"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[Syriusly]

Let's humor Oldglory for the moment. Perhaps the correct interpretation of the 14th ammendment is that children of illegal immergrants born in the United States are not citizens of the United States. The law is not currently being applied that way and children born to illegal immigrants are being given birth right citizenship. The likelihood that the Supreme Court will rule differently after so many years of the law being enforced this way is practically zero. The only way I know to change this is through constitutional amendment. Arguing that the 14th amendment is being interpreted incorrectly is a moot point.

I personally beleive that much of the federal goverment has exceeded the limits that the founders intended as outlined by the constitution. However, that horse has already left the barn.

I don't care for your sarcastic remark about humoring me. WTH does that mean? Bucking to be another one on my ignore list?

I am actually on your side that children of illegal immergrants should not have birthright citizenship. However, I know of no cases that could go to the Supreme Court to challenge how the U.S. goverment currently interprets the constitution on this issue.

Why couldn't they? There has been a bill lagging outside of committee in congress for two years now. Eventually the sheet is going to hit the fan over the millions invading our country illegally and giving birth on our soil which is costing us dearly and it is going to reach critical mass. PC is going to go by the wayside then.

its been in committee for 2 years?

Clearly neither party wants it to emerge.

Or it doesn't exist.

 

[Syriusly]

Let's humor Oldglory for the moment. Perhaps the correct interpretation of the 14th ammendment is that children of illegal immergrants born in the United States are not citizens of the United States. The law is not currently being applied that way and children born to illegal immigrants are being given birth right citizenship. The likelihood that the Supreme Court will rule differently after so many years of the law being enforced this way is practically zero. The only way I know to change this is through constitutional amendment. Arguing that the 14th amendment is being interpreted incorrectly is a moot point.

I personally beleive that much of the federal goverment has exceeded the limits that the founders intended as outlined by the constitution. However, that horse has already left the barn.

I don't care for your sarcastic remark about humoring me. WTH does that mean? Bucking to be another one on my ignore list?

Watch out- if you don't post right- he might ignore you.......

 

[Syriusly]

It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.

If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.

It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause. Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen." Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.

The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.

The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously. SCOTUS understands it all better than you.

The SC hasn't bothered to understand it or review it. It is just an assumption.

They aren't going to review it until a case before them requires it. SCOTUS doesn't just pick a part of the constitution to review.

The anti's have one thing right- though they don't understand that.

The only real way a case will go before the Supreme Court is if Congress passes a law saying children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens is not a citizen.

That would set up a test case. Otherwise I don't see who would have standing to push a case through on the issue.

 

[Flopper]

How can you read the citizenship clause, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." and claim it denies citizenship to anyone other than those with diplomatic immunity? The Supreme Court has defined jurisdiction as being subject to our laws. Surely you don't believe illegal aliens are not subject to our laws?

The idea that Congress really didn't know what they were passing is equally ridiculous. The claim that they didn't intend the amendment to apply to the children of foreigners makes no sense. At the time of the 14th amendment, it took 14 years to become a citizen. Did Congress intent that the children of these foreigners born while waiting to establish residence should not be citizens? At a time when American had the welcome mat out to foreigners it seems very unlikely that the intent was to exclude their children from citizenship.

YES, that's exactly what Congress intended, as the author of the 14th amendment explained to you himself on May 31, 1866 (and I posted his quote > # 464) What's the matter ? Don't you believe him ?

It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners.

Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment. Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners. Sen. John Conness of California stated: “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California. To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.

Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America

It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.

If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.

The language does exclude children of illegal aliens. It is just that you and a few others in here refuse to see it.

Yet you have never been able to show how the language would exclude children of illegals.

Nor have you been able to discuss the Supreme Courts decision in Pyler- ruling that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Clearly the language doesn't include children of illegal aliens.

Otherwise you would have been able to explain how it does.

As I understand it, the opposition claims that jurisdiction in the 1800's didn't really mean what it means today. However, that can't be substantiated by the Webster's 1829 dictionary.

Websters Dictionary 1828 - Online Edition

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What defines 'jurisdiction' has already been determined by the Plyler Court:

'The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. 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.'

Plyler v. Doe LII Legal Information Institute

 

[JakeStarkey]

It isn’t what Howard believed about the intent of the citizenship clause that’s important but rather what the US Congress believed. When congress passed the 14th amendment by a 3 to 1 margin, they were well aware that by voting for the amendment, they were voting to bestow citizenship on the children of foreigners.

