"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[Oldglory1]

It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?

I just don't get it.

Mark

They are either bleeding heart liberals or they have ethnic ties to illegal aliens or are here illegally themselves. Thus their position. They don't give a damn about how this attracts more illegals to our country or how much this is costing the American taxpayer. Even if they seriously believed that the writer's intent were to make children of illegal aliens citizens by birth why wouldn't they want to change that based on the above? It's not like changes to our Constitution hasn't happened before. Why do they defend these illegal foreigners and the scam of our birthright citizenship? The answer lies in my first sentence.

By that perverted 'logic', everyone who is arguing against 'anchor babies' are small minded fascists, or racists. Thus their position. They don't give a damn about the Constitution- they just want to deny children citizenship.

See how that works?

No- I don't think you are fascists or racists- but that is how stupid arguments like yours can be switched around.

If it were truly about racism then wouldn't I object to children of legal residents being given birthright citizenship also? But I don't so stick your race card where the sun don't shine! I do give a damn about the Constitution and that is why it makes me sick to see it twisted and misinterpreted as it is. Besides, amendments have been made to it for some time now so according to you that would be not honoring its original writing's, right?

See how THAT works?

 

[Oldglory1]

“The Center for Immigration Studies has published a number of reports on birthright citizenship and it is clear that neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has ever mandated that children born to illegal and temporary aliens must be considered U.S. citizens under the Constitution.”

Incorrect.

The 14th Amendment is clear and specific in its own text that those born in the United States are citizens of the United States, as recognized by the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), and as reaffirmed by the Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982).

In addition to violating the Amendment's Citizenship Clause, to deny those born in the United States citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' immigration status would violate the Due Process Clause of both the 5th and 14th Amendments, and the fundamental tenet of Anglo-American judicial tradition that children not be subject to punitive measures as a consequence of their parents' bad acts, such as entering the country absent authorization (see, e.g., Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. Et Al (1972)).

The 14th Amendment was ratified to render null and void Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that because Americans of African descent were brought to the United States as slaves and held as slaves, they were not members of the political community that participated in the creation of the Constitution, and consequently not entitled to its protections.

To ensure such a legal doctrine never again be applied, the Framers of the 14th Amendment codified citizenship at birth along with due process and equal protection of the law.

Your claims about birthright citizenship has been debunked by not only myself but others in here over and over. The CIS is telling the truth but it doesn't fit with yours and some others in here agendas.

The CIS itself says that it is merely offering an opinion, and reflects the opinion of some legal scholars. Certainly not all.

You haven't debunked anything- you have provided your opinion. Which is contrary to how the law is enforced currently and contrary to the findings of Wong Kim Ark.

That and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee.

Again, I repeat that Wong Kim Ark was not about illegal alien parents. so why do you continue to bring up that case? Show me one case that was or stop comparing apples to oranges.

Wong Kim Ark was about foreigners, aliens, who were in the United States legally, but still had allegiance to a foreign country.

Show me where the 14th Amendment mentions illegal aliens or stop bringing them up.

The 14th amendment does not mentions illegal aliens nor does it mention blacks, terrorists, Muslims, criminals, or even native born Americans but it applies to all of them. The amendment begins All persons born or naturalized.. which should give you a hint as to the wide scope of it's applicability..

You conveniently left out the part about excluding foreigners, aliens and the qualifier of "and" subject to subject to our jurisdiction. If the above were automatically subject to our jurisdiction then what would have been the need for that qualifier in the first place? It was a separate qualifier from diplomats. Being subject to obeying our laws has nothing to do with that qualifier and certainly wasn't intended to bestow citizenship by birth on the children of illegal aliens.

 

[Oldglory1]

It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?

I just don't get it.

Mark

They are either bleeding heart liberals or they have ethnic ties to illegal aliens or are here illegally themselves. Thus their position. They don't give a damn about how this attracts more illegals to our country or how much this is costing the American taxpayer. Even if they seriously believed that the writer's intent were to make children of illegal aliens citizens by birth why wouldn't they want to change that based on the above? It's not like changes to our Constitution hasn't happened before. Why do they defend these illegal foreigners and the scam of our birthright citizenship? The answer lies in my first sentence.

Well, I might be a bleeding heart liberal but I certainly don't have ties to illegal immigrants and I certain give a damn about the huge illegal immigration problem. If not, I wouldn't be writing this post.

I just don't believe in changing the constitution when there is no evidence that doing so will substantially reduce illegal immigration. The "anchor baby" is just a divergence from dealing with real immigration problems. We need to be focusing on cutting off jobs to illegal immigrants, enforcing vista expiration, strengthening border security, untangling immigration law so it doesn't take 6 months for deportation or a year to for Mexicans to visit family in the US, and of course resolving the issue of 11 million illegal immigrants living here.

Correct.

Seeking to 'change' the 14th Amendment is ridiculous and unwarranted; predicated on the post hoc fallacy that the Amendment's Citizenship Clause acts as an 'incentive' to undocumented immigration, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

And unfortunately there are those who seek to 'change' the 14th Amendment motivated solely by bigotry and racism toward Hispanics, and the unfounded fear that Hispanic immigration will 'change' America. It is the fear of change and the hatred of diversity common to most reactionaries.

