The anchor baby myth

When you have UNSECURE borders you have NO country....


You sure sound scared, missy. Illegal immigration is certainly a problem, but we still have a country, chicken little.
No little retard we don't ....


We still have a country, coward. Weaklings like you are never part of the solution of problems.


R-word Spread the Word to End the Word
Do you have any idea how many Mexican Military incursions there were in Texas alone last year? NO, because you are a retard. So let's educate you retard.


THAT retard is the result of an unsecure border.
 
I can't wait for the day that the democrats that basically want our southern border wide open to realize that they have allowed millions of Latino Christians that despise gay marriage, legal pot and abortion... to enter our nation :disbelief:
 
I can't wait for the day that the democrats that basically want our southern border wide open to realize that they have allowed millions of Latino Christians that despise gay marriage, legal pot and abortion... to enter our nation :disbelief:




You don't have to wait. Many Latino-Americans are already planning on voting against the democrats, or just staying home out of regard to the above issues.
 
I can't wait for the day that the democrats that basically want our southern border wide open to realize that they have allowed millions of Latino Christians that despise gay marriage, legal pot and abortion... to enter our nation :disbelief:




You don't have to wait. Many Latino-Americans are already planning on voting against the democrats, or just staying home out of regard to the above issues.
THIS half Mexican IS voting against Democrats AND Rinos.
Time to get rid of BOTH.
 
Has anyone challenged this over the past half century? Has this issue been brought before Congress over the past half century? Is it being ignored or misinterpreted by states, and by the federal government?

Yup. That amendment was added so that the children of ex slaves would be recognized as US citizens.

Its not longer needed and should either be removed or changed.

The US is the only country in the world that recognizes everyone born in the country as a citizen.

I'm surprised no one in Congress or in State Govt. has lobbied to have this changed.

Its a way for illegal aliens to suck off our social services. Once that child is recognized as American it opens that door.
 
We are led to believe that if a foreigner enters our country illegally and gives birth to a child, that child, because of the 14th Amendment, becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth. As we shall see, that is one of the biggest myths alleged concerning the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment. Let us look at some documented facts.


In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) the Court states the following regarding the 14th Amendment:

“That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“.


And why would the Court indicate the wording in the 14th Amendment which declares “and subject to its jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from citizenship “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States“?

The answer is to be found in the Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, which framed and debated the 14th Amendment. For example, in discussing the proposed 14th Amendment, Senator Howard explains the clear intentions of the 14th Amendment as follows:

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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.(my emphasis) see: Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890


Later, and after the question was repeatedly asked as to who is and who is not a citizen of the United States, Mr. TRUMBULL responds as follows SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)
1st column halfway down

“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

Mr. Trumbull later emphasizes in crystal clear language that: “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”


Mr. JOHNSON then rises to say: “…there is no definition in the Constitution as it now stands as to citizenship. Who is a citizen of the United States is an open question….there is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the United States except through the medium of a citizenship in a State.

“Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”
…he then continues “…the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”

And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866) middle column half way down.

And so, a baby born to a foreign national mother while on American soil is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, nor becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth.

JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

You're an idiot.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark US Law LII Legal Information Institute

You should take some time to study the case you cite. Those who have know you are the "idiot".

JWK







To support Jeb Bush is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny which includes giving legal status and work permits to tens of millions who have invaded our borders!



 
When you have UNSECURE borders you have NO country....


You sure sound scared, missy. Illegal immigration is certainly a problem, but we still have a country, chicken little.
No little retard we don't NOT when cities and people disobey the safety and security of others to clear their moral thoughts. Which plays to a second question.

What retards or tards think ANY social problem is cured by doing something illegal? Oh democrats!
The right doesn't seem to have a problem with our illegal drug war; does that answer your question.
 
When you have UNSECURE borders you have NO country....


You sure sound scared, missy. Illegal immigration is certainly a problem, but we still have a country, chicken little.
No little retard we don't NOT when cities and people disobey the safety and security of others to clear their moral thoughts. Which plays to a second question.

What retards or tards think ANY social problem is cured by doing something illegal? Oh democrats!
The right doesn't seem to have a problem with our illegal drug war; does that answer your question.




"Illegal"?
 
I live in Arizona and it NOT a myth, it's a FACT.
Yep.

But it's a regular laugh-riot, watching Pro-Illegals types trying to hoodwink their fellow Americans, on behalf of these Invaders.

Want to stay in the States? Come-on over, pop-out a puppy or two, and you're in... regular Gold-Standard Stuff, that.

Time to revisit and re-interpret the 14th - on the SCOTUS level - to negate the Anchor Baby effect.

Too late to do anything about the American-born Brats of Illegals already here, but, that re-interpretation will go a long way towards slowing the flow of Future Invaders.
 
I live in Arizona and it NOT a myth, it's a FACT.
Yep.

But it's a regular laugh-riot, watching Pro-Illegals types trying to hoodwink their fellow Americans, on behalf of these Invaders.

Want to stay in the States? Come-on over, pop-out a puppy or two, and you're in... regular Gold-Standard Stuff, that.

Time to revisit and re-interpret the 14th - on the SCOTUS level - to negate the Anchor Baby effect.

Too late to do anything about the American-born Brats of Illegals already here, but, that re-interpretation will go a long way towards slowing the flow of Future Invaders.



Are you a puppy? Were you popped out, or were you born?
 
It is really pretty simple.

Anyone born in the United States- except those born of diplomats is an American citizen.

If you don't like that- well that is what Constitutional Amendments are for.
 
You should take some time to study the case you cite. Those who have know you are the "idiot".

