"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[Oldglory1]

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.

Yet the pro-illegals cry about the term anchor baby when it is an ample term. Obama has just allowed parents here illegally with U.S. born kids a stay of deportation, therefore the anchor. These U.S. born kids when they turn 21 can sponsor their parents and other relatives, therefore the anchor.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Yet the pro-illegals cry about the term anchor baby when it is an ample term. Obama has just allowed parents here illegally with U.S. born kids a stay of deportation, therefore the anchor. These U.S. born kids when they turn 21 can sponsor their parents and other relatives, therefore the anchor.

It's holding the country down.

 

[Oldglory1]

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.

If the birthright citizenship law is overturned or re-interpreted it won't be retroactive. However, from that point forward any kids born from illegal parents would not gain birthright citizenship. It would be a step in the right direction.

 

[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.

If the birthright citizenship law is overturned or re-interpreted it won't be retroactive. However, from that point forward any kids born from illegal parents would not gain birthright citizenship. It would be a step in the right direction.

The original intent of the amendment needs to be followed based on how those who wrote it meant it not how some bleeding heart today wants to apply it.

 

[Oldglory1]

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.

If the birthright citizenship law is overturned or re-interpreted it won't be retroactive. However, from that point forward any kids born from illegal parents would not gain birthright citizenship. It would be a step in the right direction.

The original intent of the amendment needs to be followed based on how those who wrote it meant it not how some bleeding heart today wants to apply it.

Some who want the status quo to continue are ethnocentric, racists also. They are of the Reconquista mindset.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Yet the pro-illegals cry about the term anchor baby when it is an ample term. Obama has just allowed parents here illegally with U.S. born kids a stay of deportation, therefore the anchor. These U.S. born kids when they turn 21 can sponsor their parents and other relatives, therefore the anchor.

It's holding the country down.

Hmmmm.

The stock market is at an all time high- the dollar is rocking.

I would agree we have an illegal immigration problem. And I would agree that illegal immigration hurts the employment of legal residents.

But the issue of how the 14th Amendment provides citizenship is relatively trivial when it comes to our immigration problem- and virtually all of our immigration issues could be solved without ignoring what the 14th Amendment says.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

If the birthright citizenship law is overturned or re-interpreted it won't be retroactive. However, from that point forward any kids born from illegal parents would not gain birthright citizenship. It would be a step in the right direction.

The original intent of the amendment needs to be followed based on how those who wrote it meant it not how some bleeding heart today wants to apply it.

Since when has it only been 'bleeding hearts' that want to follow the language of the Constitution?

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Yet the pro-illegals cry about the term anchor baby when it is an ample term. Obama has just allowed parents here illegally with U.S. born kids a stay of deportation, therefore the anchor. These U.S. born kids when they turn 21 can sponsor their parents and other relatives, therefore the anchor.

It's holding the country down.

Hmmmm.

The stock market is at an all time high- the dollar is rocking.

I would agree we have an illegal immigration problem. And I would agree that illegal immigration hurts the employment of legal residents.

But the issue of how the 14th Amendment provides citizenship is relatively trivial when it comes to our immigration problem- and virtually all of our immigration issues could be solved without ignoring what the 14th Amendment says.

Our illegal immigration problem is because of the way we interpret the 14th amendment.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

If the birthright citizenship law is overturned or re-interpreted it won't be retroactive. However, from that point forward any kids born from illegal parents would not gain birthright citizenship. It would be a step in the right direction.

The original intent of the amendment needs to be followed based on how those who wrote it meant it not how some bleeding heart today wants to apply it.

Since when has it only been 'bleeding hearts' that want to follow the language of the Constitution?

It's bleeding hearts that interpret it in ways it was never intended to be interpreted. It's bleeding hearts that want to allow criminal illegals to stay solely because they have child incorrectly granted citizenship because of misapplying the intended purpose of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Yet the pro-illegals cry about the term anchor baby when it is an ample term. Obama has just allowed parents here illegally with U.S. born kids a stay of deportation, therefore the anchor. These U.S. born kids when they turn 21 can sponsor their parents and other relatives, therefore the anchor.

It's holding the country down.

Hmmmm.

The stock market is at an all time high- the dollar is rocking.

I would agree we have an illegal immigration problem. And I would agree that illegal immigration hurts the employment of legal residents.

But the issue of how the 14th Amendment provides citizenship is relatively trivial when it comes to our immigration problem- and virtually all of our immigration issues could be solved without ignoring what the 14th Amendment says.

Our illegal immigration problem is because of the way we interpret the 14th amendment.

Wow- so you think that our porous border is because of how we interpret the 14th Amendment?

You think that construction companies hiring illegal workers for less than minimum wage is because of the 14th Amendment?