Race card pulling duly noted! There are millions of Hispanics here both legally and that are citizens of this country. I don't object to their kids being given citizenship in this country. I do object to children of illegal aliens regardless of their nationality or ethnic makeup being given it, however. I don't hate diversity but do you call it diversity when millions of illegal aliens are here from mostly one ethnic group. Do you also not know that Mexicans and other Latinos hold the highest quotas for legal immigration into our country by far? That's not diversity!

The fact that you use the PC word "undocumented" tells me a lot about you.

Birthright citizenship is indeed one of the magnets that draws illegal aliens here. The fact that Obama has just decided that illegal aliens that have so-called citizens children here can remain here is proof of that. Not only that but they are entitled to all sorts of welfare thru their U.S. born kids. How can you not see what a big incentive that is?

 

[Oldglory1]

I just found the ignore feature to be used on certain posters in this forum. What a great feature to use and I did. I have no use for childish behavior in a forum by someone who can't be civil and all they have are insults instead of civil debate. They need to go play on the kindergarten school ground instead of in an adult forum.

In other words- you just found out you don't have to read the posts of anyone who disagrees with you.

How very brave.

I'm reading yours, aren't I? The person I have on ignore is because he constantly kept referring to me in a derogatory manner and kept insulting me with his one liners. That isn't debate. Sorry that you can't recognize the difference between civil debate between two people who disagree and name calling and insults. It's disappointing that you don't know the difference.

 

[Syriusly]

The CIS itself says that it is merely offering an opinion, and reflects the opinion of some legal scholars. Certainly not all.

You haven't debunked anything- you have provided your opinion. Which is contrary to how the law is enforced currently and contrary to the findings of Wong Kim Ark.

That and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee.

Again, I repeat that Wong Kim Ark was not about illegal alien parents. so why do you continue to bring up that case? Show me one case that was or stop comparing apples to oranges.

Wong Kim Ark was about foreigners, aliens, who were in the United States legally, but still had allegiance to a foreign country.

Show me where the 14th Amendment mentions illegal aliens or stop bringing them up.

The 14th amendment does not mentions illegal aliens nor does it mention blacks, terrorists, Muslims, criminals, or even native born Americans but it applies to all of them. The amendment begins All persons born or naturalized.. which should give you a hint as to the wide scope of it's applicability..

Have you noticed the disconnect here?

These folks seem to think that children of legal immigrants are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States but not the children of illegal aliens.

But cannot differentiate how jurisidiction applies differently to legal aliens versus illegal aliens.

And that is because it applies exactly the same.

IF children of legal aliens are citizens under the 14th Amendment, then the children of illegal aliens have to be be citizens also- based upon the clear language of the 14th Amendment.

IF children of illegal aliens are not citizens, then neither are the children of legal aliens.

And Wong Kim Ark made it clear that the children of legal aliens are citizens per the 14th Amendment.

It is NOT the same! Legal residents are here with authorization from our government and that is what the Wonk Kim Ark case was about. You also confuse being subject to our laws as meaning being subject to our full jurisdiction and illegal aliens are not. You are twisting the clear language of the 14th to mean that it extends birthright citizenship to children of illegals aliens when "clearly" it does not by the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction. It doesn't say subject to our "full" jurisdiction and it was even discussed at the time of it's writing. You just don't want to accept that because clearly you have an agenda to flood our country with illegal aliens and their anchors.

Then explain the difference in 'jurisdiction'.

Legal residents are here with the authorization of our government- and are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Illegal residents are here without the authorization of our government- and are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

I don't confuse anything- I am trying to get you to stay on point and discuss the issue you seem to be concerned about.

The language of the 14th Amendment regarding citizenship is short and clear:

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.

Can you agree that the only part of that statement that we are in disagreement about is this phrase:
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof?

So how is a legal alien subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- but an illegal alien not subject to it?

Both can be arrested. Both can be prosecuted and imprisoned. Both can be deported. Both still have allegiance to the country that they are citizens of.

So what 'jurisdiction' is it that legal aliens are subject to- that illegal aliens are not?

 

[Syriusly]

It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?

I just don't get it.

Mark

They are either bleeding heart liberals or they have ethnic ties to illegal aliens or are here illegally themselves. Thus their position. They don't give a damn about how this attracts more illegals to our country or how much this is costing the American taxpayer. Even if they seriously believed that the writer's intent were to make children of illegal aliens citizens by birth why wouldn't they want to change that based on the above? It's not like changes to our Constitution hasn't happened before. Why do they defend these illegal foreigners and the scam of our birthright citizenship? The answer lies in my first sentence.

By that perverted 'logic', everyone who is arguing against 'anchor babies' are small minded fascists, or racists. Thus their position. They don't give a damn about the Constitution- they just want to deny children citizenship.

See how that works?

No- I don't think you are fascists or racists- but that is how stupid arguments like yours can be switched around.

If it were truly about racism then

I will quote you the last line from the post you are responding to:

No- I don't think you are fascists or racists- but that is how stupid arguments like yours can be switched around.

