"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[Spare_change]

........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.

How many of them are Supreme Court justices?

Disregarding the dissenting opinions on the original cases, none have had the opportunity to offer a position.

So, your answer is 'none' then?

Huh? Isn't that what I said? No Supreme Court Justice has the opportunity to offer an opinion in recent times.

Words too big?

 

[Unkotare]

........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.

How many of them are Supreme Court justices?

Disregarding the dissenting opinions on the original cases, none have had the opportunity to offer a position.

So, your answer is 'none' then?

Huh? Isn't that what I said??

Actually, you have just been avoiding a direct answer.

 

[80zephyr]

........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.

How many of them are Supreme Court justices?

Sad isn't it, that the SCOTUS doesn't follow the Constitution as it was intended. Let Jefferson explain:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

And since we already know what the author of the citizenship clause said it meant, it is obvious that the way it is applied today is wrong.

Mark

 

[Unkotare]

Oh I think your three degrees from beautician college just aren't helping you much here.

You don't like our Constitution- specifically you don't like the 14th Amendment- the clear and specific language of the 14th Amendment.

You don't have the cajones to try to change it legally- so you just whine about how much everyone else misunderstands it.

Once again: You don't like the 14th Amendment- then change it. Otherwise stop whining about our Constitution

They're from private universities you would be wasting your time applying to because they would laugh if you wated the time sending yours in.

It's doesn't need to be changed. It needs to be applies based on the intent behind its writing and that intent was never meant to allow children of those illegally coming here citizenship.

You should get a refund from your beautician college.

The language of the 14th Amendment is clear.

You want the courts to ignore the clear language and agree with your interpretation of intent.

It's not my interpretation of intent. It's those that wrote the Amendment. I want the courts to apply it in the way those that wrote it intended it to be applied. You can deny what I say is true but all it takes it looking it up to see the purpose of the 14th and giving the offspring of criminal citizenship isn't it son.

If that's your opinion, what have you done about it besides ***** and moan on the internet?

It's not an opinion if it's based on what those that wrote the Amendment said it was and wasn't designed to do. It's called fact. If you call that bitching, it makes you the only ***** here boy.

You didn't answer the question, Daffy.

 

[BULLDOG]

Somebody needs to tell all those constitutional scholars that some anonymous guy on the internet says they are all wrong. I'm sure they will be happy to change their minds immediately.

........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.

It's your silly claim. Where is the link?

I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to spend MY time educating YOU ... if you want to know, look it up.

Got it......You pulled it out of your ass.

As you wish ... if you feel the need to be spoon-fed information, then look for somebody else to do it. If you want to smugly pretend that you have the correct answer, be my guest. If you're too damn lazy to check it out, so be it.

Frankly, punks like you who are more interested in 'winning' than in knowing the truth, are a major contributor to the problems in this country. You aren't interested in expanding your knowledge base, you're only interested in expanding your ego.

You won ... you're ignorant, you're wrong, but you won .... and, after all, isn't feeding that pathetic little ego what's most important in the end?

Nothing to do with winning. You made another stupid claim, like teabaggers often do, and couldn't back it up. The only win here would be if you actually questioned some of the ridiculous claims you have been told, or at least stop repeating the most obvious lies.

 

[Flopper]

I'll ignore your gross comments and try to answer your question. Illegal immigrants get to stay in this country for a number of reasons.

• The vast majority of people don't want to see them all deported. They want to see those that are a real danger to us removed, not those that are making a contribution to our communities. Without widespread public support, our immigration laws are not enforceable.
• Even thou they entered the country illegally, they still have constitutional rights provided by the 5th and 14th constitutional.amendment.
• Over the last 30 years we have increased spending on immigration enforcement by a factor of 30 times. Yearly deportations have increased from 30,000 in 1990 to 188,000 in 2000 to 368,000 in 2013. We passed major immigration legislation 10 times since 1990. And yet, we have over 11 million illegal immigrants and more coming each year. It's time to try a new approach because what we have done is not working. Until we eliminate the real reasons why these people cross our boarders, jobs and family nothing is going to change.

Nope, only ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers want illegal aliens to remain here. The rest of us law abiding, loyal Americans want them removed as our laws state and they are enforceable. Illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans while they thumb their noses at our immigration laws.

