There's no such thing as an 'anchor baby,' the notion is bigoted ignorance and idiocy.
Persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States.
No, it's not "bigoted ignorance and idiocy". It's a real phenomenon.
There is legal grounds in arguing that anchor babies are not US citizens.
What part about the Constitution is unclear to you?
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.
Anyone who can be arrested or has to pay taxes is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Since illegal aliens can indeed be arrested- and deported- they- and their children born here- are subject to the jurisidiction of the United States.
Here's the problem: who told you "subject to the jurisdiction" means "anyone who can be arrested or has to pay taxes"?
My suggestion? Do your homework and google it before you post...
My suggestion- do your own homework- I have done mine
Plyler v. Doe
From Plyler v. Doe
Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 210-216.
Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.
And finally- before you whine about 'within its jurisdiction' is supposedly meaning something different from 'subject to the jurisdiction'- this comment from Plyler:
Although we have not previously focused on the intended meaning of this phrase, we have had occasion to examine the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. . . ." (Emphasis added.) Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was
impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction," in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."
Apparently you need a little help in understanding the reading materials...
First of all, "Plyler v. Doe" is not a birthright citizenship case, it's a case against a Texas state statute. Specifically, it is a statute which "withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children". From this case, we learn that the
"equal protection clause" of the 14th Amendment extends to "
citizen or stranger". It has no implication of whether anchor babies are "citizen" or "stranger" whatsoever.
Secondly, in "United States v. Wong Kim Ark", the Supreme Court ruled that a person who is (1) born in the United States, (2) of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power, (3) whose parents have a
permanent residence in the United States, and (4) whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States. These are NOT the anchor babies we are talking about. If you have permanent residence, you are NOT an illegal alien. The case says nothing about the citizenship of a baby born to illegal aliens in the US.
When it comes to the laws and the Constitution, you have to be really careful not to generalize the implication of a precedence imprudently. That's like the basics of anyone who studies laws... I know you probably think it is Okay to have those anchor babies as "citizens" of our country - that is your political position. However, it doesn't justify your illogical argument that the Plyler or Wong case gives any grounds for birthright citizenship of illegal aliens!
