The anchor baby myth

[ChrisL]

Unfortunately, there is not much we can do about those who are already here unless they are in custody for committing a crime. It would be too unrealistic and expensive to try to round up ALL of the illegal immigrants and their children and then to deport them. So, this is what we will probably end up doing, granting amnesty to those already here.

I just hope they tighten up on things after this and try to prevent any MORE from entering the country illegally. We have enough people, enough problems, not enough money and not enough resources or jobs for all of these people. If we keep allowing people into the country, we will end up like Sweden where they have housing crises, etc.

 

[Oldglory1]

Unfortunately, there is not much we can do about those who are already here unless they are in custody for committing a crime. It would be too unrealistic and expensive to try to round up ALL of the illegal immigrants and their children and then to deport them. So, this is what we will probably end up doing, granting amnesty to those already here.

I just hope they tighten up on things after this and try to prevent any MORE from entering the country illegally. We have enough people, enough problems, not enough money and not enough resources or jobs for all of these people. If we keep allowing people into the country, we will end up like Sweden where they have housing crises, etc.

Amnesty is NOT the answer. The solution is to remove all of the incentives for them to remain here and many if not most will self-deport.

 

[Syriusly]

Why do I rely upon Wong Kim Ark instead of Elk?

Because Wong Kim Ark is the current precedent- not Elk.

As I pointed out before- Wong Kim Ark discussed Elk- and dismissed that reasoning- and specifically stated that a child born in the United States of foreign national children is subject to the jurisdiction and is a U.S. Citizen.


Game over.

Wong Kim Ark is not in harmony with the text and legislative intent of the 14th Amendment.

The current law is stated as follows:

"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."

And what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”? )

Your opinion is noted.

The truth is, I have quoted the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as stated by the framers of the 14th Amendment and also stated by the Supreme Court.

And what is meant by “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” within the meaning of the 14th amendment? During the Congressional debates concerning these very words, Mr. TRUMBULL answers the question and responds as follows:

“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” __ see SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) 1st column halfway down.


And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendment's first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866) middle column half way down.


And less than five years after the 14th Amendment is adopted, the Supreme Court, In IN RE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) confirms the legislative intent of the amendment as follows:

“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“.

And then, twelve years later, in 1884, JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) in which he emphasizes:

Now, I take it that the children of aliens, whose parents have not only not renounced their allegiance to their native country . . . must necessarily remain themselves subject to the same sovereignty as their parents, and cannot, in the nature of things, be, any more than their parents, completely subject to the jurisdiction of such other country

'This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only,-birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.' The evident meaning of these last words is, 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

I had no hand in what has been stated above. I have simply quoted what the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means as stated by the framers of the 14th Amendment and also stated by our Supreme Court. Why do you have a problem accepting the above stated facts? Why do you ignore the fundamental rules of constitutional construction?

JWK
)

I have no problem with you having your opinion.

But I happen to agree with the Supreme Court- which clarified what jurisdiction means in Wong Kim Ark- and that is the controlling precedent both in law and in fact.

Your unsubstantiated opinion is noted.

JWK

Your ignorance of Wong Kim Ark is substantiated.

 

[GHook93]

I live in Arizona and it NOT a myth, it's a FACT.

You do understand that this isn't 1866 and the supreme court as addressed that particular argument, don't you? Try to at least relate to reality in THIS century, if you can.

The Supreme Court has address many issues that were later overturned. Birth right citizenship should be one of them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Unkotare]

I live in Arizona and it NOT a myth, it's a FACT.

You do understand that this isn't 1866 and the supreme court as addressed that particular argument, don't you? Try to at least relate to reality in THIS century, if you can.

The Supreme Court has address many issues that were later overturned. Birth right citizenship should be one of them.
..

It won't be.

 

[Syriusly]

I live in Arizona and it NOT a myth, it's a FACT.

You do understand that this isn't 1866 and the supreme court as addressed that particular argument, don't you? Try to at least relate to reality in THIS century, if you can.

The Supreme Court has address many issues that were later overturned. Birth right citizenship should be one of them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you are counting on the Supreme Court to change the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution that has been in effect for the last 100 years......

Then you probably also believe in the Easter Bunny......

 

[GHook93]

I live in Arizona and it NOT a myth, it's a FACT.

You do understand that this isn't 1866 and the supreme court as addressed that particular argument, don't you? Try to at least relate to reality in THIS century, if you can.

The Supreme Court has address many issues that were later overturned. Birth right citizenship should be one of them.
..

It won't be.

The same was said about the separate but equal clause. That stood as the law is the land for more than a half century.

Get this case in front of this SCOTUS and I think it would be 5/4 affirming. Get it in front of a different one and it could be different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Syriusly]

I live in Arizona and it NOT a myth, it's a FACT.

You do understand that this isn't 1866 and the supreme court as addressed that particular argument, don't you? Try to at least relate to reality in THIS century, if you can.

The Supreme Court has address many issues that were later overturned. Birth right citizenship should be one of them.
..

It won't be.

The same was said about the separate but equal clause. That stood as the law is the land for more than a half century.

Get this case in front of this SCOTUS and I think it would be 5/4 affirming. Get it in front of a different one and it could be different.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And if wishes were horses, beggars would be riding.......

Bottom line- if this is an actual concern for the those who complain about so-called anchor babies- the way to affect change is with a Constitutional Amendment.

Hoping that some court in the future may possibly, maybe change the interpretation to your liking is nothing more than wishful thinking.

 

[prison/con.net]

we can pass a law making it a FELONY to be in the US without documentation. We can start horsehipping on public tv, anyone convicted of hiring an illegal. Believe me, that will get rid of 3/4 's of them, right NOW, and it's easily done.

 

[prison/con.net]

then a double fence can be thrown across our borders, with rifle towers every 1/4 mile, no shooting except in the kill zone between the fences. That's worked fine for our prisons for over a century now. it's very easy to create such a fence. a 5 ton truck and crew of men can build a mile per day of such a fence. We can have it in place in a month, if we want. Stake down and tie together 3 coils of razor wire. tie 2 more coils atop the 3, and 1 more atop the 2. presto, 5 ft high fence, plenty enough to slow them down enough for the riflemen to kill them. Everyone will know, nobody will try it.

 

[Unkotare]

We can start horsehipping on public tv,...

No, we can't.

 

[Syriusly]

We can start horsehipping on public tv,...

No, we can't.

Maybe we can start horsehipping.......I believe that is an Olympic equestrian event.....

 

[Unkotare]

Uncle terrie, why don't you educate yourself?

About what?

 

[JakeStarkey]

we can pass a law making it a FELONY to be in the US without documentation. We can start horsehipping on public tv, anyone convicted of hiring an illegal. Believe me, that will get rid of 3/4 's of them, right NOW, and it's easily done.

Passing a law that you are a bonafide idiot would be easier to pass.

 

[BULLDOG]

we can pass a law making it a FELONY to be in the US without documentation. We can start horsehipping on public tv, anyone convicted of hiring an illegal. Believe me, that will get rid of 3/4 's of them, right NOW, and it's easily done.

Horsehipping? That's just for people who love their horse in that special way.