Yes, the new approach should be removing all of the incentives for them to continue to come here and to remain here. The combination of the removal of the job incentives, benefits and birthright citizenship will do the trick. But then you obviously want them here.

Those ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers that want illegal aliens to remain here represent about 80% of the population because that's the percentage of Americans that oppose deportation of all illegal immigrants.

The facts don't support your statement that illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans. The Social Security administration estimates that illegal aliens have paid over a trillion dollars into the Social Security Trust Funds, dollars that they will never receive in benefits. Illegal aliens pay sales taxes, income tax, and property taxes if they own property. The idea that they contribute nothing to the country is ridiculous.

Many thousands of illegal immigrants and their children have become productive members of society. Some doing jobs that native born Americans turn their nose up at. Others have become leaders both nationally and locally. Republican Senator Pete Domenici is the son of illegal immigrants, one of those anchor babies you want to see deported. Then there's Jose Antonio Vargas, an illegal immigrant who became a journalist and was awarded the Pulitzer Price. Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa entered this country illegally, worked as a migrant worker, obtained and education, attended Harvard Medical School, and today is a neurosurgeon on the staff of John Hopkins. Juan Gomez was brought to the US illegally by his parents when he was 5 years old. He worked his way through UCLA and now owns 41 restaurants. Juan Escalante, another illegal immigrant who served his country fighting Iraq. Etc Etc....

Illegals contribute something. They give traitors like you a reason to exist. I don't care what they've done since, their first act was a crime which you want to ignore. You are worse than the illegals. It's no suprise they keep coming. They know traitors like you will overlook what they do. One problem with your list. You left out all those who have raped, murdered, etc. honorable citizens. If you are going to provide a list, provide both sides or, much like you as a person, it means nothing .

There's no need to list the failures. The failures make big news and there're all over the media. The tens of thousands of illegal immigrants that become successful against all odds don't make the headlines; the kid that turned cutting lawns into a landscape business, the Mexican girl who goes from busing tables, to waitress, to chef and the day laborer who now owns his own construction business.

Most illegal immigrants don't want the attention of the news media or government but there are a few stories that do attract the media. One of those is Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa. At the age 5 he was selling hot dogs to motorist in a his small Mexican village a few hours southeast of San Diego. The money he earned help support his family of 8. He finished high school in Mexico with excellent grades, crossed the boarder hoping to find work to help support his family but he became a penniless teenager. He worked in the fields, later found a job on the railway, took English at a community college, and took various other jobs in hopes of earning enough money for college. He won a scholarship at Berkeley, worked his way through school and graduated with honors. After graduation he was Admitted to Harvard Medical School and latter joined the staff at John Hopkins, a world renowned teaching hospital.

I certainly wish there were no illegal immigrants in this country but the fact is there are. Deporting them is not going to happen, primarily because the vast majority of people oppose it. So we are left with one of two choices, do nothing or enact legislation that will provide some path to legal residency for those that have proved they are an asset to the nation, deport those that are a danger, require employers to verify legal residency, revised the immigration rules so Mexicans can easily visit family in the US with temporary visas, and lastly set up a monitoring system of visa holders to identify and remove those with expired visas.

We can fix the immigration problem, but only if we take a pragmatic, not an ideological approach.

Not if we continue to give them amnesty.

That you won't list the ones that raped, murdered, robbed, etc. discredits your entire post. Making excuses as to why you won't discredits a traitors like you personally.

In regard to violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants, the only meaningful statistic is crimes/thousand and since there are no accurate figures as to the number of illegal immigrants in any given area, there are no reliable statistics. Yes, we know how many illegal immigrants were arrested for violent crimes in a given city, but we don't know how many illegal immigrants are actually in that city. Are there more crimes by illegal immigrants than whites, probably yes because they are a poor minority group.

 

[Flopper]

I'll ignore your gross comments and try to answer your question. Illegal immigrants get to stay in this country for a number of reasons.

