian Nations...a foreign government.

You are incorrect.

They were considered citizens if born off the reservation. They were also made citizens if they were placed as wards of state or removed from their parents as children (as many of them were until the early 20th Century).

They weren't considered citizens by birth on a reservation until the passage of a law in the 1920's.

You'll need to point me to link for verification...because my understanding is that Indians born to members of the Indian Nations were not citizens, even if they were born off Indian lands.

Mine is kinda easy, there has never been a case where any person born on lands considered US property were denied citizenship.

Btw your prior cite about Indian citizenship is an unfounded opinion. Not actual proof. It is rebutted in the same site

http://publicsquare.net/birthright-citizenship-believe-your-own-eyes
Erler&#8217;s mistake here arises because he seems unaware (as many people are today) that, before assimilation became government policy in 1887, Indian tribes were treated as sovereign governments. In 1866, when the Fourteenth Amendment was drafted, tribal Indians were covered by a kind of extraterritoriality very much like that afforded to diplomats today. If tribal Indians stole the horses or property of non-Indians, the owners could not sue them in court. They had to apply to the United States, which would demand payment from the tribal government. And federal criminal penalties in Indian country did not apply to crimes committed by Indians against each other. Tribal Indians were not &#8220;subject to the jurisdiction&#8221; of the United States.

The resulting debate flatly, explicitly negates Erler&#8217;s surprising claim that &#8220;the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment would not have considered&#8221; Wong Kim Ark ineligible for citizenship because his &#8220;parents were, by treaty and statute, ineligible for American citizenship and they retained their allegiance to the emperor of China.&#8221; It&#8217;s a surprising claim, because the framers of the clause did regard the clause as extending birthright citizenship to the American-born children of Chinese immigrants. This isn&#8217;t my inference; they said so in so many words. When opponents of the amendment asked about children of Chinese immigrants, Republican Senator John Conness of California was unequivocal: &#8220;Children begotten of Chinese parents in California&#8221; would be citizens, he said. &#8220;The children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.&#8221;

So nothing in the text or the framing debate supports Erler&#8217;s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause. Now consider the overall situation the framers of the amendment were reacting to. Slavery was a hereditary, lifelong subordinate status&#8212;what most anti-slavery thinkers referred to as a system of &#8220;caste.&#8221; The framers had set out to eradicate this kind of legal inequality. And the situation of foreign-born Americans was very much on their minds; how could it not have been? The percentage of foreign-born in the American population of 1866 was higher than it is today. Debate over immigration had split the nation during the 1850s; immigrants formed a crucial element of the Republican party coalition. Indeed, some of the very lawmakers who framed and passed the Fourteenth Amendment, such as California&#8217;s Conness, were immigrants themselves.

Would these men, committed to eradicating inequality, have silently written into their draft a provision allowing Congress or the states to strip a huge class of Americans of the &#8220;privileges or immunities&#8221; of citizenship? It is that interpretation that is literally &#8220;inconceivable.&#8221;

Much of Erler&#8217;s &#8220;evidence&#8221; is not evidence at all; none of it is enough to overcome Wong Kim Ark&#8217;s straightforward application of the text.

That text had a clear meaning in 1866; the framers explained that meaning; that meaning had a rich background in nineteenth-century legal thought; that meaning accords with the structure and history of the Fourteenth Amendment. &#8220;All persons&#8221; means all our children.

 

[CryingKoala]

If a landmark decision was wrongly decided, the only argument that need be made is that it was unconstitutionally decided.

Which you can't do. There was nothing unconstitutional about it.
The decision falls within the plain reading of the 14th Amendment, its intention and legislative history. There is no part of the text which can be used to support your position whatsoever.

You have to rewrite the 14th Amendment to get your way. As a nation we are not generally in the mood to upend given liberties written into our Constitution to satisfy clearly bigoted motives. You are annoyed that natural born citizens of a certain ethnicity and national background are exercising the rights our country grants them. Tough luck.

