Anchor Baby provisions are unconstitutional.

[ihopehefails]

What a shame. The need to revise the 14th is worthy of discussion. Sadly, this OP does not lend itself to such a conversation.

Instead of commenting your own thoughts you just decided to insult other people. Doesn't that make you a dick?

Insult other people? hjmick? Are you out of your mind?

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit either.

Sadly, this OP does not lend itself to such a conversation

There is nothing insulting about this is there?

 

[Big Black Dog]

The 14th amendment states that any person born here is a citizen of the United States and the courts have ruled that because a child born here is a citizen the parents are also citizens hence the term anchor babies. The courts have overstepped their powers because only congress has the power to write naturalization rules and I believe that the 'anchor baby' law was not created by any congressional act but by the federal court system. This 'precedence' in itself is unconstitutional since only the federal congress has the power to make 'anchor baby' laws since it has the power to write all naturalization laws.

I agree completely with you. Why don't you take it up with the Supreme Court. You'll be a real, live, honest to God Patriot. Most likely even get a mention on Bill O'Reilly's Show.

 

[ihopehefails]

Some of you missed the point I was trying to make is that the congress has the power to write naturalization rule and not the supreme court so it is not possible for the court to legislate from the bench over this matter or any other matter whatsoever especially with what they are legislating over is a power granted to the congress. That was the point I was trying to make.

 

[goldcatt]

Instead of commenting your own thoughts you just decided to insult other people. Doesn't that make you a dick?

Insult other people? hjmick? Are you out of your mind?

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit either.

Sadly, this OP does not lend itself to such a conversation

There is nothing insulting about this is there?

No, there isn't. How does pointing out that your premise is flawed and factually incorrect equate to a personal insult?

Calling you a dumbass who should be used to people telling you you're wrong by now, that's insulting.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The 14th amendment states that any person born here is a citizen of the United States and the courts have ruled that because a child born here is a citizen the parents are also citizens hence the term anchor babies. The courts have overstepped their powers because only congress has the power to write naturalization rules and I believe that the 'anchor baby' law was not created by any congressional act but by the federal court system. This 'precedence' in itself is unconstitutional since only the federal congress has the power to make 'anchor baby' laws since it has the power to write all naturalization laws.

Hey stupid, here's what the 14th Amendment states about citizenship......

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution.

Your thread is an epic fail 'tard.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Some of you missed the point I was trying to make is that the congress has the power to write naturalization rule and not the supreme court so it is not possible for the court to legislate from the bench over this matter or any other matter whatsoever.

Best get used to the Supreme Court legislating from the bench. It's the "new" way for America. The Constitution is just for looking at in the museums now. Just another worthless piece of Americana gone by the wayside. At least until we get a new President.

 

[ihopehefails]

The 14th amendment states that any person born here is a citizen of the United States and the courts have ruled that because a child born here is a citizen the parents are also citizens hence the term anchor babies. The courts have overstepped their powers because only congress has the power to write naturalization rules and I believe that the 'anchor baby' law was not created by any congressional act but by the federal court system. This 'precedence' in itself is unconstitutional since only the federal congress has the power to make 'anchor baby' laws since it has the power to write all naturalization laws.

Hey stupid, here's what the 14th Amendment states about citizenship......

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution.

Your thread is an epic fail 'tard.

Duh! So does everyone else over the powers they got. The legislative interprets the constitution for its own use such as realizing how long in office they have. They look at the constitution, interpret it, and realize how long the constitution gives them in office during their term.

The president interprets the constitution as well and should veto bills based on that.

But here is the biggest kicker of them all. One branch can't have an exclusive authority over how it interprets the constitution since it is three separate and EQUAL branches of the government so how can one branch tell the other on how it should execute its powers granted to it in the constitution?

The executive can't tell the judicial on how to judge cases over what it thinks the constitution means no more than it can tell any other branch of government on how to execute its powers based on the constitution.

 

[ihopehefails]

Insult other people? hjmick? Are you out of your mind?

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit either.

Sadly, this OP does not lend itself to such a conversation

There is nothing insulting about this is there?

No, there isn't. How does pointing out that your premise is flawed and factually incorrect equate to a personal insult?

Calling you a dumbass who should be used to people telling you you're wrong by now, that's insulting.

He didn't actually point it out. Nothing in his post resembled an argument about the actual topic I posted. He just posed some half assed insulting post.

