Anchor Babies complicating policy?

[GHook93]

This issue needs to be legally challenged & the Supreme Court needs to decide it's place in the 14th Amendment, if any. That is the only way this "anchor baby" shit can be stopped.

Its in the constitution, so how are you going to challenge the constitutionality of something in the constitution? Only Congress can settle the anchor baby situation!

 

[GHook93]

So what would you base citizenship on?

And how would you go about divesting lawful citizens of their citizenship?

As to your stats, please provide a link.

How about something like this:
Section 3: All persons naturalized through means prescribed by Federal immigration and naturalization laws and all children born in the US in which at least one NATURAL parent is a US citizen of legal and proper standing are US citizens.

 

[GHook93]

AUTOMATIC BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP SEPARATE FAMILIES
and it is for that reason AUTOMATIC BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP must be repealed retro-active or correctly interpreted. .

Learn a little about ex post defacto law in the US! You can only move forward not backwards!

 

[GHook93]

and what if they're here on a work Visa? They're here legally.

I have a problem with doing away with the concept of birth as a basis for citizenship.

We've seen how the whole bloodline thing works.

It isn't pretty.

There are 2 types of citizenships in the US:
(1) Born
(2) Naturalized

The first one should be born to at least 1 American citizen anywhere in the world. If in your scenario the child was born to non-US citizensm who were not here illegal (work Visa, ambasadors, student visa, on vacation etc), then that child would fall in the 2nd category and could only be a citizen by being naturalized!

 

[GHook93]

Again, what would you use as a basis for citizenship OTHER than birth?

How about, at the very least, permanent resident status of at least one of the parents? As opposed to "undocumented"....

and what if they're here on a work Visa? They're here legally.

I have a problem with doing away with the concept of birth as a basis for citizenship.

We've seen how the whole bloodline thing works.

It isn't pretty.

Jillian,

You do know the legislative intent of the birthright clause correct? It had a more, ethic and hugely legitimate needs to be placed in the constitution at the time. Basically, the LI was to make sure the newly freed Black's children were not denied citizenship! That was the sole purpose of it. It was not to give citizenship an army of illegal aliens. The illegal alien and reconquisdora, La Nacion of Atlzan, Le Mecha and La Raza ("the Race") are using this provision created for the legitimate purpose of protecting former slaves' children to undermined and attack this country!

 

[GHook93]

If Democrats and Republicans supported a Constitutional amendment in unison, then who would lose Hispanic votes? In truth, if the people want this change, they need to start a grass roots non-partisan effort pushing their representatives to put this in motion.

It would be the person in the party who didn't actively go against the Latinos! Some sellout would say look at my racist opponent in the primary. La Raza would be nailing the person as a racist. The ACLU would be all over him. It would be a smearbath! No Democrat has the guts to say their anti-illegal immigration.

It would be the same for a Republican who was pro-choice!

See? It really isn't complicated at all.... It's political bullshit, plain and simple.

Just as it is a prerequisite to be prolife to be a Republicans, its a prerequisite to sell out your country to illegal immigration in order to be a Democratic politicians!

 

[Walt]

This sublect is not so complicated when you dig for information and read the cases. It does get somewhat complicated when Americans are led to believe that there is no question on weather these children are citizens. Lines like this from that article

Because any child born in the United States has a right to citizenship, the growing presence of these children is likely to complicate the debate over immigration policies aimed at their parents.

add to the confusion. This author makes this statement like it was chisled in stone fact. When it is not.

Who said they are citizens? Read the following then go to the links and read the cases. Also read the opinions on the cases. Passing the 1965 immigration act did not change the Constitution or the meaning of it. Neither does popular opinion, especially when people are given the wrong information.

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.

Anchor babies - children born in the United States to illegal alien mothers - THE AMERICAN RESISTANCE FOUNDATION

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

Here is an opinoin from a judge.

The question before us has been examined by a writer upon constitutional law whose views are entitled to great respect. Judge COOLEY, referring to the definition of national citizenship as contained in the fourteenth amendment, says: 'By the express terms of the amendment, persons of foreign birth, who have never renounced the allegiance to which they were born, though they may have a residence in this country, more or less permanent, for business, instruction, or pleasure, are not citizens

 

[DamnYankee]

This issue needs to be legally challenged & the Supreme Court needs to decide it's place in the 14th Amendment, if any. That is the only way this "anchor baby" shit can be stopped.

Its in the constitution, so how are you going to challenge the constitutionality of something in the constitution? Only Congress can settle the anchor baby situation!

Ummm.... Aren't there Constitutional challenges frequently? Hell, that's what caused a big Bush flap, wasn't it? That aside, the Supreme Court makes decisions on Constitutional issues that are challenged (frequently) -- not Congress. Congress' role is to adopt changes to it, but, in effect, the Supreme Court could rule that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the current situation and that it was meant only to apply to the children of slaves a century ago.

 

[DamnYankee]

It would be the person in the party who didn't actively go against the Latinos! Some sellout would say look at my racist opponent in the primary. La Raza would be nailing the person as a racist. The ACLU would be all over him. It would be a smearbath! No Democrat has the guts to say their anti-illegal immigration.

It would be the same for a Republican who was pro-choice!

See? It really isn't complicated at all.... It's political bullshit, plain and simple.

Just as it is a prerequisite to be prolife to be a Republicans, its a prerequisite to sell out your country to illegal immigration in order to be a Democratic politicians!

It's illogical to make this a partisan issue. The Immigration Reform Bill was co-sponsored by McCain and Kennedy. McCain sold out, and Bush tagged along for the ride, without a problem at all. Well, except for the blip on the radar when he tried to weasel his way out of it at the beginning of this last campaign. Didn't last long though....

 

[LilOlLady]

ANCHOR BABIES

American born children of illegal aliens should not be used or allowed to be used as anchors for their parents who entered this country illegally because in encourages women from south of the border to cross the border just to give birth so their children can be American citizens and eligible for all the benefits of children of American citizens, free education, free breakfast and lunches, welfare, food stomps, WIC, health care and dental care, low income housing, law enforcement and incarcerations.
Illegal aliens are criminals because they broke the law and its not punishing the children when the parents are deported no more than its punishing children of American citizens who break the laws and have to go to prison. Neither one of them are force to break he laws and no one forces deported illegal aliens to leave their children here for the taxpayers to take care of.
Obama believes illegal aliens should be allowed to stay just because they are here and they have American born children.
A path to citizenship (amnesty) does not work to curb illegal immigration it only encourage more immigration. We were there in 1986 and there are more illegal aliens here than in 1986.
The cost of illegal immigration and amnesty is too high a price to ask the America taxpayer to pay. Another amnesty would destroy the economy because low wage earners who pay very little in taxes if any, takes more out of the system then they put in and drain the system.
Obama and democratic congress is way out of touch with the effect of illegal immigration and how the American people feel about it. A vote for Obama or a vote or a vote for McCain was not a vote for amnesty.
Illegal immigration is one issue that the American people are united on.

 

[LaLinda75]

If a child is born of parents who are here illegally, then the child should take the citizenship of the country from which the parents came from. If ONE of the parents is a naturalized citizen or citizen by birth of the USA, then the child should take that citizenship (USA). If the parents have been here legally for ex number of years but never applied for naturalization, then the child should NOT be allowed U.S. citizenship. And don't call this punishing a child for the 'crime' of the parent as taking another country's citizenhip is NOT a crime nor is it a crime to FAIL to take the citizenship of the USA. You want to live in the USA or be its citizen, then do things the proper way.