• The vast majority of people don't want to see them all deported. They want to see those that are a real danger to us removed, not those that are making a contribution to our communities. Without widespread public support, our immigration laws are not enforceable.
• Even thou they entered the country illegally, they still have constitutional rights provided by the 5th and 14th constitutional.amendment.
• Over the last 30 years we have increased spending on immigration enforcement by a factor of 30 times. Yearly deportations have increased from 30,000 in 1990 to 188,000 in 2000 to 368,000 in 2013. We passed major immigration legislation 10 times since 1990. And yet, we have over 11 million illegal immigrants and more coming each year. It's time to try a new approach because what we have done is not working. Until we eliminate the real reasons why these people cross our boarders, jobs and family nothing is going to change.

Nope, only ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers want illegal aliens to remain here. The rest of us law abiding, loyal Americans want them removed as our laws state and they are enforceable. Illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans while they thumb their noses at our immigration laws.

Yes, the new approach should be removing all of the incentives for them to continue to come here and to remain here. The combination of the removal of the job incentives, benefits and birthright citizenship will do the trick. But then you obviously want them here.

Those ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers that want illegal aliens to remain here represent about 80% of the population because that's the percentage of Americans that oppose deportation of all illegal immigrants.

The facts don't support your statement that illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans. The Social Security administration estimates that illegal aliens have paid over a trillion dollars into the Social Security Trust Funds, dollars that they will never receive in benefits. Illegal aliens pay sales taxes, income tax, and property taxes if they own property. The idea that they contribute nothing to the country is ridiculous.

Many thousands of illegal immigrants and their children have become productive members of society. Some doing jobs that native born Americans turn their nose up at. Others have become leaders both nationally and locally. Republican Senator Pete Domenici is the son of illegal immigrants, one of those anchor babies you want to see deported. Then there's Jose Antonio Vargas, an illegal immigrant who became a journalist and was awarded the Pulitzer Price. Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa entered this country illegally, worked as a migrant worker, obtained and education, attended Harvard Medical School, and today is a neurosurgeon on the staff of John Hopkins. Juan Gomez was brought to the US illegally by his parents when he was 5 years old. He worked his way through UCLA and now owns 41 restaurants. Juan Escalante, another illegal immigrant who served his country fighting Iraq. Etc Etc....

Illegals contribute something. They give traitors like you a reason to exist. I don't care what they've done since, their first act was a crime which you want to ignore. You are worse than the illegals. It's no suprise they keep coming. They know traitors like you will overlook what they do. One problem with your list. You left out all those who have raped, murdered, etc. honorable citizens. If you are going to provide a list, provide both sides or, much like you as a person, it means nothing .

There's no need to list the failures. The failures make big news and there're all over the media. The tens of thousands of illegal immigrants that become successful against all odds don't make the headlines; the kid that turned cutting lawns into a landscape business, the Mexican girl who goes from busing tables, to waitress, to chef and the day laborer who now owns his own construction business.

Most illegal immigrants don't want the attention of the news media or government but there are a few stories that do attract the media. One of those is Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa. At the age 5 he was selling hot dogs to motorist in a his small Mexican village a few hours southeast of San Diego. The money he earned help support his family of 8. He finished high school in Mexico with excellent grades, crossed the boarder hoping to find work to help support his family but he became a penniless teenager. He worked in the fields, later found a job on the railway, took English at a community college, and took various other jobs in hopes of earning enough money for college. He won a scholarship at Berkeley, worked his way through school and graduated with honors. After graduation he was Admitted to Harvard Medical School and latter joined the staff at John Hopkins, a world renowned teaching hospital.

I certainly wish there were no illegal immigrants in this country but the fact is there are. Deporting them is not going to happen, primarily because the vast majority of people oppose it. So we are left with one of two choices, do nothing or enact legislation that will provide some path to legal residency for those that have proved they are an asset to the nation, deport those that are a danger, require employers to verify legal residency, revised the immigration rules so Mexicans can easily visit family in the US with temporary visas, and lastly set up a monitoring system of visa holders to identify and remove those with expired visas.

We can fix the immigration problem, but only if we take a pragmatic, not an ideological approach.

So according to you improving one's lot in life while diminishing the lives of the rightful citizens of this country and also doing so by breaking all sorts of laws is A-ok with you? My what a wonderful American YOU are! Where did you learn your code of ethics?

You forgot to mention the solution that would be in the best interests of the citizens of this country and that is to remove all of the incentives for them to remain here and continue to come here. And no, most Americans do not want them to remain here. Why would they when they need the jobs they are holding and rewarding lawbreakers never makes sense.