 

[goldcatt]

The 14th amendment states that any person born here is a citizen of the United States and the courts have ruled that because a child born here is a citizen the parents are also citizens hence the term anchor babies. The courts have overstepped their powers because only congress has the power to write naturalization rules and I believe that the 'anchor baby' law was not created by any congressional act but by the federal court system. This 'precedence' in itself is unconstitutional since only the federal congress has the power to make 'anchor baby' laws since it has the power to write all naturalization laws.

Hey stupid, here's what the 14th Amendment states about citizenship......

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution.

Your thread is an epic fail 'tard.

Duh! So does everyone else over the powers they got. The legislative interprets the constitution for its own use such as realizing how long in office they have. They look at the constitution, interpret it, and realize how long the constitution gives them in office during their term.

The president interprets the constitution as well and should veto bills based on that.

But here is the biggest kicker of them all. One branch can't have an exclusive authority over how it interprets the constitution since it is three separate and EQUAL branches of the government so how can one branch tell the other on how it should execute its powers granted to it in the constitution?

The executive can't tell the judicial on how to judge cases over what it thinks the constitution means no more than it can tell any other branch of government on how to execute its powers based on the constitution.

Good one ihop!

 

[ABikerSailor]

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and how the laws of our land either are or are not constitutional.

Stating that anchor babies cannot be citizens is going to require an amendment.

 

[goldcatt]

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and how the laws of our land either are or are not constitutional.

Stating that anchor babies cannot be citizens is going to require an amendment.

Save your finger pad, you're talking to somebody who doesn't understand the idea of separation of powers and coeval branches of government.

 

[hjmick]

What a shame. The need to revise the 14th is worthy of discussion. Sadly, this OP does not lend itself to such a conversation.

Instead of commenting your own thoughts you just decided to insult other people. Doesn't that make you a dick?

Wow, I confess to being somewhat taken aback by your reaction. While I am not above insulting other people, I generally reserve such for fun or people I am familiar with. And while I have been known to be a dick, this was not my intention here. I am sorry you took my criticism of your OP as a personal insult. I had no idea you were so sensitive.

As for my own thoughts, I thought they were clear in my post. I believe that the 14th Amendment has served it's purpose and is past due for some revisions, if not an outright repeal.

In your OP you say, "the courts have ruled that because a child born here is a citizen the parents are also citizens." This is false. As such, I felt there was no point in a discussion based on your apparent lack of understanding of the 14th Amendment and the term "anchor babies."

The 14th amendment states that any person born here is a citizen of the United States and the courts have ruled that because a child born here is a citizen the parents are also citizens hence the term anchor babies. The courts have overstepped their powers because only congress has the power to write naturalization rules and I believe that the 'anchor baby' law was not created by any congressional act but by the federal court system. This 'precedence' in itself is unconstitutional since only the federal congress has the power to make 'anchor baby' laws since it has the power to write all naturalization laws.

The Fourteenth Amendment was enacted after the Civil War as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. It provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling the Dred Scott decision which had excluded recently freed slaves and their descendants from possessing Constitutional rights. Over time it has been applied to children born to immigrants, legal and illegal, in the U.S. Since these children are citizens, they can not be deported, but their parents can. However, our government is reluctant to break up families and they can't deport the children, so the children become "anchors" keeping the parents in the country. Thus the term "anchor babies."

I have never heard of one instance of citizenship being bestowed upon a person simply because they had a baby in the United States.

Feel free to provide a link proving otherwise. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The 14th amendment states that any person born here is a citizen of the United States and the courts have ruled that because a child born here is a citizen the parents are also citizens hence the term anchor babies. The courts have overstepped their powers because only congress has the power to write naturalization rules and I believe that the 'anchor baby' law was not created by any congressional act but by the federal court system. This 'precedence' in itself is unconstitutional since only the federal congress has the power to make 'anchor baby' laws since it has the power to write all naturalization laws.

To what court case are you referring to?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Need to research before you post.

relatives (including moms and dads) of us citizens go to the front of the line in immigration quotas. but the US citizen has to sign a paper that they will support the immigrant.

I don't think a new infant can do that.

any kid born of a us citizen is a us citizen no matter where the birth takes place. but the converse is not true. You can't grant citizenship to the parent because the child is a citizen.

There probably are lots of kids in Mexico who have very valuable birth certificates. But that won't do them any good if they don't have skills. and they have to wait before they are 16 before they can take advantage of them.

Who actually declared that though. Is it in the naturalization rules established by congress or did the court legislate that from the bench? That was my point. The courts would be overstepping its bounds if it did since only the congress has that power.

What does it matter? Just go with whatever bolsters your argument the best.