The fact, therefore, that acts of Congress or treaties have not permitted Chinese persons born out of this country to become citizens by naturalization, cannot exclude Chinese persons born in this country from the operation of the broad and clear words of the Constitution, "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

You're posting a bunch of hot air. This is an issue settled long, long ago. The anchor baby loophole should be eliminated, there's no doubt about that. But for you to sit here and say it's a myth makes you an idiot.
 
I live in Arizona and it NOT a myth, it's a FACT.
Yep.

But it's a regular laugh-riot, watching Pro-Illegals types trying to hoodwink their fellow Americans, on behalf of these Invaders.

Want to stay in the States? Come-on over, pop-out a puppy or two, and you're in... regular Gold-Standard Stuff, that.

Time to revisit and re-interpret the 14th - on the SCOTUS level - to negate the Anchor Baby effect.

Too late to do anything about the American-born Brats of Illegals already here, but, that re-interpretation will go a long way towards slowing the flow of Future Invaders.



Are you a puppy? Were you popped out, or were you born?
I live in Arizona and it NOT a myth, it's a FACT.
Yep.

But it's a regular laugh-riot, watching Pro-Illegals types trying to hoodwink their fellow Americans, on behalf of these Invaders.

Want to stay in the States? Come-on over, pop-out a puppy or two, and you're in... regular Gold-Standard Stuff, that.

Time to revisit and re-interpret the 14th - on the SCOTUS level - to negate the Anchor Baby effect.

Too late to do anything about the American-born Brats of Illegals already here, but, that re-interpretation will go a long way towards slowing the flow of Future Invaders.



Are you a puppy? Were you popped out, or were you born?
Awwwwww... did I offend with that insensitive remark? Excellent. That was the purpose behind the verbiage. To offend those who advocate for them to stay here.
 
It is really pretty simple.

Anyone born in the United States- except those born of diplomats is an American citizen.

If you don't like that- well that is what Constitutional Amendments are for.
Or, alternatively, simply serve-up an Illegals-hostile RE-interpretation of the 14th, by a willing SCOTUS, declaring that the 14th was intended to provide citizenship for slaves back in the 19th Century, and that it cannot be utilized as a 'loophole' to grant citizenship to future Anchor Babies. Much cheaper and faster than a Constitutional Amendment.
 
Has anyone challenged this over the past half century? Has this issue been brought before Congress over the past half century? Is it being ignored or misinterpreted by states, and by the federal government?
People born here because of criminal intent OR actions should NOT be called citizens.

Dear DarkFury
1. the parents who committed the violations should owe restitution,
and not get a free ride, the same as people who did NOT commit any violations

2. why not have ALL citizens earn privileges? So it isn't discriminating on the basis of being born here or not.
The price for citizenship is that you can't deliberately commit crimes, and run up the tab on taxpayers' expenses.
Every citizen signs for legal and financial responsibility for costs incurred; if unable to, then a sponsor must cosign who accepts legal and financial responsibility.
That means if you do commit premeditated violations, then you (or your sponsoring guardian or organization) agrees to pay restitution and any legal or adminstrative/prosecution costs so this doesn't burden the public/taxpayers.

That way whatever policy people follow, they pay for. Not someone else who didn't agree to pay extra
when someone else commits crimes and costs taxpayers more money than they can afford.

As a condition on citizenship, teach each legal citizen the COST of different actions; so if they commit that deliberately, they have signed agreement to pay the cost for that.

Don't you think that might deter crime if people were held to pay the costs of their actions?

3. have each district sign agreements, and people who can't agree can live in different districts with different tax rates depending on the policy for cost of violations. The districts that succeed in reducing crime rates get to invest more taxes in school and community programs and business development. If some districts want to specialize in mentoring people in recovery from addiction, abuse or crime, then the resources can be invested in those programs. So the Democrats who WANT to fund people in poverty until they become independent can sponsor such programs and participants in district DESIGNED to educate and house and train such populations. Instead of prisons, build schools and manage these programs where there is a check on the budget. Not just making money off crime where the contracts go to big industry profits. The money saved means support for the programs to help more people. So if the rehab is successful, crime is cut and costs are reduced, then those same resources can pay for housing, health care, job training and other services for enrollees in the program.

Earned Amnesty
The babies go on welfare.
The parents get to stay.
The parents get the checks.
It's fraud via a proxy.
They are using the proxy "child" to commit that fraud.
They have ALREADY demeaned that child to that of a tool.
DEPORT ONE AND ALL.

Well, and when the child reaches his/her/its majority, they can then submit application to be readmitted to the US as citizens based on their birth here. If they wish to import their criminal parents, then they must follow the same rules and regulations as any other US citizen who wishes to gain admittance for family members of foreign origin. Of course, the previous criminal activities of any family member should be taken into consideration when such applications are considered.
 
Awwwwww... did I offend with that insensitive remark? Excellent. That was the purpose behind the verbiage. To offend those who advocate for them to stay here.


You didn't answer the question. Why not? Here's another: Are you a US citizen?
 
It is really pretty simple.

Anyone born in the United States- except those born of diplomats is an American citizen.

If you don't like that- well that is what Constitutional Amendments are for.
Or, alternatively, simply serve-up an Illegals-hostile RE-interpretation of the 14th, by a willing SCOTUS, declaring that the 14th was intended to provide citizenship for slaves back in the 19th Century, and that it cannot be utilized as a 'loophole' to grant citizenship to future Anchor Babies. Much cheaper and faster than a Constitutional Amendment.


And where is the case you are trying to bring before the Supreme Court?
 

Forum List

Back
Top