So you think the majority of Americans want all illegal immigrants deported? That's not what any of the major poll report. In fact, they show that the vast majority of Americans oppose such action.

Most Americans need the jobs that illegal immigrants are doing, so they want them deported?

 

[Wry Catcher]

"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."

I've always taken that clause to mean that the parents were at a minimum legal residents or citizens of the United States. The misinterpretation of this clause that has resulted in "anchor babies" has been a huge mistake that should have been rectified long ago, imo.

What does this clause mean to you: ";nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"? Think it through.

It's not what it means to me but what the intent was of it by those that wrote it. They made it clear and the Supreme Court upheld in subsequent cases that it wasn't intended to be used as you bleeding hearts want to use it. You don't have to believe me but if you go against the intent of those that wrote it , you go against history.

That's ^^^ not an answer. Who made it clear, post a link, please. And, what cases support you position?

 

[Spare_change]

........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.

It's your silly claim. Where is the link?

I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to spend MY time educating YOU ... if you want to know, look it up.

Got it......You pulled it out of your ass.

As you wish ... if you feel the need to be spoon-fed information, then look for somebody else to do it. If you want to smugly pretend that you have the correct answer, be my guest. If you're too damn lazy to check it out, so be it.

Frankly, punks like you who are more interested in 'winning' than in knowing the truth, are a major contributor to the problems in this country. You aren't interested in expanding your knowledge base, you're only interested in expanding your ego.

You won ... you're ignorant, you're wrong, but you won .... and, after all, isn't feeding that pathetic little ego what's most important in the end?

Nothing to do with winning. You made another stupid claim, like teabaggers often do, and couldn't back it up. The only win here would be if you actually questioned some of the ridiculous claims you have been told, or at least stop repeating the most obvious lies.

The first rule is 'when you're in a hole, stop digging'. Learn it, love it, live it .....

and, then, look at the references. OR, are you too intellectually lazy to do EVEN that?

 

[Syriusly]

........ OR you could actually do some research and discover that there is a significant portion of constitutional scholars who agree the Wong Ark interpretation was an error.

How many of them are Supreme Court justices?

Sad isn't it, that the SCOTUS doesn't follow the Constitution as it was intended. Let Jefferson explain:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

And since we already know what the author of the citizenship clause said it meant, it is obvious that the way it is applied today is wrong.

Mark

That opinion and 2 bucks will get your buck of coffee.

The difference between opinions of the Supreme Court- and yours- is that they not only have actual legal training- their opinions actually count.

 

[Syriusly]

I read it just fine-

"persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers"

Persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors- that is all part of one sentence- the foreigners- aliens- belong to the families of ambassadors- which is the only relevant remaining provision.

So, you agree that "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens," are not supposed to be anchor babies?

Mark

No one who is born in the United States who is born a foreigner, a alien, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers is an American citizen.

Anyone born in the United States who does not belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers- i.e. diplomats- is an American citizen.

Anchor baby is merely a term for an American citizen that other American citizens don't approve of.

The author of the citizenship clause tends to disagree with you, but, what would he know, right?

Mark

From your own quote he clearly agrees with me.

Those outside the jurisdiction include: "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers

Pretty clear that- foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of diplomats.

So ... tell me what you think he meant when he included 'foreigners, aliens' - differentiated from families of ambassadors, etc.

Who are these mysterious 'foreigners, aliens' born in the US that are NOT considered citizens?

The sentence is very clear.

The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.

 

[protectionist]

The birthright citizenship clause of the 14th amendment was never intended by its author (Jacob Howard), to give citizenship to foreigners, just because the parents came here before they were born (to acquire a lifetime of benefits at US taxpayer expense, from the birth of that child on the US side of the border).
Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> "[The 14th amendment] 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 person."

Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.

Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Spare_change]

So, you agree that "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens," are not supposed to be anchor babies?

Mark

No one who is born in the United States who is born a foreigner, a alien, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers is an American citizen.

Anyone born in the United States who does not belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers- i.e. diplomats- is an American citizen.

Anchor baby is merely a term for an American citizen that other American citizens don't approve of.

The author of the citizenship clause tends to disagree with you, but, what would he know, right?

Mark

From your own quote he clearly agrees with me.