Following Howard's statement, senators went on to debate whether it was wise to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. On May 30, 1866, the Senate debated over Howard's proposed Citizenship Clause to the 14th Amendment. Several senators discussed whether it was a good idea to extend citizenship to the children of foreigners. The debate which went on for months, indicated that the Senators believed the Citizenship Clause would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners. Sen. John Conness of California stated: “I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States. Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, who voted against the 14th Amendment, was certainly aware that the citizenship clause would grant citizenship to children of foreigners when he aired his concerns that Chinese immigrants would overrun California. To claim Congress had no intention of granting citizenship to the children of foreigners is simply not true.

Did the author of the Citizenship Clause really say it would exclude the children of foreigners Research Media Matters for America

It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.

If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.

It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause. Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen." Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.

The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.

The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously. SCOTUS understands it all better than you.

The SC hasn't bothered to understand it. The intent has merely been assumed with nothing to back it up with.

What does that mean, Oldglory1? SCOTUS understands far better than you.

 

[Conservative65]

It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.

If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.

It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause. Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen." Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.

The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.

The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously. SCOTUS understands it all better than you.

The SC hasn't bothered to understand it. The intent has merely been assumed with nothing to back it up with.

What does that mean, Oldglory1? SCOTUS understands far better than you.

Apparently, they don't understand it the way those that WROTE it intended it. It wasn't intended in the manner the SCOTUS you say understands it sees it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We don't see slavery the same way.

We don't see the female vote the same way.

And various other ways,

The world turns and so do we.

 

[Oldglory1]

We don't see slavery the same way.

We don't see the female vote the same way.

And various other ways,

The world turns and so do we.

But we will never see illegal immigration in any other way but wrong because it harms our country and so is birthright citizenship for their kids harming our nation. Females not being able to vote or slavery isn't the same thing. Those were civil rights issues for Americans.

 

[Oldglory1]

It doesn't matter what the author of the 14th amendment intended it to say...If the wording is not in the final draft and voted on...it doesn't count.

If Congress had wanted the 14th to exclude any group then that language would have been included.

It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause. Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen." Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.

The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.

The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously. SCOTUS understands it all better than you.

The SC hasn't bothered to understand it. The intent has merely been assumed with nothing to back it up with.

What does that mean, Oldglory1? SCOTUS understands far better than you.

There has never been a case/lawsuit brought before the SC about denying birthright citizenship for a child of illegal aliens. They aren't understanding anything it has merely been presumed. I already told you that before.

 

[ImGoing2Heaven]

Here's a thought, lets drop kick the anchor babies back where they came from, along with all their close and extended relatives

 

[Oldglory1]

What defines 'jurisdiction' has already been determined by the Plyler Court:

'The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. 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.'

Plyler v. Doe LII Legal Information Institute

Nope, you are wrong!

 

[Unkotare]

Here's a thought, lets drop kick the anchor babies back where they came from, along with all their close and extended relatives

Here's another thought: try kicking US citizens anywhere and you're likely to receive a well-deserved kicking yourself. Maybe it's more productive to stop posting such stupid, self-indulgent, emo shit.

 

[Flopper]

It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause. Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen." Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.

The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.

The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously. SCOTUS understands it all better than you.

The SC hasn't bothered to understand it or review it. It is just an assumption.

They aren't going to review it until a case before them requires it. SCOTUS doesn't just pick a part of the constitution to review.

The anti's have one thing right- though they don't understand that.

The only real way a case will go before the Supreme Court is if Congress passes a law saying children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens is not a citizen.

That would set up a test case. Otherwise I don't see who would have standing to push a case through on the issue.

If congress passed a law abridging the rights of a child born in the US to illegal aliens or if a lower court upheld a case in which such a child's rights were abridge, then it would surely go before SCOTUS.

 

[Flopper]

It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause. Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen." Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.

The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.

The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously. SCOTUS understands it all better than you.

The SC hasn't bothered to understand it. The intent has merely been assumed with nothing to back it up with.

What does that mean, Oldglory1? SCOTUS understands far better than you.

Apparently, they don't understand it the way those that WROTE it intended it. It wasn't intended in the manner the SCOTUS you say understands it sees it.

It seems pretty unlikely that the 38th Congress who certainly had their share of lawyers, didn't understand the meaning of jurisdiction.

The citizenship clause was debated in Congress at some length. The Senator from California stated that it would make citizens of children born of Chinese in his state yet he voted for the proposal. Another Senator refused to vote for the proposal for that reason. No, Congress understood quite well that the amendment would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners born in the US and they passed the amendment by a 3 to 1 margin.

 

[Conservative65]

The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.

The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously. SCOTUS understands it all better than you.

The SC hasn't bothered to understand it. The intent has merely been assumed with nothing to back it up with.

What does that mean, Oldglory1? SCOTUS understands far better than you.

Apparently, they don't understand it the way those that WROTE it intended it. It wasn't intended in the manner the SCOTUS you say understands it sees it.

It seems pretty unlikely that the 38th Congress who certainly had their share of lawyers, didn't understand the meaning of jurisdiction.