 

[LilOlLady]

Dred Scott case support the 14th Amendment intention was for ancestors of exslaves and other cases since have been mis-applied a need to be corrected but those decisions would admit a mistake and we are not willing to do that. Selfrighteous idiots. Illegal aiens are not ancestors of ex-slaves. As a matter of fact Dred Scott case broke precedence and it can happen again.

 

[Moonglow]

ANCHOR BABIES: BORN IN THE USA--
The Abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment&#8212;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 &#8220;Labor and Delivery,&#8221; 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&#8217; 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&#8212;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. .

So u r for abortion!

 

[CryingKoala]

Dred Scott case support the 14th Amendment intention was for ancestors of exslaves and other cases since have been mis-applied a need to be corrected but those decisions would admit a mistake and we are not willing to do that. Selfrighteous idiots. Illegal aiens are not ancestors of ex-slaves. As a matter of fact Dred Scott case broke precedence and it can happen again.

You truly are a moron. You can't even get basic facts straight.

Dred Scott is nullified by the 13th Amendment banning slavery. The 14th Amendment came after the Civil War. Dred Scott CAUSED the Civil War.

http://publicsquare.net/birthright-c...-your-own-eyes
Now consider the overall situation the framers of the amendment were reacting to. Slavery was a hereditary, lifelong subordinate status—what most anti-slavery thinkers referred to as a system of “caste.” The framers had set out to eradicate this kind of legal inequality.And the situation of foreign-born Americans was very much on their minds; how could it not have been? The percentage of foreign-born in the American population of 1866 was higher than it is today. Debate over immigration had split the nation during the 1850s; immigrants formed a crucial element of the Republican party coalition. Indeed, some of the very lawmakers who framed and passed the Fourteenth Amendment, such as California’s Conness, were immigrants themselves.

 

[Patrick2]

If a landmark decision was wrongly decided, the only argument that need be made is that it was unconstitutionally decided.

Which you can't do. There was nothing unconstitutional about it.
The decision falls within the plain reading of the 14th Amendment, its intention and legislative history.

Does anyone else get tired of the leftwing technique of TELLING A BALD-FACED LIE RIGHT TO YOUR FACE IN BROAD DAYLIGHT???

The intention of the 14th amendment was to ensure citizenship for freed blacks. To suggest that it's authors intended that it be used as legal cover for women pulling the anchor baby scam reveals such a breath-taking disregard for the truth, it's hard to believe ANYONE, even the most evil, america-hating, brainwashed, STUPID leftwing robot would dare offer it.

 

[CryingKoala]

If a landmark decision was wrongly decided, the only argument that need be made is that it was unconstitutionally decided.

Which you can't do. There was nothing unconstitutional about it.
The decision falls within the plain reading of the 14th Amendment, its intention and legislative history.

Does anyone else get tired of the leftwing technique of TELLING A BALD-FACED LIE RIGHT TO YOUR FACE IN BROAD DAYLIGHT???

The intention of the 14th amendment was to ensure citizenship for freed blacks. To suggest that it's authors intended that it be used as legal cover for women pulling the anchor baby scam reveals such a breath-taking disregard for the truth, it's hard to believe ANYONE, even the most evil, america-hating, brainwashed, STUPID leftwing robot would dare offer it.

That is not an intelligent response. You are just pissed off that I have been running circles around you.

I know the subject better than you, know your pre-chewed arguments already, and have been making you look stupid.

Your argument concerning the phrase "subject to jurisdiction of the United States" was based on a misreading of the term "subject". You mistook being a national of another country with being immune to prosecution in the US.

The text of the Amendment in of itself says you can't do it because it specifically grants citizenship by birth to all those who can be brought before its laws.

The argument "framers didn't consider illegal aliens" is useless because the amendment already grants citizenship by birth and is silent on the subject. If they didn't consider it, then it isn't a consideration under its guidelines. You have to rewrite the Amendment to put in the exception.

What it comes down to is you just don't like the idea of natural born citizens of a certain ethnicity exercising their rights under our laws.