Those outside the jurisdiction include: "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers

Pretty clear that- foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of diplomats.

So ... tell me what you think he meant when he included 'foreigners, aliens' - differentiated from families of ambassadors, etc.

Who are these mysterious 'foreigners, aliens' born in the US that are NOT considered citizens?

The sentence is very clear.

The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.

Surely, you jest ... English your second language???

 

[Conservative65]

"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."

I've always taken that clause to mean that the parents were at a minimum legal residents or citizens of the United States. The misinterpretation of this clause that has resulted in "anchor babies" has been a huge mistake that should have been rectified long ago, imo.

What does this clause mean to you: ";nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"? Think it through.

It's not what it means to me but what the intent was of it by those that wrote it. They made it clear and the Supreme Court upheld in subsequent cases that it wasn't intended to be used as you bleeding hearts want to use it. You don't have to believe me but if you go against the intent of those that wrote it , you go against history.

That's ^^^ not an answer. Who made it clear, post a link, please. And, what cases support you position?

Because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not an answer. That's your problem. You don't hear what you want so to you it's not an answer.

Slaughterhouse Cases and Elks v. Wilkins. The amendment didn't intend for the children of illegal criminal pieces of shit to be citizens traitor.

 

[Conservative65]

The birthright citizenship clause of the 14th amendment was never intended by its author (Jacob Howard), to give citizenship to foreigners, just because the parents came here before they were born (to acquire a lifetime of benefits at US taxpayer expense, from the birth of that child on the US side of the border).
Howard is a far more significant name in American history than most people realized. Some historians consider him to be as important as Lincoln in the abolition of slavery. He is credited with working closely with Lincoln in drafting and passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, which abolished slavery.
He also introduced the 14th Amendment, and served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction which drafted it. At this time, he said >> "[The 14th amendment] 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 person."

Clearly, Howard was not meaning to have foreigners helping themselves to US citizenship, and fortunes of US benefits, thereby.

Jacob M. Howard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It's a shame that the pro illegal crowd that claims they follow history refuse to read what those in the past say. It doesn't fit their agenda.

 

[Oldglory1]

So, you agree that "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens," are not supposed to be anchor babies?

Mark

No one who is born in the United States who is born a foreigner, a alien, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers is an American citizen.

Anyone born in the United States who does not belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers- i.e. diplomats- is an American citizen.

Anchor baby is merely a term for an American citizen that other American citizens don't approve of.

The author of the citizenship clause tends to disagree with you, but, what would he know, right?

Mark

From your own quote he clearly agrees with me.

Those outside the jurisdiction include: "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers

Pretty clear that- foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of diplomats.

So ... tell me what you think he meant when he included 'foreigners, aliens' - differentiated from families of ambassadors, etc.

Who are these mysterious 'foreigners, aliens' born in the US that are NOT considered citizens?

The sentence is very clear.

The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.

And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.

 

[Oldglory1]

Nope, only ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers want illegal aliens to remain here. The rest of us law abiding, loyal Americans want them removed as our laws state and they are enforceable. Illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans while they thumb their noses at our immigration laws.

Yes, the new approach should be removing all of the incentives for them to continue to come here and to remain here. The combination of the removal of the job incentives, benefits and birthright citizenship will do the trick. But then you obviously want them here.

Those ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers that want illegal aliens to remain here represent about 80% of the population because that's the percentage of Americans that oppose deportation of all illegal immigrants.

The facts don't support your statement that illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans. The Social Security administration estimates that illegal aliens have paid over a trillion dollars into the Social Security Trust Funds, dollars that they will never receive in benefits. Illegal aliens pay sales taxes, income tax, and property taxes if they own property. The idea that they contribute nothing to the country is ridiculous.

Many thousands of illegal immigrants and their children have become productive members of society. Some doing jobs that native born Americans turn their nose up at. Others have become leaders both nationally and locally. Republican Senator Pete Domenici is the son of illegal immigrants, one of those anchor babies you want to see deported. Then there's Jose Antonio Vargas, an illegal immigrant who became a journalist and was awarded the Pulitzer Price. Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa entered this country illegally, worked as a migrant worker, obtained and education, attended Harvard Medical School, and today is a neurosurgeon on the staff of John Hopkins. Juan Gomez was brought to the US illegally by his parents when he was 5 years old. He worked his way through UCLA and now owns 41 restaurants. Juan Escalante, another illegal immigrant who served his country fighting Iraq. Etc Etc....