 

[Syriusly]

It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?

I just don't get it.

Mark

They are either bleeding heart liberals or they have ethnic ties to illegal aliens or are here illegally themselves. Thus their position. They don't give a damn about how this attracts more illegals to our country or how much this is costing the American taxpayer. Even if they seriously believed that the writer's intent were to make children of illegal aliens citizens by birth why wouldn't they want to change that based on the above? It's not like changes to our Constitution hasn't happened before. Why do they defend these illegal foreigners and the scam of our birthright citizenship? The answer lies in my first sentence.

Well, I might be a bleeding heart liberal but I certainly don't have ties to illegal immigrants and I certain give a damn about the huge illegal immigration problem. If not, I wouldn't be writing this post.

I just don't believe in changing the constitution when there is no evidence that doing so will substantially reduce illegal immigration. The "anchor baby" is just a divergence from dealing with real immigration problems. We need to be focusing on cutting off jobs to illegal immigrants, enforcing vista expiration, strengthening border security, untangling immigration law so it doesn't take 6 months for deportation or a year to for Mexicans to visit family in the US, and of course resolving the issue of 11 million illegal immigrants living here.

Correct.

Seeking to 'change' the 14th Amendment is ridiculous and unwarranted; predicated on the post hoc fallacy that the Amendment's Citizenship Clause acts as an 'incentive' to undocumented immigration, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

And unfortunately there are those who seek to 'change' the 14th Amendment motivated solely by bigotry and racism toward Hispanics, and the unfounded fear that Hispanic immigration will 'change' America. It is the fear of change and the hatred of diversity common to most reactionaries.

The fact that you use the PC word "undocumented" tells me a lot about you.

The fact that you use the word 'anchor baby' tells me a lot about you.

 

[Syriusly]

I just found the ignore feature to be used on certain posters in this forum. What a great feature to use and I did. I have no use for childish behavior in a forum by someone who can't be civil and all they have are insults instead of civil debate. They need to go play on the kindergarten school ground instead of in an adult forum.

In other words- you just found out you don't have to read the posts of anyone who disagrees with you.

How very brave.

I'm reading yours, aren't I? The person I have on ignore is because he constantly kept referring to me in a derogatory manner and kept insulting me with his one liners. That isn't debate. Sorry that you can't recognize the difference between civil debate between two people who disagree and name calling and insults. It's disappointing that you don't know the difference.

My apologies- I thought you were speaking about everyone who disagreed with you.

 

[Oldglory1]

Again, I repeat that Wong Kim Ark was not about illegal alien parents. so why do you continue to bring up that case? Show me one case that was or stop comparing apples to oranges.

Wong Kim Ark was about foreigners, aliens, who were in the United States legally, but still had allegiance to a foreign country.

Show me where the 14th Amendment mentions illegal aliens or stop bringing them up.

The 14th amendment does not mentions illegal aliens nor does it mention blacks, terrorists, Muslims, criminals, or even native born Americans but it applies to all of them. The amendment begins All persons born or naturalized.. which should give you a hint as to the wide scope of it's applicability..

Have you noticed the disconnect here?

These folks seem to think that children of legal immigrants are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States but not the children of illegal aliens.

But cannot differentiate how jurisidiction applies differently to legal aliens versus illegal aliens.

And that is because it applies exactly the same.

IF children of legal aliens are citizens under the 14th Amendment, then the children of illegal aliens have to be be citizens also- based upon the clear language of the 14th Amendment.

IF children of illegal aliens are not citizens, then neither are the children of legal aliens.

And Wong Kim Ark made it clear that the children of legal aliens are citizens per the 14th Amendment.

It is NOT the same! Legal residents are here with authorization from our government and that is what the Wonk Kim Ark case was about. You also confuse being subject to our laws as meaning being subject to our full jurisdiction and illegal aliens are not. You are twisting the clear language of the 14th to mean that it extends birthright citizenship to children of illegals aliens when "clearly" it does not by the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction. It doesn't say subject to our "full" jurisdiction and it was even discussed at the time of it's writing. You just don't want to accept that because clearly you have an agenda to flood our country with illegal aliens and their anchors.

Then explain the difference in 'jurisdiction'.

Legal residents are here with the authorization of our government- and are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Illegal residents are here without the authorization of our government- and are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

I don't confuse anything- I am trying to get you to stay on point and discuss the issue you seem to be concerned about.

The language of the 14th Amendment regarding citizenship is short and clear:

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.

Can you agree that the only part of that statement that we are in disagreement about is this phrase:
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof?

So how is a legal alien subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- but an illegal alien not subject to it?

Both can be arrested. Both can be prosecuted and imprisoned. Both can be deported. Both still have allegiance to the country that they are citizens of.

So what 'jurisdiction' is it that legal aliens are subject to- that illegal aliens are not?