 

[chanel]

The United Kingdom, for example, formerly allowed Birthright citizenship. In 1981, because of immigration pressures, they restricted it to now require that one parent be a legal resident. In France birthright citizenship has been changed — now children between the ages of 16 and 22 of illegal alien parents must actively seek French citizenship.

It should be noted that on June 11, 2004 Irish voters voted in a national referendum to end automatic citizenship for any child born in Ireland regardless of the parents’ residence status. Ireland was the last member of the European Union to allow pregnant foreigners to gain residence and welfare benefits as a result of birth in the country. (Seattle Post Intelligencer, June 13, 2004.)

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

 

[goldcatt]

What a shame. The need to revise the 14th is worthy of discussion. Sadly, this OP does not lend itself to such a conversation.

Instead of commenting your own thoughts you just decided to insult other people. Doesn't that make you a dick?

Wow, I confess to being somewhat taken aback by your reaction. While I am not above insulting other people, I generally reserve such for fun or people I am familiar with. And while I have been known to be a dick, this was not my intention here. I am sorry you took my criticism of your OP as a personal insult. I had no idea you were so sensitive.

As for my own thoughts, I thought they were clear in my post. I believe that the 14th Amendment has served it's purpose and is past due for some revisions, if not an outright repeal.

In your OP you say, "the courts have ruled that because a child born here is a citizen the parents are also citizens." This is false. As such, I felt there was no point in a discussion based on your apparent lack of understanding of the 14th Amendment and the term "anchor babies."

The 14th amendment states that any person born here is a citizen of the United States and the courts have ruled that because a child born here is a citizen the parents are also citizens hence the term anchor babies. The courts have overstepped their powers because only congress has the power to write naturalization rules and I believe that the 'anchor baby' law was not created by any congressional act but by the federal court system. This 'precedence' in itself is unconstitutional since only the federal congress has the power to make 'anchor baby' laws since it has the power to write all naturalization laws.

The Fourteenth Amendment was enacted after the Civil War as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. It provides a broad definition of citizenship, overruling the Dred Scott decision which had excluded recently freed slaves and their descendants from possessing Constitutional rights. Over time it has been applied to children born to immigrants, legal and illegal, in the U.S. Since these children are citizens, they can not be deported, but their parents can. However, our government is reluctant to break up families and they can't deport the children, so the children become "anchors" keeping the parents in the country. Thus the term "anchor babies."

I have never heard of one instance of citizenship being bestowed upon a person simply because they had a baby in the United States.

Feel free to provide a link proving otherwise. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.

While I disagree the Fourteenth as a whole is due for repeal, and would strongly object to revising most of it, there is an argument for revisiting and at minimum clarifying the issue of citizenship. The language as it stands was written to apply to a group that no longer exists in a time that is long gone, and leaves far too much gray area for my comfort.

 

[bodecea]

Some of you missed the point I was trying to make is that the congress has the power to write naturalization rule and not the supreme court so it is not possible for the court to legislate from the bench over this matter or any other matter whatsoever especially with what they are legislating over is a power granted to the congress. That was the point I was trying to make.

If the Supreme Court legislated from the Bench, what is the name of the new legislation they created? Or the # of the new law they created...that would do as well.

 

[DiamondDave]

The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution and how the laws of our land either are or are not constitutional.

And where in the constitution is that power actually given to the Judicial branch?

But yes.. I do agree that any anchor baby law (though I would agree with one) would require amendment

 

[jillian]

On the troll scale, I have to give this one a 7 for pure stupidity.

Bravo.

then he/she/it is losing its touch... it's trolls are usually a 12 on a scale of 1 to 10.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Need to research before you post.

relatives (including moms and dads) of us citizens go to the front of the line in immigration quotas. but the US citizen has to sign a paper that they will support the immigrant.

I don't think a new infant can do that.

any kid born of a us citizen is a us citizen no matter where the birth takes place. but the converse is not true. You can't grant citizenship to the parent because the child is a citizen.

There probably are lots of kids in Mexico who have very valuable birth certificates. But that won't do them any good if they don't have skills. and they have to wait before they are 16 before they can take advantage of them.

Who actually declared that though. Is it in the naturalization rules established by congress or did the court legislate that from the bench? That was my point. The courts would be overstepping its bounds if it did since only the congress has that power.

I can't cite chapter and verse, but this has always been the case that spouses and other relatives go to the front of the line. It is part of the statute.

It is also part of my belief that the relative of the citizen counts against the national quota. I am not sure of that though.