Illegals contribute something. They give traitors like you a reason to exist. I don't care what they've done since, their first act was a crime which you want to ignore. You are worse than the illegals. It's no suprise they keep coming. They know traitors like you will overlook what they do. One problem with your list. You left out all those who have raped, murdered, etc. honorable citizens. If you are going to provide a list, provide both sides or, much like you as a person, it means nothing .

There's no need to list the failures. The failures make big news and there're all over the media. The tens of thousands of illegal immigrants that become successful against all odds don't make the headlines; the kid that turned cutting lawns into a landscape business, the Mexican girl who goes from busing tables, to waitress, to chef and the day laborer who now owns his own construction business.

Most illegal immigrants don't want the attention of the news media or government but there are a few stories that do attract the media. One of those is Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa. At the age 5 he was selling hot dogs to motorist in a his small Mexican village a few hours southeast of San Diego. The money he earned help support his family of 8. He finished high school in Mexico with excellent grades, crossed the boarder hoping to find work to help support his family but he became a penniless teenager. He worked in the fields, later found a job on the railway, took English at a community college, and took various other jobs in hopes of earning enough money for college. He won a scholarship at Berkeley, worked his way through school and graduated with honors. After graduation he was Admitted to Harvard Medical School and latter joined the staff at John Hopkins, a world renowned teaching hospital.

I certainly wish there were no illegal immigrants in this country but the fact is there are. Deporting them is not going to happen, primarily because the vast majority of people oppose it. So we are left with one of two choices, do nothing or enact legislation that will provide some path to legal residency for those that have proved they are an asset to the nation, deport those that are a danger, require employers to verify legal residency, revised the immigration rules so Mexicans can easily visit family in the US with temporary visas, and lastly set up a monitoring system of visa holders to identify and remove those with expired visas.

We can fix the immigration problem, but only if we take a pragmatic, not an ideological approach.

So according to you improving one's lot in life while diminishing the lives of the rightful citizens of this country and also doing so by breaking all sorts of laws is A-ok with you? My what a wonderful American YOU are! Where did you learn your code of ethics?

You forgot to mention the solution that would be in the best interests of the citizens of this country and that is to remove all of the incentives for them to remain here and continue to come here. And no, most Americans do not want them to remain here. Why would they when they need the jobs they are holding and rewarding lawbreakers never makes sense.

So you think the majority of Americans want all illegal immigrants deported? That's not what any of the major poll report. In fact, they show that the vast majority of Americans oppose such action.

Most Americans need the jobs that illegal immigrants are doing, so they want them deported?

I have links to polls that prove otherwise and it all depends on how the questions are posed as to the results. Law abiding Americans want illegal aliens deported for various reasons. They violated our immigration laws, they are costing us billions of dollars in social costs, they have taken jobs from Americans and reduced their wages, used fake or stolen ID's, tax evasion (felonies), overcrowded our schools, jails and hospitals due to uncontrolled, unplanned for population growth, are diluting our culture and language because most of them are from one ethnic group, increased crime, etc. Need I say more? We have enough of our own home grown criminals to deal with. We certainly don't need to add millions of illegal foreigners to the mix.

Most law abiding Americans are for self-deportations. Much cheaper that way. Remove all of the incentives for them to remain here. How many times does that have to be repeated until the defenders of illegal aliens get it?

 

[Syriusly]

No one who is born in the United States who is born a foreigner, a alien, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers is an American citizen.

Anyone born in the United States who does not belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers- i.e. diplomats- is an American citizen.

Anchor baby is merely a term for an American citizen that other American citizens don't approve of.

The author of the citizenship clause tends to disagree with you, but, what would he know, right?

Mark

From your own quote he clearly agrees with me.

Those outside the jurisdiction include: "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers

Pretty clear that- foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of diplomats.

So ... tell me what you think he meant when he included 'foreigners, aliens' - differentiated from families of ambassadors, etc.

Who are these mysterious 'foreigners, aliens' born in the US that are NOT considered citizens?

The sentence is very clear.

The children of diplomats are foreigners and aliens.

