Anchor Baby provisions are unconstitutional.

ihopehefails

VIP Member
Oct 3, 2009
3,384
228
83
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.
 
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.
 
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.
:lol: Dope.
 
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.
Mr T pities you
 
What a shame. The need to revise the 14th is worthy of discussion. Sadly, this OP does not lend itself to such a conversation.
 
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.

implied-facepalm.jpg
 
IF there is an immigration reform here is what has to be done BEFORE: Secure the border; do away with the anchor baby perk; do away with chain immigration; make sure that those who qualify to come here have a rep that will support them and be responsible for them; pick up all the overstayers and make them go back to their home country and start the legal process.
 
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.
 
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.

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

Bravo. :clap2:
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.

'tard :cuckoo:

That word must be fresh in your mind since I'm sure the people at your home for the mentally challenged call you that all the time.
 

Forum List

Back
Top