Anchor Baby provisions are unconstitutional.

[GHook93]

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.

WRONG, that is never the case. Illegal immigrants, that have children born here that are American citizens, do not get automatic citizenship. They have to apply like everyone else. Their children can sponsor them, but you have it wrong.

 

[jillian]

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

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

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

we don't live in a code state. we live in a common law nation. caselaw makes up our law as well as statutes.

judicial review is clearly discussed in marbury v madison

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

 

[hjmick]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think I probably agree that an outright appeal would go to far, but the idea would no doubt become part of the discussion when considering revising the 14th.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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

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

Its implied in their judicial authority. They settle disputes - if there is a dispute between a citizen and the government over what a law means or whether or not it is Constitutionally permissible, the courts settle that dispute.


Its also a fact that several of the Framers argued during ratification that the courts should have this power, while none of them argued against it.