And so are the offspring of illegal aliens.

Yet he didn't mention them at all.

Tell me again how the offspring of illegal aliens in the United States are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

 

[Conservative65]

Those ethnocentric racists, bleeding heart liberals and the greedy employers that want illegal aliens to remain here represent about 80% of the population because that's the percentage of Americans that oppose deportation of all illegal immigrants.

The facts don't support your statement that illegal aliens only contribute to themselves while they steal jobs and taxes from Americans. The Social Security administration estimates that illegal aliens have paid over a trillion dollars into the Social Security Trust Funds, dollars that they will never receive in benefits. Illegal aliens pay sales taxes, income tax, and property taxes if they own property. The idea that they contribute nothing to the country is ridiculous.

Many thousands of illegal immigrants and their children have become productive members of society. Some doing jobs that native born Americans turn their nose up at. Others have become leaders both nationally and locally. Republican Senator Pete Domenici is the son of illegal immigrants, one of those anchor babies you want to see deported. Then there's Jose Antonio Vargas, an illegal immigrant who became a journalist and was awarded the Pulitzer Price. Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa entered this country illegally, worked as a migrant worker, obtained and education, attended Harvard Medical School, and today is a neurosurgeon on the staff of John Hopkins. Juan Gomez was brought to the US illegally by his parents when he was 5 years old. He worked his way through UCLA and now owns 41 restaurants. Juan Escalante, another illegal immigrant who served his country fighting Iraq. Etc Etc....

Illegals contribute something. They give traitors like you a reason to exist. I don't care what they've done since, their first act was a crime which you want to ignore. You are worse than the illegals. It's no suprise they keep coming. They know traitors like you will overlook what they do. One problem with your list. You left out all those who have raped, murdered, etc. honorable citizens. If you are going to provide a list, provide both sides or, much like you as a person, it means nothing .

There's no need to list the failures. The failures make big news and there're all over the media. The tens of thousands of illegal immigrants that become successful against all odds don't make the headlines; the kid that turned cutting lawns into a landscape business, the Mexican girl who goes from busing tables, to waitress, to chef and the day laborer who now owns his own construction business.

Most illegal immigrants don't want the attention of the news media or government but there are a few stories that do attract the media. One of those is Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa. At the age 5 he was selling hot dogs to motorist in a his small Mexican village a few hours southeast of San Diego. The money he earned help support his family of 8. He finished high school in Mexico with excellent grades, crossed the boarder hoping to find work to help support his family but he became a penniless teenager. He worked in the fields, later found a job on the railway, took English at a community college, and took various other jobs in hopes of earning enough money for college. He won a scholarship at Berkeley, worked his way through school and graduated with honors. After graduation he was Admitted to Harvard Medical School and latter joined the staff at John Hopkins, a world renowned teaching hospital.

I certainly wish there were no illegal immigrants in this country but the fact is there are. Deporting them is not going to happen, primarily because the vast majority of people oppose it. So we are left with one of two choices, do nothing or enact legislation that will provide some path to legal residency for those that have proved they are an asset to the nation, deport those that are a danger, require employers to verify legal residency, revised the immigration rules so Mexicans can easily visit family in the US with temporary visas, and lastly set up a monitoring system of visa holders to identify and remove those with expired visas.

We can fix the immigration problem, but only if we take a pragmatic, not an ideological approach.

So according to you improving one's lot in life while diminishing the lives of the rightful citizens of this country and also doing so by breaking all sorts of laws is A-ok with you? My what a wonderful American YOU are! Where did you learn your code of ethics?

You forgot to mention the solution that would be in the best interests of the citizens of this country and that is to remove all of the incentives for them to remain here and continue to come here. And no, most Americans do not want them to remain here. Why would they when they need the jobs they are holding and rewarding lawbreakers never makes sense.

So you think the majority of Americans want all illegal immigrants deported? That's not what any of the major poll report. In fact, they show that the vast majority of Americans oppose such action.

Most Americans need the jobs that illegal immigrants are doing, so they want them deported?