Again, you keep going back to being subject to our laws as a qualifier for birthright citizenship. Anyone within our borders is subject to obeying our laws but that doesn't equate to gaining birthright citizenship for your kids. Look at the debates that went on when the amendment was written. I have no way to convince you otherwise as you completely disregard my comment that why was the qualifier of "and" subject our jurisdiction put in the amendment if one is automatically subject to our jurisdiction just by being here? I guess we will just have to agree to disagree as all we are doing is repeated ourselves and beating our head on the wall. I just wish you'd explain to me why you won't join the movement to end this nonsense since it makes a mockery of our citizenship and it is costly us dearly in tax dollars supporting these millions of kids from illegal alien parents and is one incentive for them to continue to come here. Obama just encouraged more by allowing those with U.S. born kids to remain here. So lets' just start discussing this issue from that point of view from now on, shall we?

 

[Oldglory1]

It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?

I just don't get it.

Mark

They are either bleeding heart liberals or they have ethnic ties to illegal aliens or are here illegally themselves. Thus their position. They don't give a damn about how this attracts more illegals to our country or how much this is costing the American taxpayer. Even if they seriously believed that the writer's intent were to make children of illegal aliens citizens by birth why wouldn't they want to change that based on the above? It's not like changes to our Constitution hasn't happened before. Why do they defend these illegal foreigners and the scam of our birthright citizenship? The answer lies in my first sentence.

Well, I might be a bleeding heart liberal but I certainly don't have ties to illegal immigrants and I certain give a damn about the huge illegal immigration problem. If not, I wouldn't be writing this post.

I just don't believe in changing the constitution when there is no evidence that doing so will substantially reduce illegal immigration. The "anchor baby" is just a divergence from dealing with real immigration problems. We need to be focusing on cutting off jobs to illegal immigrants, enforcing vista expiration, strengthening border security, untangling immigration law so it doesn't take 6 months for deportation or a year to for Mexicans to visit family in the US, and of course resolving the issue of 11 million illegal immigrants living here.

Correct.

Seeking to 'change' the 14th Amendment is ridiculous and unwarranted; predicated on the post hoc fallacy that the Amendment's Citizenship Clause acts as an 'incentive' to undocumented immigration, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

And unfortunately there are those who seek to 'change' the 14th Amendment motivated solely by bigotry and racism toward Hispanics, and the unfounded fear that Hispanic immigration will 'change' America. It is the fear of change and the hatred of diversity common to most reactionaries.

The fact that you use the PC word "undocumented" tells me a lot about you.

The fact that you use the word 'anchor baby' tells me a lot about you.

Just recently their parents became "anchored" to our country by Obama allowing them to remain here because they have U.S. born kids. Thus the word :"anchor baby" was an ample term all along.

 

[Flopper]

The CIS itself says that it is merely offering an opinion, and reflects the opinion of some legal scholars. Certainly not all.

You haven't debunked anything- you have provided your opinion. Which is contrary to how the law is enforced currently and contrary to the findings of Wong Kim Ark.

That and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee.

Again, I repeat that Wong Kim Ark was not about illegal alien parents. so why do you continue to bring up that case? Show me one case that was or stop comparing apples to oranges.

Wong Kim Ark was about foreigners, aliens, who were in the United States legally, but still had allegiance to a foreign country.

Show me where the 14th Amendment mentions illegal aliens or stop bringing them up.

The 14th amendment does not mentions illegal aliens nor does it mention blacks, terrorists, Muslims, criminals, or even native born Americans but it applies to all of them. The amendment begins All persons born or naturalized.. which should give you a hint as to the wide scope of it's applicability..

Have you noticed the disconnect here?

These folks seem to think that children of legal immigrants are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States but not the children of illegal aliens.

But cannot differentiate how jurisidiction applies differently to legal aliens versus illegal aliens.

And that is because it applies exactly the same.

IF children of legal aliens are citizens under the 14th Amendment, then the children of illegal aliens have to be be citizens also- based upon the clear language of the 14th Amendment.

IF children of illegal aliens are not citizens, then neither are the children of legal aliens.

And Wong Kim Ark made it clear that the children of legal aliens are citizens per the 14th Amendment.

It is NOT the same! Legal residents are here with authorization from our government and that is what the Wonk Kim Ark case was about. You also confuse being subject to our laws as meaning being subject to our full jurisdiction and illegal aliens are not. You are twisting the clear language of the 14th to mean that it extends birthright citizenship to children of illegals aliens when "clearly" it does not by the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction. It doesn't say subject to our "full" jurisdiction and it was even discussed at the time of it's writing. You just don't want to accept that because clearly you have an agenda to flood our country with illegal aliens and their anchors.

The Supreme Court gave us the definition of jurisdiction as it applies to the citizenship clause, "subject to the laws of the United States" The court could not have been any clearer in it's interpretation of the citizenship clause. The court in it's ruling rejected the government's claim of allegiance to a foreign government. So reading the citizenship clause with the Supreme Court's definition of jurisdiction, the clause would read, " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the laws of the United States thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

 

[Syriusly]

So what does jurisdiction mean?

Well the Supreme Court has actually specifically commented on the term 'jurisdiction' in regards to the 14th Amendment and illegal aliens.

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.

While you argue that the Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the issue of the children of illegal aliens born in the United States, the Supreme Court has specifically addressed the only argument you have made- you claim that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- the Supreme Court has specifically said illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Given that- are you ready to concede that your argument is either with:
a) the language of the 14th Amendment itself or
b) the analysis of the Supreme Court starting with Wong Kim Ark continuing onto Plyler v. Doe?

