The anchor baby myth

[johnwk]

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.

You confuse the documented words of those who framed the 14th Amendment which explains its legislative intent as being hot air. Do you not know the fundamental rules of constitutional construction?


JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is a myth to allege that "if a foreigner enters our country illegally and gives birth to a child, that child" should not become "a citizen of the United States upon birth." The interpretation of the 14th Amendment does not support such an assertion.

Another myth is that the nativists construct accurately the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

 

[johnwk]

I think the constitution does grant citizenship to anchor babies. ....

The Supreme Court agrees with you.

Is that so?


in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 101 (1884) our Supreme Court says:




'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States,but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.


“Allegiance”! Keep that word in mind!



And in IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) the SCOTUS emphatically states with regard to 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.


The court continues in Elk v. Wilkins:



Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.'


And how may an alien become subject to the political jurisdiction of the United States? Surprise! By our naturalization process which requires an “Oath of Allegiance to the United States” which is taken during naturalization proceedings.

The following is the text of the “Oath Of Allegiance”

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;



that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;



that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;





that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;





that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;




that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and



that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God


By this oath, an alien becomes “subject to the jurisdiction” of the united States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment and a baby born to such an individual would then be a citizen of the US because its mother owes her allegiance to the United States.

The court continues in Elk v. Wilkins:




Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country, but are forbidden by its system of government, as well as by its positive laws, from doing so, and are not permitted to acquire another citizenship by the laws of the country into which they come, must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country.


Now why would the SCOTUS repeatedly make statements that the wording 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of aliens born on American soil?

I would say it’s because the court is required to abide by the intentions for which the 14th Amendment was adopted, and, the statement made by the Court expresses the very intentions, as stated by Senator Howard who moved the Senate on May 30th, 1866, to take up H.J. Res. 127, which proposed an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.


Upon the Senate taking up the motion, Senator Howard states the following:



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: Con. Globe, 39th Congress (1866) page 2890


Now, as to the Wong Kim Ark case of 1889 which is always trotted out by our progressive crowd for a variety of reasons, it simply does not apply to foreign nationals who have invaded our borders. As a matter of fact the decision of the Court in Wong hinged on the status of the parents of Wong Kim Ark who just happened to be legal immigrants, had a legal domicile in the United States, and had an established business, unlike those who now invade our borders to have kids believing these kids are their ticket to legalizing their criminal breach of our borders.


Those who wish to make our Constitution mean what ever they wish it to mean will never give you the full story of Wong Kim Ark. They merely state the Court held Wong Kim Ark, born on American soil was held to be an American Citizen, and they hope that no one decides to read the case, or, they haven’t read the case themselves.

JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[Unkotare]

I think the constitution does grant citizenship to anchor babies. ....

The Supreme Court agrees with you.

Is that so?

Yes, it is so.

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

 

[Windship]

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


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[/QUOTE]

Im scarred. Your not because you totally do not understand the bad effects of illegal immigration. You see "people looking for a better life" Awwwww...
I see a country falling apart. If your correct, explain what has happened to our economy and wages, jobs and benefits the last 45 yrs .

 

[Unkotare]

You see "people looking for a better life" Awwwww.......

You used quotation marks. Who are you quoting?

 

[Windship]

I used quotation marks didn't I?....jeez....

 

[Windship]

Uncle terrie, why don't you educate yourself?

 

[Windship]

....learn about the neg effects...

 

[Windship]

...so as to stop making yourself look like a fool.

 

[Unkotare]

I used quotation marks didn't I?....

So, who were you quoting?

 

[Unkotare]

Uncle terrie, why don't you educate yourself?

About what?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Based upon the logic of your alternative you could also simply hope that winged unicorns fly the illegals out of the United States.

The language of the 14th Amendment is clear and unambiguous- and the Supreme Court has recognized that.

You want to change the 14th Amendment- then you need to change the Constitution.

Or you can hope that winged unicorns or a new Supreme Court will handle it 'someday'.

 

[johnwk]

I think the constitution does grant citizenship to anchor babies. ....

The Supreme Court agrees with you.

Is that so?

Yes, it is so.

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

In regard to the Wong Kim Ark case of 1889 which is always trotted out by our progressive crowd for a variety of reasons, it simply does not apply to foreign nationals who have invaded our borders. As a matter of fact the decision of the Court in Wong hinged on the status of the parents of Wong Kim Ark who just happened to be legal immigrants, had a legal domicile in the United States, and had an established business, unlike those who now invade our borders to have kids believing these kids are their ticket to legalizing their criminal breach of our borders.


Those who wish to make our Constitution mean what ever they wish it to mean will never give you the full story of Wong Kim Ark. They merely state the Court held Wong Kim Ark, born on American soil was held to be an American Citizen, and they hope that no one decides to read the case, or, they haven’t read the case themselves. JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[Unkotare]

it simply does not apply to ...

It directly applies to the topic at hand, regardless of what you may or may not want.

 

[Syriusly]

I think the constitution does grant citizenship to anchor babies. ....

The Supreme Court agrees with you.

Is that so?

Yes, it is so.

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

In regard to the Wong Kim Ark case of 1889 which is always trotted out by our progressive crowd for a variety of reasons, it simply does not apply to foreign nationals who have invaded our borders. As a matter of fact the decision of the Court in Wong hinged on the status of the parents of Wong Kim Ark who just happened to be legal immigrants, had a legal domicile in the United States, and had an established business, unlike those who now invade our borders to have kids believing these kids are their ticket to legalizing their criminal breach of our borders.


Those who wish to make our Constitution mean what ever they wish it to mean will never give you the full story of Wong Kim Ark. They merely state the Court held Wong Kim Ark, born on American soil was held to be an American Citizen, and they hope that no one decides to read the case, or, they haven’t read the case themselves. JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Plyler v. Doe

Texas officials had argued that unauthorized immigrants were not "within the jurisdiction" of the state and could thus not claim protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court majority rejected this claim, finding instead that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

 

[Kondor3]

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?

Because I don't feel like playing touchy-feely word-games over this, and, yes, I'm an American citizen.

 

[Kondor3]

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?

Doesn't exist yet.

1. we need to stack the deck in the Supreme Court for this purpose

2. next, we drum-up some Test Case or another, designed to put the question to the Test

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Doesn't exist yet.

1. we need to stack the deck in the Supreme Court for this purpose

LOL.....in other words you are just hoping for some winged unicorns to change the interpretation of the law.

 

[Kondor3]

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.

Based upon the logic of your alternative you could also simply hope that winged unicorns fly the illegals out of the United States.

The language of the 14th Amendment is clear and unambiguous- and the Supreme Court has recognized that.

You want to change the 14th Amendment- then you need to change the Constitution.

Or you can hope that winged unicorns or a new Supreme Court will handle it 'someday'.

All it takes is for the Supreme Court to reverse its previous stand regarding 'clear and unambiguous language', and to read a different (and historically accurate) specific intent into the thing, in order to change the dynamic in a heartbeat. What are the odds? Beats the hell outta me. But it's worth examining, as an alternative to re-doing the 14th.