I have links to polls that prove otherwise and it all depends on how the questions are posed as to the results. Law abiding Americans want illegal aliens deported for various reasons. They violated our immigration laws, they are costing us billions of dollars in social costs, they have taken jobs from Americans and reduced their wages, used fake or stolen ID's, tax evasion (felonies), overcrowded our schools, jails and hospitals due to uncontrolled, unplanned for population growth, are diluting our culture and language because most of them are from one ethnic group, increased crime, etc. Need I say more? We have enough of our own home grown criminals to deal with. We certainly don't need to add millions of illegal foreigners to the mix.

Most law abiding Americans are for self-deportations. Much cheaper that way. Remove all of the incentives for them to remain here. How many times does that have to be repeated until the defenders of illegal aliens get it?

I'm for he government doing its damn jobs and its job is to deport illegals.

... and THAT is exactly where the erroneous judicial interpretation occurred ... in the Wong Kim Ark case. To wit:

"In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965."

------------------------------------------

Native Americans who lived in Native lands were not subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States. Elk recognized that, and I believe that distinction was discussed during the passing of the 14th Amendment.

What Wong Kim Ark crucially recognized was that the 14th Amendment relied upon place of birth- not the status of parents.

The American government argued that Wong was not an American citizen because his parents were not American citizens, even though he was born in the United States. The American government lost and the Supreme Court recognized both the history of American citizenship law and the plain language of the 14th Amendment.

IF you don't like the 14th Amendment- then your option is to change it.

But all that is being done here in this thread is whine about how much you don't like it.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on a case where the parents were here illegally. In the Wong case the parents were legally here.

A regular American can't change or re-interpret law. It is up to congress to do that. A bill has been languishing for two years to do just that. It was never brought up to committee for a vote by the usual suspects. (Democrats). Discussing birthright citizenship is whining now? I have contacted my congressmen about this bill and it eventually it will be voted on. Funny how liberals think that anyone who disagrees with them is "whining".

Complaining about how the Supreme Court has misinterpreted the 14th Amendment is indeed whining.

Note- the title of this thread- 'anchor babies- constitutional nonsense'- that is whining.

IF you are working to push an Amendment through to change definition from the 14th Amendment- then that would not be whining- that would be taking action.

As I already stated I have taken action by calling my congressman about the proposed legislation languishing outside of committee for two years now. I even tried to contact the writer of it but I am not in his district or state so it can't be done. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Action or not, discussing one's political views in a forum or anywhere else is not whining unless of course you are a typical liberal who wants to shut down the opposition, like YOU for instance! Ever heard of freedom of speech or is that just reserved for liberals?

You have every right to whine, but everybody else has the right to tell you how childish it is. By all means whine away.

You have every right to claim someone else is childish. Doesn't make it true simply because you say it. That's childish to think because it comes out of your big mouth it's truth. By all means keep running your trap and we'll keep laughing at you.

 

[Truth2Know]

"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."

As a result of the Supreme Court's understanding of this sentence, we, the people, are stuck with the perverse phenomenon of, for illustration, the newborn children of illegal immigrants, who happen to be born on U.S. soil, being native U.S. citizens. And now Our Beloved President, by his illegal and unconstitutional decree, grants permanent residency to the very outlaws who came here to birth the citizen-kid, on the nonsensical basis that deporting them would necessarily separate child from parents. In reality, were the parents deported, the kid must rightfully go with those parents to whatever wretched shithole they came from, so that the family will not be torn asunder. But I digress.

Just for the sake of discussion, let us consider the meaning and import of the highlighted words above (taken from the Fourteenth Amendment if you don't know).

The prevailing understanding of the sentence renders those highlighted words void and meaningless. Indeed, under the current understanding those words could be removed completely and the meaning of the sentence would not change.

But obviously the people who drafted those words and voted to ratify them felt that they were necessary to the full meaning of the clause. Let us take the case of a pregnant Canadian woman out sailing with friends on Lake Erie. She goes into premature labor and, as luck would have it, she has the baby while the sailboat is in U.S. waters. Did the drafters of the 14th Amendment intend that this baby should be a natural-born U.S. citizen? In no meaningful sense is the baby "subject to the jurisdiction of" the U.S. or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. She is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada/Ontario.

I blush to admit that I have not done the research on the legislative history of this sentence in the 14th Amendment, so I could be all wet, but I think this "anchor baby" thing is yet another case of judicial activism that should be corrected through either legislative or Constitutional action - or maybe a majority of the USSC could be induced to correct the error, given a good test case.