 

[Syriusly]

They are either bleeding heart liberals or they have ethnic ties to illegal aliens or are here illegally themselves. Thus their position. They don't give a damn about how this attracts more illegals to our country or how much this is costing the American taxpayer. Even if they seriously believed that the writer's intent were to make children of illegal aliens citizens by birth why wouldn't they want to change that based on the above? It's not like changes to our Constitution hasn't happened before. Why do they defend these illegal foreigners and the scam of our birthright citizenship? The answer lies in my first sentence.

Well, I might be a bleeding heart liberal but I certainly don't have ties to illegal immigrants and I certain give a damn about the huge illegal immigration problem. If not, I wouldn't be writing this post.

I just don't believe in changing the constitution when there is no evidence that doing so will substantially reduce illegal immigration. The "anchor baby" is just a divergence from dealing with real immigration problems. We need to be focusing on cutting off jobs to illegal immigrants, enforcing vista expiration, strengthening border security, untangling immigration law so it doesn't take 6 months for deportation or a year to for Mexicans to visit family in the US, and of course resolving the issue of 11 million illegal immigrants living here.

Correct.

Seeking to 'change' the 14th Amendment is ridiculous and unwarranted; predicated on the post hoc fallacy that the Amendment's Citizenship Clause acts as an 'incentive' to undocumented immigration, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

And unfortunately there are those who seek to 'change' the 14th Amendment motivated solely by bigotry and racism toward Hispanics, and the unfounded fear that Hispanic immigration will 'change' America. It is the fear of change and the hatred of diversity common to most reactionaries.

The fact that you use the PC word "undocumented" tells me a lot about you.

The fact that you use the word 'anchor baby' tells me a lot about you.

Just recently their parents became "anchored" to our country by Obama allowing them to remain here because they have U.S. born kids. Thus the word :"anchor baby" was an ample term all along.

"anchor baby' has always been a pejorative term aimed at American citizens whose only 'offense' was to be born to illegal aliens.

 

[Syriusly]

I guess we will just have to agree to disagree as all we are doing is repeated ourselves and beating our head on the wall. I just wish you'd explain to me why you won't join the movement to end this nonsense since it makes a mockery of our citizenship and it is costly us dearly in tax dollars supporting these millions of kids from illegal alien parents and is one incentive for them to continue to come here. Obama just encouraged more by allowing those with U.S. born kids to remain here. So lets' just start discussing this issue from that point of view from now on, shall we?

I have already said that if you want to change the plain language of the 14th Amendment to exclude the children of illegal aliens, then the only method to do so is to pass another amendment. The devil would be in the details. Depending on how it was worded- I might support such an amendment.

But frankly in today's hyper partisan atmosphere when it comes to immigration reform- its not going to happen.

I am all for comprehensive immigration reform that seriously addresses immigration and:
a) creates a more secure border(no border can be absolutely secure- people even escaped through the Berlin wall)
b) makes employers responsible for ensuring that they hire only employees legally entitled to work in the United States-
c) but only after giving employers the tools that they can use to verify employee legal status- e-verify is on the right track but is far from perfect.
d) identify how we will get the legal immigrant labor that we do need- and make that work.
e) identify the sectors of employment we do not want or need additional legal immigrant workforce, and focus enforcement efforts on employers in those industries.
f) a rational approach to bring legal status to those currently in the U.S. illegally but responsibly- I am opposed to a pathway to citizenship for anyone who has entered the United States illegally.

 

[Flopper]

It seems to me that there are some posting here that WANT illegals to be able to barge in, and get what they want. Why is that? What would make you feel like this? As far as I'm concerned, technology and sending jobs overseas have cut our standard of living. What is it that making millions of low educated illegals compete for too few jobs appealing to those that seem to want it to happen?

I just don't get it.

Mark

They are either bleeding heart liberals or they have ethnic ties to illegal aliens or are here illegally themselves. Thus their position. They don't give a damn about how this attracts more illegals to our country or how much this is costing the American taxpayer. Even if they seriously believed that the writer's intent were to make children of illegal aliens citizens by birth why wouldn't they want to change that based on the above? It's not like changes to our Constitution hasn't happened before. Why do they defend these illegal foreigners and the scam of our birthright citizenship? The answer lies in my first sentence.

Well, I might be a bleeding heart liberal but I certainly don't have ties to illegal immigrants and I certain give a damn about the huge illegal immigration problem. If not, I wouldn't be writing this post.

I just don't believe in changing the constitution when there is no evidence that doing so will substantially reduce illegal immigration. The "anchor baby" is just a divergence from dealing with real immigration problems. We need to be focusing on cutting off jobs to illegal immigrants, enforcing vista expiration, strengthening border security, untangling immigration law so it doesn't take 6 months for deportation or a year to for Mexicans to visit family in the US, and of course resolving the issue of 11 million illegal immigrants living here.

Correct.