The citizenship clause was debated in Congress at some length. The Senator from California stated that it would make citizens of children born of Chinese in his state yet he voted for the proposal. Another Senator refused to vote for the proposal for that reason. No, Congress understood quite well that the amendment would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners born in the US and they passed the amendment by a 3 to 1 margin.

Apparently, the 38th Congress didn't understand the intent of the Amendment and it damn sure wasn't what they decided despite the vote. Let the kids stay but if the parents are illegal, ship their criminal asses back to country of origin regardless of where it is.

 

[Syriusly]

What defines 'jurisdiction' has already been determined by the Plyler Court:

'The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. 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.'

Plyler v. Doe LII Legal Information Institute

Nope, you are wrong!

Yet you- and all of your anti-immigration buddies refuse to attempt to explain why you think he- and I are wrong.

Plyler is very clear- you just ignore it and hope everyone else will

What defines 'jurisdiction' has already been determined by the Plyler Court:

'The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. 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.'

Plyler v. Doe LII Legal Information Institute

 

[Syriusly]

The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously. SCOTUS understands it all better than you.

The SC hasn't bothered to understand it. The intent has merely been assumed with nothing to back it up with.

What does that mean, Oldglory1? SCOTUS understands far better than you.

Apparently, they don't understand it the way those that WROTE it intended it. It wasn't intended in the manner the SCOTUS you say understands it sees it.

It seems pretty unlikely that the 38th Congress who certainly had their share of lawyers, didn't understand the meaning of jurisdiction.

The citizenship clause was debated in Congress at some length. The Senator from California stated that it would make citizens of children born of Chinese in his state yet he voted for the proposal. Another Senator refused to vote for the proposal for that reason. No, Congress understood quite well that the amendment would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners born in the US and they passed the amendment by a 3 to 1 margin.

Apparently, the 38th Congress didn't understand the intent of the Amendment and it damn sure wasn't what they decided despite the vote. Let the kids stay but if the parents are illegal, ship their criminal asses back to country of origin regardless of where it is.

See- that makes sense under the 14th Amendment. I would put it another way- deport the parents- let them decide whether to bring their American citizen child with them, or leave the child with legal family or abandon the child for adoption.

 

[Conservative65]

The SC hasn't bothered to understand it. The intent has merely been assumed with nothing to back it up with.

What does that mean, Oldglory1? SCOTUS understands far better than you.

Apparently, they don't understand it the way those that WROTE it intended it. It wasn't intended in the manner the SCOTUS you say understands it sees it.

It seems pretty unlikely that the 38th Congress who certainly had their share of lawyers, didn't understand the meaning of jurisdiction.

The citizenship clause was debated in Congress at some length. The Senator from California stated that it would make citizens of children born of Chinese in his state yet he voted for the proposal. Another Senator refused to vote for the proposal for that reason. No, Congress understood quite well that the amendment would grant citizenship to the children of foreigners born in the US and they passed the amendment by a 3 to 1 margin.

Apparently, the 38th Congress didn't understand the intent of the Amendment and it damn sure wasn't what they decided despite the vote. Let the kids stay but if the parents are illegal, ship their criminal asses back to country of origin regardless of where it is.

See- that makes sense under the 14th Amendment. I would put it another way- deport the parents- let them decide whether to bring their American citizen child with them, or leave the child with legal family or abandon the child for adoption.

The problem is how the anchor baby concept works. The illegal parents aren't sent back as the baby acts as an anchor holding them here. In turn, other family members are allowed to come including brother and sisters of the anchor baby that may be in home country of the criminal parents.

 

[Syriusly]

It only matters to those hoping the Supreme Court will change the constitution by re-interpret the citizenship clause. Ask the man on the street what the citizenship clause means and you're going to hear "if you are born in the US, you are an American citizen." Some may wish it said something different, but few would argue with the meaning and neither will the court.

The Supreme Court does not change the Constitution. The people through representative amendment process do.

The topic, I have been instructed by a serious poster, is serious, so treat it seriously. SCOTUS understands it all better than you.

The SC hasn't bothered to understand it. The intent has merely been assumed with nothing to back it up with.

What does that mean, Oldglory1? SCOTUS understands far better than you.

There has never been a case/lawsuit brought before the SC about denying birthright citizenship for a child of illegal aliens. They aren't understanding anything it has merely been presumed. I already told you that before.

The Supreme Court has addressed jurisdiction and the Supreme Court- and said that illegal aliens are within the jurisidiction of the United States.

And since per the Supreme Court, illegal aliens are within the jurisdiction of the United States- they are citizens, as per the 14th Amendment.

No way around it- and it is the hurdle you will face if you ever get a case before the Supreme Court.