IF the 14th Amendment was abolished tomorrow we would still have 99% of the problems we have associated with illegal immigration.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Yet the pro-illegals cry about the term anchor baby when it is an ample term. Obama has just allowed parents here illegally with U.S. born kids a stay of deportation, therefore the anchor. These U.S. born kids when they turn 21 can sponsor their parents and other relatives, therefore the anchor.

It's holding the country down.

Hmmmm.

The stock market is at an all time high- the dollar is rocking.

I would agree we have an illegal immigration problem. And I would agree that illegal immigration hurts the employment of legal residents.

But the issue of how the 14th Amendment provides citizenship is relatively trivial when it comes to our immigration problem- and virtually all of our immigration issues could be solved without ignoring what the 14th Amendment says.

Our illegal immigration problem is because of the way we interpret the 14th amendment.

Wow- so you think that our porous border is because of how we interpret the 14th Amendment?

You think that construction companies hiring illegal workers for less than minimum wage is because of the 14th Amendment?

IF the 14th Amendment was abolished tomorrow we would still have 99% of the problems we have associated with illegal immigration.

One of the reasons. If you don't think illegals knowing they can stay if they squit out a child here draws them, you're a fool.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

If the birthright citizenship law is overturned or re-interpreted it won't be retroactive. However, from that point forward any kids born from illegal parents would not gain birthright citizenship. It would be a step in the right direction.

The original intent of the amendment needs to be followed based on how those who wrote it meant it not how some bleeding heart today wants to apply it.

Since when has it only been 'bleeding hearts' that want to follow the language of the Constitution?

It's bleeding hearts that interpret it in ways it was never intended to be interpreted. It's bleeding hearts that want to allow criminal illegals to stay solely because they have child incorrectly granted citizenship because of misapplying the intended purpose of the 14th Amendment.

Lets look at the language of the 14th Amendment once again- shall we?

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.

So tell me how under the 14th Amendment that a child born in the United States is not a citizen?

 

[Syriusly]

Yet the pro-illegals cry about the term anchor baby when it is an ample term. Obama has just allowed parents here illegally with U.S. born kids a stay of deportation, therefore the anchor. These U.S. born kids when they turn 21 can sponsor their parents and other relatives, therefore the anchor.

It's holding the country down.

Hmmmm.

The stock market is at an all time high- the dollar is rocking.

I would agree we have an illegal immigration problem. And I would agree that illegal immigration hurts the employment of legal residents.

But the issue of how the 14th Amendment provides citizenship is relatively trivial when it comes to our immigration problem- and virtually all of our immigration issues could be solved without ignoring what the 14th Amendment says.

Our illegal immigration problem is because of the way we interpret the 14th amendment.

Wow- so you think that our porous border is because of how we interpret the 14th Amendment?

You think that construction companies hiring illegal workers for less than minimum wage is because of the 14th Amendment?

IF the 14th Amendment was abolished tomorrow we would still have 99% of the problems we have associated with illegal immigration.

One of the reasons. If you don't think illegals knowing they can stay if they squit out a child here draws them, you're a fool.

You are the one who thinks that the 14th Amendment is why our border is so porous.

Now that is foolish.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

If the birthright citizenship law is overturned or re-interpreted it won't be retroactive. However, from that point forward any kids born from illegal parents would not gain birthright citizenship. It would be a step in the right direction.

The original intent of the amendment needs to be followed based on how those who wrote it meant it not how some bleeding heart today wants to apply it.

Since when has it only been 'bleeding hearts' that want to follow the language of the Constitution?

It's bleeding hearts that interpret it in ways it was never intended to be interpreted. It's bleeding hearts that want to allow criminal illegals to stay solely because they have child incorrectly granted citizenship because of misapplying the intended purpose of the 14th Amendment.

Lets look at the language of the 14th Amendment once again- shall we?

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.

So tell me how under the 14th Amendment that a child born in the United States is not a citizen?

Lets look at the intent behind the wording by those who wrote it shall we. You can make words say what you want them to say if you twist them enough. Bleeding hearts have taken the term "general welfare" and twisted it into social welfare. Not the same nor was it ever intended to be the same.

 

[Conservative65]

It's holding the country down.

Hmmmm.

The stock market is at an all time high- the dollar is rocking.

I would agree we have an illegal immigration problem. And I would agree that illegal immigration hurts the employment of legal residents.

But the issue of how the 14th Amendment provides citizenship is relatively trivial when it comes to our immigration problem- and virtually all of our immigration issues could be solved without ignoring what the 14th Amendment says.

Our illegal immigration problem is because of the way we interpret the 14th amendment.

Wow- so you think that our porous border is because of how we interpret the 14th Amendment?

You think that construction companies hiring illegal workers for less than minimum wage is because of the 14th Amendment?

IF the 14th Amendment was abolished tomorrow we would still have 99% of the problems we have associated with illegal immigration.

One of the reasons. If you don't think illegals knowing they can stay if they squit out a child here draws them, you're a fool.