Seeking to 'change' the 14th Amendment is ridiculous and unwarranted; predicated on the post hoc fallacy that the Amendment's Citizenship Clause acts as an 'incentive' to undocumented immigration, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

And unfortunately there are those who seek to 'change' the 14th Amendment motivated solely by bigotry and racism toward Hispanics, and the unfounded fear that Hispanic immigration will 'change' America. It is the fear of change and the hatred of diversity common to most reactionaries.

So you are saying that automatic citizen for a baby born to illegal immergrants gives zero incentive for people to cross the border illegally? Also, are you saying that there are no issues with deporting illegal immigrants that are parents of citizen children ( hince the term anchor babies)?

Post hoc fallacy my ass!

In every good myth, there exist at least a few grains of truth and there are certainly a number of grains of truth in the Anchor Baby myth.

Do our birthright laws provide any incentive to illegally immigrate to the US? Of course they do, but so do many other aspects of life in the US.

A Pew Research Center report quoted in Congress and the media claims that over 340,000 children are born each year to at least one undocumented parent. Using that study, opponents of immigration reform have painted a picture of a hoard of young pregnant girls coming to the US to "drop and leave" their unborn. What they do not tell you is that 80% of those children in the study are born after they been in the US one year and the majority of them were after 5 years of residence. That blows a giant hole in the notion that mothers are crossing the U.S.-Mexican border just in time to give birth in American hospitals.

It is also alleged that women illegally immigrate to the US to have babies so the children will provide an "anchor", thus preventing the mother from being deported. There is some truth in this but just a grain. The mother or father who is scheduled for deportation may have their removal cancelled provided they can prove they have lived in the US for a minimum of 10 years, are providing the support for the child, are of good moral character and have not been convicted of a felony. The immigration service caps the cancellation of removal at 4000/yr. The actual number of cancellations have been well below that cap. Claiming that young women enter the US to have children so if they get tapped for deportation after 10 years, they might be able to get the deportation cancelled is a bit ridiculous.

It is also claimed that an "Anchor baby" will be able to sponsor parents, brothers, sisters, and friends; again a grain of truth. The child can sponsor others but only after reaching age 21. Also, sponsoring a person does not mean automatic legal status. There are still a number of criteria that must be met to attain legal residence in the US. So does this provide an incentive to illegally enter the US? Maybe, but those incentives are long term and certainly of questionable value.

Lastly, it is claimed that these anchor babies will provide welfare and a number benefits for the family; again a grain of truth. The child being a US citizens is entitle to Medicaid and some other benefits provided certain criteria are met. The parent must apply for the child and meet the income requirements. The benefits are paid only for the child not the remainder family. Claims of the economic drain on society posed by these children fail to take into account the taxes and other economic contributions that the US citizen child will pay over a lifetime. There are many successful people in our society who were born of illegal parents, one being a US senator.

So yes, there is some truth to the anchor baby myth but nothing like the opponents of immigration reform claim. Any sort of near term benefit accrues to child not the mother. Other benefits are long term, 10 or 20 years and are of questionable value.

http://www.scottimmigration.net/AnchorBaby.pdf
Dispelling 8220 Anchor Baby 8221 Myths TIME.com

 

[80zephyr]

Currently the government interprets the constitution such that achor babies are America citizens. I believe that popular support now exists to ammend the constitution to change this. Citizen status should not be given to the child born to illegal immergrants just because that child is born in the US.

That's been the interpretation since the Supreme Court decision in the Wong Kim Ark case in which the court ruled that that the word jurisdiction in the citizenship clause mean subject to the laws of the United States. With that ruling, the citizenship clause, "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." grants citizenship to any child born in the US, regardless of whether the parents are legal, illegal, serial killers, terrorist or whatever.

Asking the court to revise their interpretation of the meaning of jurisdiction when the 14th amendment was passed because the government can't or won't enforce immigration law is completely illogical. If we want to exclude the children born of illegal immigrants from citizenship then we have to change the law which means changing the constitution.

Well Duh!

And if the government "won't enforce immigration law" then we may as well just go ahead and rename the country the United States of Mexico.

How about creating laws that are enforceable and insisting that the government enforce those laws.

Changing the constitution so every native born American parent must prove their citizenship to big brother so their children will be citizens is a huge overkill. First of all, even if you abolish Jos Soli, you will still have a big illegal immigration problem as most illegal immigrants are motivated by jobs not having babies in the US. Secondly, there is no creditable evidence that changing our citizenship laws will reduce illegal immigration. Third, considering our 50 year history of deportations, there is no reason to believe that the children of illegal immigrants will ever be deported.

Anchor babies is just one of the problems with our current immigration system/laws. Having other problems to be fixed does not justify not fixing this one. Also, if we don't have the will at some point to draw a line in the sand and enforce immigration laws by securing the borders and deporting those that overstay their visas, then immergration reform is useless. Why pass laws that will not be enforced anyway. That is what has put us in the situation we are in now.

For immergration reform to work, we need to stop the madness of giving illegal immergrants access to public assistance, public education, driver's licenses, bank accounts, etc. In other words, make it where they can't function here and the will not come, they will not stay.

