The anchor baby myth

[Unkotare]

Would you be offended if we allowed you to stay in our country?

What country are you speaking for?

The United States of America.

I was born here....

So remember your place and stop trying to denigrate your fellow citizens who were also born here and are every bit as much (at least) legitimate citizens as you.

Real Americans don't want to hear little nobodies like you insulting US citizens.

.

Anchor Babies should NOT be granted American citizenship.....

Losers like you should NOT be granted American citizenship, but unfortunately you were born here so you can stay until our patience with losers like you runs out.

 

[Unkotare]

Apparently, that one hit a little close to the mark, eh?.....

Nope, you fail again.

 

[Kondor3]

Apparently, that one hit a little close to the mark, eh?.....

Nope, you fail again.

A guess...

In truth, I couldn't care less...

When you advocate for the 12,000,000 invaders to stay on US soil, you advocate against the best interests of the United States and The People.

You stand with the Invaders.

I stand with my country.

'Nuff said.

 

[Unkotare]

When you advocate for the 12,000,000 invaders to stay on US soil.....

I never said that, did I? Do you realize how obvious your desperation is when you resort to dishonesty like this? Stop making a fool of yourself.

 

[Kondor3]

When you advocate for the 12,000,000 invaders to stay on US soil.....

I never said that, did I? Do you realize how obvious your desperation is when you resort to dishonesty like this? Stop making a fool of yourself.

Desperate? Hardly. But you're a funny guy, I'll give ya that. And now that I've accomplished my intention of offending you by talking about Illegal Aliens popping-out puppies as Anchor Babies, you are dismissed. Go dry-hump somebody else's pants-cuff for a while, eh? Yer starting to bore the hell outta me - again.

 

[Unkotare]

When you advocate for the 12,000,000 invaders to stay on US soil.....

I never said that, did I? Do you realize how obvious your desperation is when you resort to dishonesty like this? Stop making a fool of yourself.

Desperate? .....

Desperate. Why else would you feel the need to resort to such dishonesty? Maybe you're just stupid, but it sure does stink of desperation. Be careful if you want to be allowed to stay in my country, boy.

 

[Kondor3]

When you advocate for the 12,000,000 invaders to stay on US soil.....

I never said that, did I? Do you realize how obvious your desperation is when you resort to dishonesty like this? Stop making a fool of yourself.

Desperate? .....

Desperate. Why else would you feel the need to resort to such dishonesty? Maybe you're just stupid, but it sure does stink of desperation. Be careful if you want to be allowed to stay in my country, boy.

You remind me of an old girlfriend... running her mouth long after she'd run out of things to say, and always needing to get-in the last word.

You tell 'em, tiger!

 

[johnwk]

, the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to a child born on American soil whose mother is a foreign national. ....

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. .

And your documentation is?


JWK

 

[Unkotare]

[... old girlfriend... running her mouth long after she'd run out of things to say,.....

Maybe you should take her out of storage and re-inflate her so you'll finally have someone to talk to who won't see through all your childish, illogical nonsense. Good luck, Romeo.

 

[Unkotare]

, the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to a child born on American soil whose mother is a foreign national. ....

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. .

And your documentation is?

...is already posted on this thread. Stop chasing your own tail.

 

[johnwk]

, the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to a child born on American soil whose mother is a foreign national. ....

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. .

And your documentation is?

...is already posted on this thread. Stop chasing your own tail.

Your disingenuousness is showing!

Well, isn’t this special? Our Agent Provocateur chooses to not provide supportive documentation to confirm the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to a child born on American soil whose mother at the time of birth is a foreign national.

Of course, our Supreme Court addressed that assertion In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) in which the Court states the following regarding 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“.

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]

, the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to a child born on American soil whose mother is a foreign national. ....

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. .

And your documentation is?

...is already posted on this thread. Stop chasing your own tail.

Your disingenuousness [sic] is showing!

Your stupidity is showing. Wong Kim Ark's parents were both foreign nationals.

 

[johnwk]

, the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to a child born on American soil whose mother is a foreign national. ....

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. .

And your documentation is?

...is already posted on this thread. Stop chasing your own tail.

Your disingenuousness [sic] is showing!

Your stupidity is showing. Wong Kim Ark's parents were both foreign nationals.

Actually, your ignorance of the law is showing by citing the Wong case to support your silly notions.


With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time, they had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and they were carrying on a business, and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of his birth. And after mentioning the above specific facts the Court then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship

”
For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”

In this thread we are talking about a foreign national who enters our country illegally, and gives birth to a child. Under such circumstances the child's mother cannot be said to be 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

See in IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) in which the Court states the following regarding 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 parents of Wong Kim Ark made themselves subject to our government's jurisdiction within the meaning of the 14th Amendment by settling in American for quite some time, by having a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and by carrying on a business.


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]

jwk, your citizenship is no more valid than the illegal out of wedlock child today born in an Austin hospital. SCOTUS has so opined the child is as much as citizen as you. That will never change.

 

[Unkotare]

With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time....

What a surprise that when your exact point is addressed specifically and unambiguously you start to spin, qualify, and attempt to move the goal posts. Sorry chump, but you're wrong. The law is as has been interpreted by the court and applied for many, many years. Good luck with that new amendment you must be working on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

jwk, only a new amendment can change the 'anchor baby' situation.

That will not happen.

 

[johnwk]

With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time....

What a surprise that when your exact point is addressed specifically and unambiguously you start to spin, qualify, and attempt to move the goal posts.

What I posted are historical facts. I wrote:

With regard to the Wong Kim Ark case, it must be remembered the Court pointed out the parents of Wong Kim Ark had been here legally, were settled in American for quite some time, they had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and they were carrying on a business, and were not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China at the time of his birth. And after mentioning the above specific facts the Court then stated with regard to Wong Kim Ark’s question of citizenship

”
For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”


Contrary to your above assertion, "that when your exact point is addressed specifically and unambiguously you start to spin, qualify, and attempt to move the goal posts", the Court was not addressing whether or not a child born to a foreign national while on American soil who entered our country illegally and was in violation of our laws, was a citizen upon birth.

You are free to post you opinions, but not entitled to alter historical facts to support your absurd opinions.

JWK



To support Jeb Bush is to support a continuance of Obama's illegal immigration tyranny which includes giving legal status and work permits to tens of millions who have invaded our borders!

 

[Unkotare]

, the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to a child born on American soil whose mother is a foreign national. ....

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. .

And your documentation is?

...is already posted on this thread. Stop chasing your own tail.

Your disingenuousness [sic] is showing!

Your stupidity is showing. Wong Kim Ark's parents were both foreign nationals.

.

 

[Syriusly]

it simply does not apply to ...

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

it simply does not apply to ...

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

But is 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)

It applies to everyone born in the U.S., not to an embassador or diplomat.

"It"?. Have no idea what you mean. But, the 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship to a child born on American soil whose mother is a foreign national. This has been established by the cases I cited and from the 14th Amendment's legislative intent as expressed by those who framed it.

JWK

No- that is just your claim.

The Supreme Court has said otherwise- both with Wong Kim Ark- whose father and mother were both foreign nationals-and with
Plyler v. Doe

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wong does not uphold jwk's argument against anchor births. Simple fact.

Either SCOTUS or amendment will be the only acceptable ways to change the law to what he wants.