You are the one who thinks that the 14th Amendment is why our border is so porous.

Now that is foolish.

You're one that thinks it has nothing to do with it. Now that's idiotic but expected from an idiot.

 

[Syriusly]

If the birthright citizenship law is overturned or re-interpreted it won't be retroactive. However, from that point forward any kids born from illegal parents would not gain birthright citizenship. It would be a step in the right direction.

The original intent of the amendment needs to be followed based on how those who wrote it meant it not how some bleeding heart today wants to apply it.

Since when has it only been 'bleeding hearts' that want to follow the language of the Constitution?

It's bleeding hearts that interpret it in ways it was never intended to be interpreted. It's bleeding hearts that want to allow criminal illegals to stay solely because they have child incorrectly granted citizenship because of misapplying the intended purpose of the 14th Amendment.

Lets look at the language of the 14th Amendment once again- shall we?

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.

So tell me how under the 14th Amendment that a child born in the United States is not a citizen?

Lets look at the intent behind the wording by those who wrote it shall we. You can make words say what you want them to say if you twist them enough. Bleeding hearts have taken the term "general welfare" and twisted it into social welfare. Not the same nor was it ever intended to be the same.

Why are you so unwilling to address the actual language of the 14th Amendment?

Here let me help you- the citizenship clause is a very simple sentence:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States,- so thats everyone born in the U.S.- IF THEY ARE

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,- meaning subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

are citizens.

So what part of the 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States, by illegal aliens- are not citizens?

It is just one sentence.

 

[Conservative65]

The original intent of the amendment needs to be followed based on how those who wrote it meant it not how some bleeding heart today wants to apply it.

Since when has it only been 'bleeding hearts' that want to follow the language of the Constitution?

It's bleeding hearts that interpret it in ways it was never intended to be interpreted. It's bleeding hearts that want to allow criminal illegals to stay solely because they have child incorrectly granted citizenship because of misapplying the intended purpose of the 14th Amendment.

Lets look at the language of the 14th Amendment once again- shall we?

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.

So tell me how under the 14th Amendment that a child born in the United States is not a citizen?

Lets look at the intent behind the wording by those who wrote it shall we. You can make words say what you want them to say if you twist them enough. Bleeding hearts have taken the term "general welfare" and twisted it into social welfare. Not the same nor was it ever intended to be the same.

Why are you so unwilling to address the actual language of the 14th Amendment?

Here let me help you- the citizenship clause is a very simple sentence:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States,- so thats everyone born in the U.S.- IF THEY ARE

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,- meaning subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

are citizens.

So what part of the 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States, by illegal aliens- are not citizens?

It is just one sentence.

 

[Conservative65]

The original intent of the amendment needs to be followed based on how those who wrote it meant it not how some bleeding heart today wants to apply it.

Since when has it only been 'bleeding hearts' that want to follow the language of the Constitution?

It's bleeding hearts that interpret it in ways it was never intended to be interpreted. It's bleeding hearts that want to allow criminal illegals to stay solely because they have child incorrectly granted citizenship because of misapplying the intended purpose of the 14th Amendment.

Lets look at the language of the 14th Amendment once again- shall we?

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.

So tell me how under the 14th Amendment that a child born in the United States is not a citizen?

Lets look at the intent behind the wording by those who wrote it shall we. You can make words say what you want them to say if you twist them enough. Bleeding hearts have taken the term "general welfare" and twisted it into social welfare. Not the same nor was it ever intended to be the same.

Why are you so unwilling to address the actual language of the 14th Amendment?

Here let me help you- the citizenship clause is a very simple sentence:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States,- so thats everyone born in the U.S.- IF THEY ARE

and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,- meaning subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

are citizens.

So what part of the 14th Amendment says that children born in the United States, by illegal aliens- are not citizens?

It is just one sentence.

Why are you unwilling to address the intent of those that wrote it?

Why do you think you know more about the INTENT of the wording than those that wrote it? They were far smarter than you ever will be yet you take something way out of the context in which it was designed.

I've addressed the language along with the mindset behind those that wrote it. You take words only. I take words and look at what those that wrote meant behind those words. I'll take their explanation over your simple minded pro anchor baby view any day.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The problem is that the nativists refuse to accept Plyler.

However, SCOTUS does. It has jurisdiction which exceeds Congress on this matter.

So screech and leech. It makes not a difference.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As is the case with those who seek to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights solely as a consequence of unwarranted hatred toward gay Americans, so too do those who seek to deny American citizens born in the United Stats their citizenship rights solely as a consequence of unwarranted hatred toward Hispanics, and the fallacy that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment acts as an 'incentive' for those to enter the United States absent authorization.

Fear of change and diversity, along with animus toward a given class of persons, does not justify seeking to deny citizens their civil liberties.