What hard evidence do we have that changing our birthright law which is in the constitution will reduce illegal immigration? There is much anecdotal evidence but what real evidence do we have. If we're going to change the constitution which would effect every parent having children now and in the future and every child who grows up without citizenship certification, every states birth laws and citizenship laws, as well as a number of federal statues and federal regulations we better have damn good evidence that the change will substantial reduce illegal immigration. That evidence just doesn't exist.

The only way to get "real" evidence is to institute the policy. Everything else is conjecture.

Mark

 

[Oldglory1]

Again, I repeat that Wong Kim Ark was not about illegal alien parents. so why do you continue to bring up that case? Show me one case that was or stop comparing apples to oranges.

Wong Kim Ark was about foreigners, aliens, who were in the United States legally, but still had allegiance to a foreign country.

Show me where the 14th Amendment mentions illegal aliens or stop bringing them up.

The 14th amendment does not mentions illegal aliens nor does it mention blacks, terrorists, Muslims, criminals, or even native born Americans but it applies to all of them. The amendment begins All persons born or naturalized.. which should give you a hint as to the wide scope of it's applicability..

Have you noticed the disconnect here?

These folks seem to think that children of legal immigrants are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States but not the children of illegal aliens.

But cannot differentiate how jurisidiction applies differently to legal aliens versus illegal aliens.

And that is because it applies exactly the same.

IF children of legal aliens are citizens under the 14th Amendment, then the children of illegal aliens have to be be citizens also- based upon the clear language of the 14th Amendment.

IF children of illegal aliens are not citizens, then neither are the children of legal aliens.

And Wong Kim Ark made it clear that the children of legal aliens are citizens per the 14th Amendment.

It is NOT the same! Legal residents are here with authorization from our government and that is what the Wonk Kim Ark case was about. You also confuse being subject to our laws as meaning being subject to our full jurisdiction and illegal aliens are not. You are twisting the clear language of the 14th to mean that it extends birthright citizenship to children of illegals aliens when "clearly" it does not by the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction. It doesn't say subject to our "full" jurisdiction and it was even discussed at the time of it's writing. You just don't want to accept that because clearly you have an agenda to flood our country with illegal aliens and their anchors.

The Supreme Court gave us the definition of jurisdiction as it applies to the citizenship clause, "subject to the laws of the United States" The court could not have been any clearer in it's interpretation of the citizenship clause. The court in it's ruling rejected the government's claim of allegiance to a foreign government. So reading the citizenship clause with the Supreme Court's definition of jurisdiction, the clause would read, " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the laws of the United States thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

What it supposedly should state according to your own opinion and what you claim about the Supreme Court's meaning doesn't mean squat. What it actually states is the only thing relevant. "And", etc. is a qualifier. If there wasn't a requirement for birthright citizenship that phrase would not have been necessary. Still parroting the Wong Kim Ark case which was about parents here legally? Apples and oranges do not make your case. As I told another poster since we cannot agree on the meaning of the 14th how about we move forward and discuss making the change since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and is costing us dearly in tax dollars? Are you up for it? Didn't think so because your agenda trumps common sense and what is in the best interests of this country and it's citizens. So there is no further need to discuss our differences of opinion on what the 14th actually means. Unless of course you want to beat a dead horse to death. I certainly don't.

 

[Syriusly]

That's been the interpretation since the Supreme Court decision in the Wong Kim Ark case in which the court ruled that that the word jurisdiction in the citizenship clause mean subject to the laws of the United States. With that ruling, the citizenship clause, "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." grants citizenship to any child born in the US, regardless of whether the parents are legal, illegal, serial killers, terrorist or whatever.

Asking the court to revise their interpretation of the meaning of jurisdiction when the 14th amendment was passed because the government can't or won't enforce immigration law is completely illogical. If we want to exclude the children born of illegal immigrants from citizenship then we have to change the law which means changing the constitution.

Well Duh!

And if the government "won't enforce immigration law" then we may as well just go ahead and rename the country the United States of Mexico.

How about creating laws that are enforceable and insisting that the government enforce those laws.

Changing the constitution so every native born American parent must prove their citizenship to big brother so their children will be citizens is a huge overkill. First of all, even if you abolish Jos Soli, you will still have a big illegal immigration problem as most illegal immigrants are motivated by jobs not having babies in the US. Secondly, there is no creditable evidence that changing our citizenship laws will reduce illegal immigration. Third, considering our 50 year history of deportations, there is no reason to believe that the children of illegal immigrants will ever be deported.

Anchor babies is just one of the problems with our current immigration system/laws. Having other problems to be fixed does not justify not fixing this one. Also, if we don't have the will at some point to draw a line in the sand and enforce immigration laws by securing the borders and deporting those that overstay their visas, then immergration reform is useless. Why pass laws that will not be enforced anyway. That is what has put us in the situation we are in now.

For immergration reform to work, we need to stop the madness of giving illegal immergrants access to public assistance, public education, driver's licenses, bank accounts, etc. In other words, make it where they can't function here and the will not come, they will not stay.

What hard evidence do we have that changing our birthright law which is in the constitution will reduce illegal immigration? There is much anecdotal evidence but what real evidence do we have. If we're going to change the constitution which would effect every parent having children now and in the future and every child who grows up without citizenship certification, every states birth laws and citizenship laws, as well as a number of federal statues and federal regulations we better have damn good evidence that the change will substantial reduce illegal immigration. That evidence just doesn't exist.

The only way to get "real" evidence is to institute the policy. Everything else is conjecture.

Mark

Why would we institute a policy based upon conjecture that you have no evidence to support?

 

[Syriusly]

Wong Kim Ark was about foreigners, aliens, who were in the United States legally, but still had allegiance to a foreign country.

Show me where the 14th Amendment mentions illegal aliens or stop bringing them up.

The 14th amendment does not mentions illegal aliens nor does it mention blacks, terrorists, Muslims, criminals, or even native born Americans but it applies to all of them. The amendment begins All persons born or naturalized.. which should give you a hint as to the wide scope of it's applicability..

Have you noticed the disconnect here?

These folks seem to think that children of legal immigrants are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States but not the children of illegal aliens.

But cannot differentiate how jurisidiction applies differently to legal aliens versus illegal aliens.

And that is because it applies exactly the same.

IF children of legal aliens are citizens under the 14th Amendment, then the children of illegal aliens have to be be citizens also- based upon the clear language of the 14th Amendment.

IF children of illegal aliens are not citizens, then neither are the children of legal aliens.

And Wong Kim Ark made it clear that the children of legal aliens are citizens per the 14th Amendment.

It is NOT the same! Legal residents are here with authorization from our government and that is what the Wonk Kim Ark case was about. You also confuse being subject to our laws as meaning being subject to our full jurisdiction and illegal aliens are not. You are twisting the clear language of the 14th to mean that it extends birthright citizenship to children of illegals aliens when "clearly" it does not by the qualifier of "and" subject to our jurisdiction. It doesn't say subject to our "full" jurisdiction and it was even discussed at the time of it's writing. You just don't want to accept that because clearly you have an agenda to flood our country with illegal aliens and their anchors.

The Supreme Court gave us the definition of jurisdiction as it applies to the citizenship clause, "subject to the laws of the United States" The court could not have been any clearer in it's interpretation of the citizenship clause. The court in it's ruling rejected the government's claim of allegiance to a foreign government. So reading the citizenship clause with the Supreme Court's definition of jurisdiction, the clause would read, " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the laws of the United States thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

What it supposedly should state according to your own opinion and what you claim about the Supreme Court's meaning doesn't mean squat. What it actually states is the only thing relevant. "And", etc. is a qualifier. If there wasn't a requirement for birthright citizenship that phrase would not have been necessary. Still parroting the Wong Kim Ark case which was about parents here legally? Apples and oranges do not make your case. As I told another poster since we cannot agree on the meaning of the 14th how about we move forward and discuss making the change since it makes a mockery out of our citizenship and is costing us dearly in tax dollars? Are you up for it? Didn't think so because your agenda trumps common sense and what is in the best interests of this country and it's citizens. So there is no further need to discuss our differences of opinion on what the 14th actually means. Unless of course you want to beat a dead horse to death. I certainly don't.

Yet you repeated your unsubstantiated opinion again.

'And' is the qualifier- none of us disagree with that.

Jurisdiction is required- none of us disagree with that.

The Supreme Court has however ruled specifically that illegal aliens do fall within the jurisdiction of the United States.

And therefore- what you call 'anchor babies' are U.S. citizens.

If you don't like that, then you need to change the Constitution.

 

[Oldglory1]

Well, I might be a bleeding heart liberal but I certainly don't have ties to illegal immigrants and I certain give a damn about the huge illegal immigration problem. If not, I wouldn't be writing this post.

I just don't believe in changing the constitution when there is no evidence that doing so will substantially reduce illegal immigration. The "anchor baby" is just a divergence from dealing with real immigration problems. We need to be focusing on cutting off jobs to illegal immigrants, enforcing vista expiration, strengthening border security, untangling immigration law so it doesn't take 6 months for deportation or a year to for Mexicans to visit family in the US, and of course resolving the issue of 11 million illegal immigrants living here.

Correct.

Seeking to 'change' the 14th Amendment is ridiculous and unwarranted; predicated on the post hoc fallacy that the Amendment's Citizenship Clause acts as an 'incentive' to undocumented immigration, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

And unfortunately there are those who seek to 'change' the 14th Amendment motivated solely by bigotry and racism toward Hispanics, and the unfounded fear that Hispanic immigration will 'change' America. It is the fear of change and the hatred of diversity common to most reactionaries.

The fact that you use the PC word "undocumented" tells me a lot about you.

The fact that you use the word 'anchor baby' tells me a lot about you.

Just recently their parents became "anchored" to our country by Obama allowing them to remain here because they have U.S. born kids. Thus the word :"anchor baby" was an ample term all along.

"anchor baby' has always been a pejorative term aimed at American citizens whose only 'offense' was to be born to illegal aliens.

It's only pejorative term according to the pro-illegals like yourself. It's an ample term for the situation. Their parents come here hoping to anchor themselves unto our country by giving birth on our soil. No one is saying their U.S. born kids committed an offense but their parents certainly did. You're just spinning the truth now.